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 17 of 22.
“I do not envisage this being put to a test for as long as the present leadership is in power, but they must look further down the road for eventualities that we cannot assume will not happen, like the electorate voting a non-PAP President to check on the PAP Government or vice-versa. It is important to be sure that future Singaporeans will not blame us for handing them a Constitution that blocks rather than checks the government. For example, in the White Paper at page 6, paragraph 28, when the President vetoes, what happens? There is no simple solution. The government of the day will have to spend much effort trying to get out of a Presidential veto rather than governing the State. Imagine when the President vetoes the appointments. Paragraph 26 says that the provisions for an elected President "will be similarly entrenched" with the provisions on Protection of the Sovereignty of the Republic. In other words, a two-thirds majority in Parliament and two-thirds of the votes in a national referendum. What is this Protection of the Sovereignty of the Republic? Let me refer you to page 3, paragraph 16. It reads: 'In 1972, the Constitution was again amended to protect the sovereignty of the Republic of Singapore. There shall be no surrender or transfer of the sovereignty of Singapore as an independent nation, or relinquishment of control over the Singapore Armed Forces or the Singapore Police Force, unless this has been supported at a national referendum by not less than two-thirds of the votes cast.' I think that was a very, very serious issue and we should rightly entrench those requirements. The provision therefore on the protection of sovereignty, as I said, is rightly so protected by making it so very difficult to attain.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to share some of the sentiments expressed by the Member for Telok Ayer. Singaporeans were told of the idea of an elected President with powers over our reserves some three to four years ago. When the White Paper was presented to this House some two weeks ago, the elected President would have powers not only over our financial assets and reserves but also over key appointments in the civil service and the statutory boards. In other words, the powers of the President has widened considerably and this has resulted in questions being asked whether such a move is necessary. The general thrust of discussion among professionals and grassroots leaders is whether this would make a lame-duck Prime Minister. The initial reaction of some Singaporeans on the issue is clouded by personalities. They see Mr Lee Kuan Yew as the next President and Mr Goh Chok Tong as the next Prime Minister and ask, is not everything the same except in name? They accept the proposals at face value, trusting in Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Goh Chok Tong. They fail to see beyond these personalities. If this combination will sustain forever, then indeed we have nothing to fear. But what if in future things change? We need to separate the issues at hand from the personalities involved. We need a system that will accommodate changes, players in the political scene will change and in years to come Singaporeans may find themselves embroiled in a constitutional crisis, the Prime Minister and the President disagreeing on the issue of various assets and on so many appointments. Therefore, whatever system we want to introduce must be able to survive the change of personalities.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, why does the Government want to resurrect this non-constituency MP when no Opposition parties in the last general election wanted to take up this offer?”
“Sir, I just want to seek a point of clarification. The Minister has been talking about building a hospital in the Bedok area. I am wondering why is there a concentration of hospitals on that particular sector of the island. We have to consider areas in the north and in the Jurong area.”
“So this would be another source of finance which could, as the Member for Changkat said, cover not the whole expenditure but at least supplement whatever is lacking. The need, particularly in the Malay community, of parents to send their children overseas is very pressing indeed. I would not repeat the other arguments that have been raised, but I am most impressed by the draft proposal put up by the Member of Parliament for Ayer Rajah and his colleagues, which incorporates safeguards to ensure that this would not turn out to be a wasteful effort. Allow me to say then that with these safeguards, everyone would be able to make use of this source of finance in a careful and safe manner. On that note, I once again support the proposal to use part of CPF for education.”
“Just one clarification. He mentioned something about this interest-free loan. This was one point he brought up in 1985 and he took the cue from the Minister for Finance on this. I remembered the Minister for Labour quoted the Minister for Finance on this point. And later on we heard from the Minister for Education that there would be a loan scheme for the Univeristy students and the interest was pegged at the commercial banks. So can the Minister please clarify this point? Encik Wan Hussin bin Haji Zoohri (Kampong Ubi)( In Malay): Sir, having heard some very encouraging opinions expressed so far, I rise now in support of the proposal to use CPF for education. I think the debate would not be complete if I do not convey the views of the majority of Malay parents. We know that in the rat race in Singapore, education is a key to success, more so for the Malay community where educational levels are still rather low in comparison to the other communities. We know that enrolment at the National University of Singapore is rather small and this in turn of course affects the number of Malay students. So a logical way out for Malay parents would be to send their children overseas. Due to the role played by the Government in particular and Malay Muslim organizations in general, the Malay community's desire to educate their children to the highest level has been realized. There now is another means to enable them to send their children overseas. As the Executive Secretary of Mendaki, I am aware of this pressing need. Every year, our Awards and Financial Assistance Department receive applications from parents for loans to send their children overseas. Every year we spend about $300,000 and even this amount finances only part of their children's needs.”
