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 19 of 22.
“Even if I promise to pay it back from my other amendments?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have prepared a long speech. It would take 30 minutes to deliver. As you know, Education is such a big subject and you have only given me 10 minutes. So I have condensed what I want to say in these few pieces of paper. If I exceed by a few minutes, I hope you will forgive me. Will it be all right, Sir?”
“The Government has been too much goal-orientated and not enough process-orientated. 2. Departmental concerns must be subject to national interest, not override it. 3. Be conscious of those at the receiving end of your policy. And lastly, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, think Singaporean.”
“You are aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that we are doing open-heart surgery and by-pass heart surgery and we have a number of very prominent heart specialists. Do we need a Harvard Medical Professor to advise Singaporeans how chao guo tia will affect his lipid and cholesterol levels, whether soup kambing is good for his heart or whether nasi-lemak will push the fat contents in his blood up? Does SBC have such a low opinion of our local doctors and nutritionists? The message I am trying to bring to the attention of this House is "Let us start thinking Singaporean". Another example as to how people-related issues must be handled carefully is best illustrated by the question of compen- sation. In 1985, the Government raised the compensation given to those who were resettled. Whoever was still occupying the properties on or after the cut-off date were given the enhanced compensation. While my colleagues in the supervisory panel of the Feedback Unit were satisfied that there were good reasons why such a method was chosen, those affected by the exercise saw an anamoly. They told us that those who were stubborn and refused to move out of the properties were, in fact, rewarded by being given the extra 30%. Those who cooperated with the Government and left early got less. In their mind, the Government seems to be telling them that they made an unwise decision when they chose to cooperate with the Government. It is a perception, Mr Deputy Speaker, but this is what they think. We must be very careful not to let too many of such misconceptions take place. We must be conscious of those at the receiving end of our policy is the other message I want this House to know. In summary, Mr Deputy Speaker, the four messages that I would like to pass to the Government are: 1.”
“While acknowledging that there are some companies which are dshonourable, there are also many who are indeed having a cash flow problem. It is within HDB's right to write to the lessee's bankers informing them of the rental arrears and the Board's intention to terminate the lessee if the arrears were not settled. This indeed happened and has led the bankers to start squeezing the credit facilities of their clients. I am not saying that HDB was wrong. It was a perfectly legitimate exercise as the bank was the lessee's guarantor. Whilst serving the Mortgagee Notice on the bank is legally right, the point I am trying to make is that Government ought to extend a helping hand by withholding action rather than precipitate their bankruptcy. Hard-headed economics in these times should be tempered by heart-felt sympathy. One request that local entrepreneurs would like to make is for policy-makers and implementers to think Singaporean. It is a shame to go to China and be told that our local contractors do not have the expertise to build airports, stadiums, ports, as they have no past records to show. We must give more jobs to our locals than to foreigners. Although there is a trend now to give Singaporeans priority, more can be done. Perhaps we should consider giving priority to Singaporeans for the controversial Central Expressway project. We should invite locals to tender and, if necessary, they can buy the expertise elsewhere. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it will be unheard of in Japan but this happened in Singapore. If you tune in to your radio you may have heard of a Harvard Medical Heart Specialist giving advice to Singaporeans on what to eat and what not to eat to stay healthy and thus prevent heart diseases.”
“This is all too often forgotten as the Civil Service is overly concerned with control and tightening against abuses, mostly to the detriment of business enterprise which is, fast changing. Introducing the $140 levy on foreign workmen now is frowned upon by some business quarters as negating the cost-cutting measures of reducing CPF introduced earlier this year. This will make our products less competitive. Are we paranoid about the whole issue of foreign workers? The industrialists want to know. On the one hand we talk about a revolving pool of foreign workers. Then at the next breath we want to tighten control by introducing a $140 levy. Our industrialists want to know why? They perceive it as a departmental concern overriding national interests. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is the other message that I want to bring to the attention of the Ministers. People at the receiving end fail to see the logic of some of the things you do. They view each Ministry guarding jealously its own policy without trying to balance it with the overall national interest. In the Budget speech, the Minister clearly stated, and I quote him: 'Local businesses occupy an important role in our economy. We must build a solid base of thriving and resilient local businesses.' Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in this troubled period of slow growth, many of our local businesses face a cash flow problem. Therefore, they may be late in their payment of CPF or rentals of their premises. Some of these businesses do owe substantial sums to HDB and to the CPF. But HDB and CPF were kind enough to let them pay by instalments in most cases. But sometimes even such arrangements pose difficulties for the company.”
“They fear that with the new priority for the third-child family they may have to wait yet longer. There are Ministries with a large women workforce, like the Ministry of Education. How will the schools cope if many women teachers decide to take advantage of this answer given by the policy of granting four years no pay leave? Judging from the Minister of State last Friday, it is quite obvious the Ministry will be facing a serious problem. Just imagine, two extra teachers going on leave from our 401 secondary schools, we will have 800 teachers short. You must remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that we have 13,000 women teachers out of a total workforce of 35,000 women in the Civil Service. This is going to affect our school programme. The message is therefore quite clear. Pay as much attention to the consequences of the process as well as your goal. Consider all factors for a start. I shall now move over to the foreign workers policy and the $140 levy. We all understand that we must not rely entirely on foreign workers to man our industries. We do not really want our children to be brought up by foreign maids if we can help it. But what choice have we? It is a fact that some jobs are simply not attractive to Singaporeans. This has been mentioned umpteen times and ad nauseam. In such cases, the local businessmen, the working family, have no choice but to look for workers from overseas. We must view the situation sympathetically and help them whenever possible. We have the rationale for a strict foreign workers policy and the levy scheme. However, in implementation, the objective must be to help our businessmen get foreign labour cheaply and easily in order that industries and services can flourish.”
“And because of this philosophy we are too anxious to get things done and would thus set out to achieve our target with little or less consideration for the way it should be done. This is a message constantly expressed at dialogue sessions. Will those in charge of policy-making and implementation please take note. Our goal of achieving high births in the coming years appears to have been carried out in a manner feared by concerned Singaporeans. We are going to give priority of schooling to three-child families. We are going to give priority of housing to those who want to upgrade their flats upon the birth of the third child. And we have set out seven other incentives and measures to support the new population policy. I wonder whether those who set out these measures realize the implications of some of these measures and incentives. Those who ligated at two are wondering about their children's priority of schooling. And notwithstanding what the Acting Minister for Health has said, once upon a time those who ligated after two births had top priority. Then with new changes in policies they had priority but less priority. So now they are waiting to see what happens at the next school admission exercise. We must remember that a child takes six years to grow up before entering school. What you promise, you must honour. Those who have complied with your old policy have yet to enjoy the benefits. In view of what the Acting Minister for Health has said, I hope in six years' time those who comply now before the cut-off date for this new policy need not have to bite their nails in fear of new policy directions. Then again, there are those who have been waiting some time for their HDB flats.”
“They do not share the Government's vision as they do not have enough information to appreciate the seriousness of the problem facing us. Other participants questioned the whole basis of the optimal population size, while others believe that Singapore is already one of the most densely populated countries and questioned the wisdom of having more babies. They want assurance that increasing the population base will not bring on more problems of overcrowding, competition for jobs, more demand for education and social services that Singapore cannot bear. I think this has been touched upon by the Acting Minister for Health a few moments ago. Unless Singaporeans are aware of the serious consequences of our declining population, monetary rewards will be a marginal incentive. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if a child is told that he should not litter our streets because of a $500 fine, then we have been giving him the wrong reason for not littering our streets. But if you tell a child that he must not litter or spit because the streets will be dirtied and diseases can spread, then the right reason has been imparted to him and he will not litter or spit when no one is around. That is why when I see the sign "No littering, fine $500", I think the wrong message has been conveyed. Similarly, in our drive to encourage more babies, let us tell them the seriousness of a fall in population and lop-sidedness in the procreation pattern. I know our First Deputy Prime Minister has gone on television to explain, but it is still not enough. It is a more arduous task. But we must remember that to achieve our goal we must not forget the importance of the process to reach it. Does the end justify the means? We have been too much goal-orientated and not enough process-orientated.”
“For example, wage restraint, CPF and sales tax deal with the individual's money. Procreation, marriage, the population issue and human organ transplant issue involve emotions, feelings and individual privacy. Schools, especially independent schools, deal with expectations and needs. Therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have come to a stage of our nation building where approaches to achieving new goals to solving problems should be conscious in our minds. Those formulating policies and those implementing policies should take note. As Government policies increasingly have something to do with emotive issues, we must look beyond just voting dollars and cents to implement the policies. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, at my many dialogue sessions and tea sessions with ordinary Singaporeans, educated and not so educated, professional or grassroots leaders, a number of clear messages have emerged. I will use these few minutes to highlight four main messages. I hope the front bench Ministers and those who help them to implement their policies are all ears. In fact, this is one speech that the Minister for Finance need not take down notes but just sit back and listen. It is meant not only for him but also for the other Ministers. I will start with this tax incentive for procreation. It is not only one of the means of achieving our population target. We have this goal of having more babies. But do not expect that if you dangle a carrot of $20,000 special tax rebate, we are going to have more babies. You may succeed to a certain extent but fundamental to this is that the reasons for having more children must be made clear to our population. Some people are not convinced we have a problem.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the first budget speech I heard in this House was presented by the First Deputy Prime Minister when he was then the Minister for Trade and Industry. That was in March 1981. The main thrust of his speech was the Economic Development Plan for the 80s. The emphasis was on industrial development, research and development, trade development, services development, energy and manpower development. A total of $4,579.9 million was required in FY 81 to meet the recurrent expenditure of Government programmes like the modernization of the Armed Forces, restructuring of the educational system, expansion of the National University and other training institutions to cope with the demand for skill, technical and professional manpower as well as higher maintenance costs. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is a significant shift when you compare the two budgets, from what I described as physical development budget of 1981 to people-related budget of 1987. This year, the budget calls for wage restraint, to restore international competitiveness, wage reform and CPF contribution rate that the economy can afford to maintain our international competitiveness. The tax and revenue changes for 1987 confirm my observation. There are tax incentives to encourage procreation, tax relief for children who use cash to top up the Minimum Sum account of their parents, selective goods and services tax and foreign workers' levy scheme. Sir, physical development no longer excites Singaporeans. Building another Raffles City or Treasury Building will not make many heads turn. But people-related issues are different, different because such issues deal with feelings, emotions, individual privacy, needs, expectations and money.”