“Sir, I did not start a new scheme. All that I ask for is an option to be given to Singaporeans to decide for themselves whether they want to put their money in stocks and shares or whether they want to put their money in education. When we looked into the issue, we really took into account so many factors, as I just spoke earlier. We studied the danger of abuse of the CPF, the leakage of the CPF. All these we have put it in our proposal. We have got all the safeguards. And above all, this fear of the Minister that we will be having a brain drain as a result of allowing more of this CPF fund for education, I think Members should not get detracted by this sort of argument because it has happened many, many times. I am quite glad also that the Minister has decided to study this proposal carefully. But I would just like to remind him that sometime ago in this House - I think in 1985 - he did mention that he would be studying this proposal carefully. And this is 1988, and he is still studying it. I think he has taken a long time. Mr Lee Yock Suan rose ---”
“The Member for Radin Mas actually questioned details about my scheme. Sir, I assume that he agrees in principle.”
“Are all popular decisions wrong decisions?”
“We cannot force or even legislate filial piety. Finally, I trust the Minister will look into this proposal. There is no need to make a decision now. Let us hope he will discuss this with his Cabinet colleagues and let us know as soon as possible. The Member for Kebun Baru called this a popular move, a popular issue. Is it because it is popular that he thinks it is wrong to bring it up?”
“His view was shared by some members of the public like Mr Chia Shi Teck of Paya Lebar and Mr Razali bin Dollah of Ang Mo Kio, who wrote to me expressing their fears. They prompted my Committee to look even harder at the issue and this resulted in our choice for an existing scheme rather than creating a new one with all its implications. Therefore, I want this House to know that my Committee sought many views before drafting the proposal. We wanted to know the extent and the depth of the issue. We have finalized the report which, in our view, is workable and with enough safeguards. In a nutshell, the proposal can be summarised as follows. Allow education as an extra option in the Approved Investments Scheme. This will allow the CPF member a choice - to put his money in education or to put his money in stocks and shares. Since Independence, this nation has put education as one of our top priorities. Most of our parents saw this as a top priority. Today, the priority is the same except that the goals are higher. It is no longer a Cambridge School Certificate or a GCE '0' level or an 'A' level but a diploma from the Polytechnic or a University degree. Money spent to achieve this is surely more beneficial in the long run than putting money in the stock market. Even if his child were to fail, no parent would grudge his child the opportunity for higher education even at the expense of his own CPF savings. Anyway, the failure rate at our University is only 3%. Let not a few isolated cases of misuse of the CPF deprive the majority of its use. If a child neglects his ather after using his father's CPF, then he has his own conscience to contend with. We need to have more faith in our children. Strenghtening our Asian values is the answer.”
“The Ministry of Labour may like to know that between 1986 and 1987 more than 50 grassroots organizations, through the RCs and the CCCs, made requests on the use of CPF for education, and these included the RCs from Marine Parade, Kim Seng and Kuo Chuan. It was unsolicited feedback. Even in this House, as early as 1980 when I first entered this Chamber, veteran MPs like the Members for Toa Payoh, Chua Chu Kang, Bukit Batok, Chai Chee and Leng Kee brought up the issue. Their call was reinforced by the newer Members for Thomson, Jalan Kayu and Paya Lebar. We shared the Ministry's concern about the possible abuse, possible leakage of the CPF funds, children not returning parents the money taken from the CPF and whether there was enough CPF for use. In this respect, we were guided by the information we obtained from the sources I have mentioned. Let me illustrate. The idea of approved courses came from none other than the Member for Radin Mas who just spoke. The requirement to pay back came from the Member for Thomson. Also, he proposed that there be a limit to the sum withdrawn. The Member for Paya Lebar came up with the idea of approved institutions. And above all, the Member for Chua Chu Kang spoke strongly against the use of CPF for stocks and shares and gold. It was from this strong stand that the idea of offering education as an option in the investible portion of the CPF came about. All suggestions and ideas were reinforced by grassroots organizations, especially the Suburban East District CCC. The fear that CPF contributions may be raised as a result of allowing education as another CPF use was expressed by the Member for Boon Lay in an article in the NTUC newsletter. In it, he also warned that there might not be enough funds.”
“Sir, I did not open up Pandora's box. The Pandora's box was opened by the Ministry of Labour a long time ago when they allowed CPF to be used for many other schemes. Time does not permit me to rebut some of the points raised by the Member for Kebun Baru, but if there is time I will rebut him. CPF for education is an emotive issue. It is emotive because it involves the sentiments and feelings of people. Education to many people is their hope for a better future. When my Committee and I discussed this issue, we had to be objective, because CPF is originally meant for old age and, as our population ages, its purpose becomes clearer. However, the issue cannot be ignored as just a popular call. It is now a need. It has become a need because the cost of education has gone up, especially tertiary education. Only last year the Minister for Education announced a rise in University fees and Polytechnic fees. In fact, the Parliamentary Estimates Committee also noted that the cost of tertiary education per student has risen significantly from 1983 to 1985. At NUS, it went up from $13,709 to $15,515; while at NTI it is more. It rose from $17,421 to $18,696. Loan schemes are not attractive because of the high interest rate compared to CPF. More fundamental, it goes against the Asian tradition to borrow for education. When drafting the scheme, we went through the Hansard, as many Members of this House had spoken on the subject since 1980. The Feedback Unit also provided their views of the grassroots community leaders and public requests/reactions on the subject, both written and oral. We did not ask, "Do you think that CPF should be used for education?" That is a guided question and it would not be fair to the Ministry of Labour.”
“I know. But I thought I heard the Minister say that the RC centres are for RC members. Am I correct?”
“Sir, I just want to seek a clarification from the Minister.”
“I still have not got the answer. Why is it there are two managements running these markets? Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us. Why is it so?”
“Sir, I think it is getting a little bit too much. The Government - those people over the other side - give us long, lengthy answers but never address all the issues brought up by the Backbenchers. I have listened to the Backbenchers and two important concepts were raised and here we get replies going round and round and finally we get nowhere. Two important concepts were raised by the Members of this House. One was raised by the Member for Telok Blangah, about wet markets. He introduced the idea of allowing a small area to be used under the present concept of a dry market. There are certain areas that are usually wet, in the sense that the stallholders are selling fish or maybe slaughtering chicken. What he wants is whether you can have a little area whereby you can allow such a trade to continue, introduce all your environmental controls and there you can still have your wet market and a dry market mixed into one. You all did not answer that. The next point. The Member for Cairnhill raised another important issue of a single management for the control of markets presently under HDB and Environment. We have two bodies doing the same thing. Why cannot we merge them into one? We get no answer. All we get was, "Well, you all know."”
“No speeches. Okay, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“The teachers feel very unhappy because they are over-burdened and, of course, the teachers will try to get the students to become library helpers, and again you over-burden them. They have also asked for a review of the curriculum. Some of the teachers feel that the curriculum is too heavy and certain schools are encouraging the students to take 9 or 10 subjects. This sort of arrangement has actually caused some of the other schools to try and emulate these schools. So they also start to pressure their students into taking more subjects. This is all at the expense of the character building of the student. In fact, they say that this call for excellence has resulted in more competition leading to a lot of uncooperation among students. The teachers are also concerned about the number of continual assessment tests. These have actually become some sort of examination and parents are pretty worked up by the number of assessment tests. In fact, if you include the two examinations, all in there are six tests per year. The idea of introducing these continual assessment tests is to reduce the pressure of examinations. Unfortunately, it is not going that way. We are putting more pressure on the students.”
“All right. Some of the principals asked the Ministry for teachers and they have worked out the number and type of teachers they need. But, unfortunately, the Ministry of Education does not seem to be able to fulfil this request. They allocate the teachers but the type of teachers given to them are not what they really want. You only give them the number but not the type that they need. So they find it very difficult to actually plan the school programme because certain teachers are not able to conduct lessons in, let us say, Art. If they have been trained in Chemistry, you cannot expect them to teach Art. Of course, this is related to your problem of the convert teachers. You have your second language teachers who have been with these new educational changes. They have been asked to go for retraining and therefore they will have problems of conducting themselves in classes, teaching especially in subjects that they are not familiar with. You promised them that you would provide auxiliary support for the schools. When I asked the teachers, they said no. There is not much of a support coming from the Ministry. The teachers are doing the same kind of work that they were asked to do in the past. They were hoping that with your new educational changes they would be able to get some relief. For example, they need library clerks but you never give them. They need AVA technicians but these are not coming. They spent a lot of money, over a hundred thousand dollars on AVA equipment, and they find that they do not have the personnel to man it and the equipment get spoilt and this has caused a lot of unhappiness. Of course, the Ministry will expect the teachers to do all this job.”
“Sir, we have heard a lot about tertiary education. Now I propose to talk about the problems in the classroom, the so-called bottom-up approach advocated by the Ministry of Education. I remember last year the Minister did mention that he would like to get ideas and innovations from the schools rather than from the Ministry. I would like to know from the Minister whether this particular approach so far has been very fruitful. Do you get teachers responding? Do you get principals responding to your call for new ideas coming from the school or are you still adhering to your old style of top-down approach? To find out, I conducted a session with a few teachers just to assess whether your call is genuine or not or is it just lip-service. I must report that it is not going so well. I would not mention all the points because I know the Chairman would not give me too much time and he will probably cut a lot of my time.”
“I will return it back to you in the next cut.”
“One minute, Sir. This is the reality in practical Singapore.”
“This on-the-job training leading to a degree course will enhance its prestige and attract better entrants, leading to greater professionalism. So also for optometry. So many Singaporeans are myopic and need contact lens. Our present opticians can send their children to the university for upgrading. This should be the trend. Optometry is getting increasingly sophisticated. At present, Singaporeans with means can send their children to do such courses abroad but with courses available at our university more need not go abroad and the jobs are already there. Sir, there are many who will fault the Government for reducing the urge for higher education into an economic issue.”
“We must turn this demand into a positive force to propel Singapore into a hi-tech and advanced society by channelling our capable, young people into disciplines other than that available at the university. There are at least two disciplines that need upgrading and are at present clamouring for young Singaporeans to join. They are the teaching and the nursing profession. In addition, I would like to add optometry. The selection of new disciplines in the university will reflect our country's needs, raise the stature and standard of practice and enhance Singapore's image as the regional brains centre. Let me elaborate on the lack of teachers. In addition to advertising, the Government can concretely raise the professional image by developing a special degree course for teachers. This will attract 'A' level students to join the teaching profession. What we are suggesting is that instead of having our 'A' level students who want to be teachers compete with the others, why not develop an in-service training programme in teaching in the Institute of Education leading to a degree in education, say, after four years or so? In this way, you have opened up another way for our 'A' level students to have a tertiary education and you do not have to worry about the graduate employment as they are going to be teachers anyway. Similarly, if you fear that you may over-produce graduates of a certain discipline, then we are suggesting that you look into other disciplines that are in need of promoting and upgrading, ie, the training of nurses. At present, we are crying out for nurses. We are trying to employ nurses from the Philippines. Nurses in Singapore see no advancement in their profession. Like teachers, we propose that we set up an in-service course leading to a degree in nursing.”
“Then many approached us and put forward a proposal that an pen university should be a way out. But we feel that we are still not ready to accept such a concept. As time does not permit me to go into the ramifications of this open university, I beg your indulgence, Sir, to circulate to Members of this House a copy of a report made by my Committee in August 1987. [Copies of report circulated to Members.] In it, the paper discusses the concept, the admission criteria, the courses available. Two interesting points that I would like to highlight are (1) that many students enrol in the university for the sole purpose of improving their knowledge without necessarily getting a degree. Second, I would like you to refer to page 1, second paragraph, item 3: 'The lowering or removal of entrance requirements (hence the term "Open University") to accommodate students who would not have qualified for normal University entry.' Our conclusion is that given our limited resources we should first concentrate on developing our own universities. We finally would like to make the following suggestions. First, I think we should expand the Nanyang Technological Institute into a full-fledged university. Second, we must identify other disciplines of need. I would not go into this question of the Nanyang Technological Institute expanding into a full-fledged university because I know some of the Members of this House will be speaking on this. I would just take on the second suggestion, ie, identify other disciplines of need. The demand for tertiary education is a demand for self-improvement. Every applicant believes he or she can be further developed by a university programme. We should not ignore this demand.”
“Our people are smart enough to know that you cannot get very far without the training, the paper qualification. It is therefore understandable that the Parliamentary Estimates Committee highlighted this issue in their report. They made a call for a review of the NUS admission policy because it was concerned that too few capable students were making it into the university. The Ministry of Education replied, and I quote: 'All students who qualify for admission to the NUS and are capable of passing its examinations will be admitted to the University.' This statement raised quite a few eyebrows. Bearing in mind that many of the applicants who satisfy the minimum entry requirements got rejected, it calls into question the university's own assessment of undergraduate potential. In addressing this issue, my GPC maintains that (1) standards must not be compromised; (2) enrolment must be based on manpower requirements. It is also a stand taken by the Ministry of Education and we strongly support it. How do we then find ways and means of addressing this issue? Admit all, as suggested by some politicians? To us, it is not a solution. My Committee studied this proposal before. We are not for it because those unlikely to make it are culled at the end of the first year. This is frequently practised in many American universities. But to us it is an unsatisfactory option. It is just postponing the problem, giving false hopes to many as well as a great waste of lost opportunities for those students who cannot make it after the first year. The high attrition rate of the first year Law students during my time in the university is an example of how we tried to accommodate this demand. It turned out to be not a wise move.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head L of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, since 1985 statistics reveal that about half of those who applied for entry into our University failed to gain admission. This has caused a lot of frustration for many students and their parents and concern among political leaders. These parents and their children regard it as a loss of opportunity to a brighter future and further climb up the economic ladder. To those who can afford, overseas education is an alternative. There are now approximately more than 9,700 students enrolled in universities abroad. This represents about 60% of the current enrolment at the NUS and NTI. NUS and NTI have a combined student population of approximately 16,000 (14,000 in NUS and 2,000 in NTI). I got these figures from The Singapore Economy Reconsidered, page 205. But there must be a number of 'A' level holders who have the potential for university education but are unable to enter NUS or to go abroad because of financial constraints. We have thus a problem which will get worse each year if the 'A' level results get better. This is to be expected as students become better drilled to take examinations and test-wise. The question is: how is NUS to cope with this demand? Are its facilities stretched to maximum? We have ingrained into the people the need to excel. We stress on the importance of excellence in Singapore. Whatever way you may want to explain the term "excellence" ultimately to most Singaporeans, excellence in education means getting a university degree. This is not surprising as our civil service stresses on paper qualification as the most important criteria for employment and promotion.”
“He got carried away, not me. I was not carried away. But what I am trying to say is that if you overdo it too much, it turns off the person from liking it. I like the song "Count on me Singapore". I think it is a very good song and we all should sing it. I really think we must be very careful about popularizing not only songs but even our campaigns also. Let us not overdo it. They are good. Let us keep it to the minimum and also allow the Singaporeans to digest it in small doses.”
“Sir, can I just join in? I love singing. I hope that the Minister will take this point. I remember that just before last year's National Day we had this song "Count on me Singapore". I think we are overdoing it a bit too much. Every- where you go, you hear it - on the radio, in shopping centres and even when I enter a lift I hear this song. I think there must be a limit. Let us not overdo it. That is all I want to request.”
“Sir, I did not file in a cut but I would just like to seek the Minister's clarification on Teleview. I remember about two years ago a group of private supplies of telecommunications equipment came to see the Feedback Unit regarding the fax machines. Actually they were too slow in trying to promote the sale of fax machines, and when TAS decided to move in so that it would give some impetus to the private suppliers and encourage the use of these fax machines, there was a lot of hue and cry. With the introduction of Teleview, I can see there is an implication here because the fax machine is going to be affected. Again you must give them time because I can imagine that they could be encouraged to import all the fax machines now. Then with the introduction of Teleview, what is going to happen to them?”
“Sir, a point of clarification. How can you expect that person who has got no job, he is not sure of his future, to give you a plan?”
“All right, I think basically that is what I want to say. We will pursue this matter when we come to discuss the Ministry of Labour. Please, I hope all of you will read this proposal and support it, especially the Ministers.”
“Well, I have been given only five minutes or 10 minutes. So you have to just give me another two minutes.”
“The approved scheme for investment has got certain safeguards and we have also incorporated into our scheme certain safeguards. Some of the safeguards we have proposed are: we would place a limit on the amount withdrawn. Under the approved investment scheme, members can use only up to 40% of their investable savings or balance in their Ordinary account after the necessary deductions, whichever is lower. We want to ask the Ministry to consider education as another option and it can also place that 40% limit on its use. Just like the various safeguards in the investable scheme, we hope that CPF will only be allowed for tuition fees and not for any other fees. I think preference to local tertiary education should be given. There has been a fear that some Singaporeans would go to institutions of less repute and therefore we should provide some form of guidance to them. We could draw up a list of approved accredited tertiary institutions as a guide for those who want to pursue their studies abroad. On top of that, we have also another safeguard and, that is, we draw up a list of approved courses. We do not want Singaporeans to go abroad and do courses that are not very relevant to our economy.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. I do not propose to go over all the points that have been raised by Members of this House. But I would like to speak on two points raised by the Member for Yuhua and the Member for Bo Wen, and that is, concerning the use of CPF for education. I think this is one time the Minister for Finance need not reply to what I am going to say, but I would like to lobby his support so that he can use his influence on the Minister for Labour to see whether this proposal of mine can be taken into consideration when the Ministry of Labour discusses the possible use of CPF for education. I therefore submit to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a copy of the report on the CPF for Education. It is a draft proposal done by the Government Parliamentary Committee on Education. [Copy of Report handed to Mr Deputy Speaker.] I have already circulated the report to Members of this House and I hope they will go back and read it and we will debate in more detail when we come to discuss the Ministry of Labour's head of expenditure during the Committee of Supply. I would just like to briefly lay out the scheme to this House so that some of you who may not have read that proposal may understand it and perhaps give us your support later on. Very briefly, we will not disturb the CPF arrangement. There will be no increase in CPF contribution. We will only use an existing scheme, an approved scheme in the CPF, and that is your approved investment scheme. We want to tag along that scheme. We want the Ministry of Labour to offer Singaporeans a choice - to use it for investment in stocks or to use it for education.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I just want to ask the Minister clause 18 which exempts certain child care centres from the provisions of the Bill. I wonder why. If you refer to the object of the Bill, this Bill primarily is to set out the rules and regulations for child care centres. So I wonder why there should be an exemption for child care centres controlled by the Government. I think policing should be for all, private sector or Government. We are trying to ensure good standards and the Government should set the standards. I think it is important that even Government child care centres should not be exempted from being policed.”
“While the majority has a moral obligation to look after the minority, the minority also has a moral obligation to understand the constraints and limitations of multi-racial living. In the end, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it boils down to trust - trust in each other, in believing that the intention is for the overall good and not for the betterment or the putting down of a particular race. 4.30 pm”
“The people of Singapore must try to understand that this Government did not only consider the Term MP proposal. The First Deputy Prime Minister has listed out all the proposals and I shall not go over them again. If we did not consider all thses proposals, then they have every right to condemn us for just pushing this through. Consultation in public on this was started as early as 1986, but in private I think we started as early as 1982. And if more is needed, then I am sure this will be done at the Select Committee stage where anyone not happy with this must make his views heard. The Member for Changkat has called for more in-depth explanation as to why a referendum is not necessary. I think we should give adequate explanation on this. As for my view, I think this Bill is for multi-racial representation in Parliament. To askfor a referendum against multi-racialism, I think is not correct. Lastly, let this Team MP proposal be but one of the ways to achieve a multi-racial society. Now that we are a more matured society and are more open in our discussion on race and religion, we must take a critical look at ourselves to see where we have made oversights in planning. It calls for a concerted effort by all - the Government and the private sector. We must break down certain prejudices about race. We must not stereotype certain race. In the schools we must avoid situations like putting all Tamil students in one class for administrative reasons. But whatever change we may want to make, it must not be done at the expense of meritocracy because it was through the principle of meritocracy that has brought Singapore this far.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, believing in multi-racialism is one thing, making it working is another. There are many countries which want to believe that they are practising multi-racialism in their society, but make no attempt to actually get it working. I think we are different. We are brave to face the realities of multi-racial living. To avoid this is to court trouble later on. The outside influence through the television and the mass media has a profound effect on our young, who like one of the participants in the forum questioned: why should we give the Malays special privilege on education and land for mosque? My answer, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, was my generation and my father's generation accepted many aspects of multi-racial living without question because we know the alternative is chaos and bloodshed. But our young are a different breed. It is not that they are wrong in asking such questions but the influence they had through the television set their inquiring minds ticking and wondering. Therefore, unless we put the ground rules in order for multi-racial harmony in Singapore, we may face problems later on. In attempts to do this, the Government has been accused by one of the participants in the forum for having taken a step or two backwards as a result of this move. My answer is simple. So be it. If we are seen to have taken one step backwards as a result of this legislation, I see no harm. I would rather we take a step backwards as a result of this legislation, I see no harm. I would rather we take a step back than take two steps forward. We are consolidating our position on multi-racial living in society. I think this is not only being pragmatic but realistic.”
“From the discussion, it would appear that many of the racial differences were simmering below the tranquil facade and these forces could erupt into ugly incidents with the slightest provocation. Those were the views of those I met. I would like now to express my views. If we all believe in multi-racialism, we must ensure that every race in Singapore, irrespective of whether he belongs to the majority or minority group, must have a place here. In my opinion, throughout our years of independence, we concentrated and achieved good economic growth to provide the basics for our people, like housing, clean water supply, roads, hospitals and schools. And in spite of the fact that we were so busy getting our people housed, clothed and educated, we did not take for granted our multi-racial society. We may have overlooked some aspects but we were aware of the problems. And we did try to lay the foundations of a multi-racial society by ensuring the majority race, Chinese, from imposing its language and way of life on the minority. We set up a Presidential Council for Minority Rights. We dispersed concentrations of Malays into housing estates so that different races will have a better chance of mixing and understanding each other. And above all, we adopted a neutral language, English, at the expense of alienating the majority. Therefore, this attempt to ensure multi-racial representation in Parliament is nothing new. We have done this in the public housing estates, we have adopted a neutral language, English. So I am surprised that there are people who said that this is wrong. Like some of the measures taken, this will also not be perfect. It will have its flaws. But one thing is important - we make attempts to try to make multi-racialism work.”
“He commented that based on his experience with the ground, there were still considerable emotional differences among the races. It was naive for anyone to assume that there was complete integration and that we were all one people regardless of race, language or religion. He added that all that was needed was a spark to ignite the dormant but not defused forces of racial polarization. He added that the older generation was different and was grateful to the PAP for the prosperity it brought to them. But the younger generation took things for granted and were more assertive of their rights. Not only was the minority questioning the perceived discrimination, but even the majority was asking why special privileges were given to the minority. For example, poor Chinese were asking why they should not be assisted in the same way that the Malays were. One participant commented that the adoption of one political system or another would be a result of political motivation and consideration. He felt that the solution offered was a technical one and did not address adequately the fundamental issue. The more fundamental questions were whether there was really racial integration and whether in fact the elected minority MPs were looked upon as leaders by their own race. He felt that recent events indicated that there was still no integration and as long as this remained so, there would be need for some modifications to ensure multi-racial representation. The participants agreed that at the end of the day, it was a political judgement, whether there was indeed a problem. If the consensus was that there was a problem, then there would be a need to do something now to defuse the problem and not to wait until the problem really surfaced before trying to solve it.”
“He said that the recent controversies illustrated vividly that despite 20 years of independence and nation building, there were still many emotional issues which ran along racial lines. Examples in other countries, such as Fiji, reminded us that it was better to put ground rules in place to prevent racial polarization rather than wait for the problem to erupt and then to think of a solution. Any solution then would always be too late, too inadequate and viewed with great suspicion. He felt that as a start, there should be an amendment to the Constitution to require all political parties in Singapore to be multi-racial in make-up. While this in itself would not assure a truly multi-racial political party nor ensure multi-representation in Parliament, it was a necessary first step. In the long term, the real solution was to ensure integration and the development of nationhood. The participant added that the Team MP concept was a workable one and should not be confused with the town council concept. He added the town council concept was to develop estate management responsibilities to the residents, and that was a good idea. After all, estate management was delegated to the HDB, why not let the residents decide? However, the Team MP concept was for a different purpose. He felt that the earlier linkage between the two concepts had confused people. While the Team MP concept was acceptable, he felt that if the ground rules were to be changed, then this should be subject to the approval of the population, possibly through a referendum. Otherwise, there would always be accusations that the ground rules were changed to ensure continued dominance of the PAP. Another participant supported his view.”
“All parties, except the communal-based ones like UMNO and MCA, were multi-racial in nature. Moreover, considering that the PAP had been so succcessful in blurring communal differences and had through its dominance attenuated communal-based politics, there was really no need to tinker with the present system. And in his words, "If it works, why fix it?" He felt that the solution was to develop a national identity so that all Singaporeans could feel as one regardless of race, language or religion. Only when racial differences were blurred, would there be real political stability. Other participants supported his views. They felt that the fear of the Government that the minority race might not be represented was unfounded. One participant commented that this view could imply that minority candidates were incompetent and there was a need to tamper with the system in order for them to be elected. The participants supporting this view felt that the solution laid not in tampering with the existing system but to entrench it as it had been working so well. One participant further noted that the PAP should revive the enthusiasm of the voters and prove its worth. Another commented that there was a lot of cynicism about the Team MP proposal. Many Singaporeans wondered whether the proposal was a guise by the PAP to ensure its dominance or was it a genuine effort to ensure minority representation? Some others supported the need to modify the existing system in order to ensure there would always be multi-racial representation. In fact, one thought that there was no immediate problem. One could never be sure about having continued multi-racial representation in the future.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in this debate. From the many discussions I had with the ground I cannot help but come to the conclusion that many are still unclear about the Team MP proposal. Therefore, lest we get detracted from the main purpose of this Bill, I think it is of utmost importance that we should try to win the hearts and minds of our people on this very important and fundamental issue of racial representation in Parliament by further discussion and explanation and to allow representations by many interested groups, interested parties, to air their views to the Government. I therefore welcome and support the move to let this Bill be referred to a Select Committee. Members of this House will recall the Howe Yoon Chong Report on the Problems of the Aged, how it was focused primarily on the CPF issue, thus detracting most Singaporeans from the real issues presented in the Report. Similarly, let us not get detracted from issues such as the definition of who is a Malay, and concentrate on the main issue, ie, multi-racial representation in Parliament. We should let our Malay community decide who is a Malay. They know better and we must abide by their decision. Let me now give some feedback from the ground to this House on this issue. We met many people and the participants agreed that it was necessary for a multi-racial society like ours to have a multi-racial representation in Parliament. But they were divided in their views as to whether there was really a need to tinker with the existing electoral system in order to ensure multi-racial representation. One participant wondered why the subject was being broached now. He felt that multi-racialism has always been a feature of politics in Singapore even before the PAP.”
“Yes, I will ask the question. Is the Minister aware that each time an adult patient goes for this series of injections, he has to pay $120? Is he aware that for children, they have to pay $20 for each injection. That means it costs $60 for the series. They can make use of Medisave for these injections. If you assume that 36% are positive, then it is a substantial saving for those who want to make use of their Medisave. They need not have these injections. They could save that amount of money.”
“I ask this question, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, because if you take this figure of 36%, or even slightly less, let us put it at 30% - I got this figure from the private laboratories - the amount of Medisave you are going to save is tremendous. Let me just give a little ---”
“Sir, is the Minister aware that about 36% of those who go for this antibody test have a positive antibody?”
“If he could not understand the matter then his political consciousness or understanding is very low. If he does not want to understand the truth of the matter, then it is very dangerous, because when he made his speech earlier he mentioned that in the US and other countries there were such and such incidents taking place yet heaven had not fallen down. He does not seem to know that our situation here is different. Mr Chiam See Tong: I think the Parliamentary Secretary is unfair in making personal attacks on me. He says I have got very weak political consciousness. What has this got to do with our subject matter here? If you want to make personal attacks, get out of this House and make personal attacks on me, please. An hon. Member: True or false.”
“The second point is that most of these people detained are English-educated. This is contrary to our historical experience when in the past most of the Communists or leftists were Chinese-educated. People were puzzled how the English-educated people could now be involved in the communist and Marxist plot. But they forget that Marxism emanated from Europe where the Euro-communists were not Chinese-educated. So, this is history. Another point that puzzles them is now that Singapore is already prosperous and the economy is well developed and people generally are enjoying a good standard of living, where are the fertile grounds and conditions to cause Marxists to sprout and have some ground to exist? For these reasons they have some doubts as to whether the Government has rightly arrested these people. However, after the Ministry of Home Affairs issued long statements disclosing detailed events and through the TV forums these 15 people made open confessions about their part in these activities and the background which led to the formation of their thinking and ideology, many people are now convinced that the Government has sufficient grounds and reasons to take such actions in the interest and safety of the majority of the people of Singapore and for the security of the country. In the early stage, on a matter of such importance, the only Opposition Member should have spoken when many people were puzzled. He did not. So I think his political consciousness or sensitivity is much weaker than the general public. This is a pity. Yet, after the Government's explanation, he still raises this motion before this House. This is even more difficult to understand. I think he could not understand the truth of this incident or he would not want to understand the truth of this incident.”