“Questions for the Minister. Is there any particular reason why the polytechnics are exempted from this exercise? The other question is: this exercise will help the University to recover 12% of the operating cost, an improvement of 4% compared to the 8% of what is recovered. Will the cost of administrative machinery set up to manage this $100 million fund eat into a large portion of the 4% saved as a result of this? In other words, is it worth it?”
“Sir, the Minister mentioned that there will be a $100 million loan fund. I would like to ask him whether this is sufficient, and if this fund runs out will the students be able to continue with their University education without having to find other ways of getting money? The other matter I would like to ask the Minister is the prime rate. He has mentioned that he is following the Big Four local banks' prime rate. Is this not too high? The prime rate as at today, I think, is 6.29%. Compare this with the CPF rate, which is about 5.38%, I would like to ask the Minister, in view of the difference in the rates, whether the parents of these students will be allowed to use their CPF rather than having to take a loan from the University loan fund?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, can I ask the Prime Minister a question? Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the two cases for which the late Minister was investigated are now closed, or whether investigations will continue?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope by the Third Reading of this Bill, the Ministry of Health will incorporate whatever relevant changes needed in the Bill so that Singaporeans will be assured that this legislation is passed after considering and listening to the views of MPs, lay people and professional people. I support the Bill. Encik Wan Hussin bin Haji Zoohri (Kampong Ubi)( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am joining in the debate to speak only on certain aspects of the implementation of the Bill when it is eventually passed. We all know that what has been written down will sometimes meet with some difficulties in implementation. By this, I am wondering how the Ministry will ensure without any error being made concerning the religion of a deceased person. This Bill exempts Muslims. But we know that in the context of Singapore with its multi-religious people, it is not necessary for a particular religion to be embraced by only one community. For instance, Islam is the religion of many ethnic groups. As such, when a person dies in such a situation, I would like to know from the Minister of State how is he going to ascertain the religion of a deceased person. If he were to refer only to the victim's identity card, I find that there is no column in a person's identity card to state his religion. Only his race is stated. As such, I would like to draw the attention of the Ministry concerned to the need to rule out any mistakes, as far as possible, in this respect. Although this is a small matter, if mistakes occur, the risks or consequences are unpleasant. I would merely like to remind the Ministry to exercise caution and to find ways to ascertain an accident victim's religion because if he is a Muslim he will be automatically exempted from the Bill.”
“The act of pledging one's organs must be seen as a conscious choice of the individual. Relentless effort to persuade must continue in addition to this legislation. We must support the Ministry of Health's six-month planned programme to inform the public of the law and its implications. A long-term plan will be the prevention of the disease through health education and improved health care at our outpatient level and the private clinics. I am glad that the Ministry of Health did not succumb to the pressures of the National Kidney Foundation to introduce legislation much earlier. It must also listen to others. While I can understand the enthusiasm and concern of those working in the National Kidney Foundation to legislate, it must be borne in mind that the issue is not that simple. We are living in a multi-racial, multi-cultural, multi-religious society. We have deeply ingrained cultural and religious beliefs. We are Asians. Western societies may accept such legislation more readily but we must not hurry over this. Our Muslim community's views must be made known, for example, and in this respect it is good to learn that MUIS supports the concept of organ donation. We must encourage Muslims to voluntarily donate their kidneys in the manner permitted by the Islamic teaching under the Medical (Therapy, Education and Research) Act, 1972. While there is increasing awareness of the intention of the scheme, apprehension remains especially among the less knowledgeable and the less educated. It is important that the less educated are well-informed on this. Persuasion and convincing arguments must be the way to achieve our ultimate goal. Therefore, the decision to pass this legislation to a Select Committee will give those Singaporeans a chance to speak out on matters of concern.”
“This paper has been circulated to all grassroots organizations and I would like to place on record my thanks to the Ministry of Health. Mr Speaker, Sir, that paper contains questions and answers on the proposed legislation. I am not sure whether this paper has been given to the press. If not, I would suggest that it should be given to the press so that more Singaporeans can be made aware of the implications of this Bill. Another concern by the more educated is that this legislation is an infringement of their personal rights, as what rightly belongs to them can now be taken away by the Government under this legislation. Mr Speaker, Sir, the question of the rights of the individual crops up very frequently at dialogue sessions. While we cannot deny the individual of his rights, perhaps we will have to persuade and appeal to such individuals that in our closely-knit society they should also consider the obligations to the society. It is not much to ask of them considering the amount of collective effort and sacrifices made by many other Singaporeans in the building of this country. However, the Bill is quite clear: anyone who is not happy has the right, and not only the right but also the opportunity, to object to donating away his organ. Another area of fear is that those who object may face other forms of social disincentives. At present, those who object will have less priority in receiving kidneys. It is only fair that the people who are willing to form part of the pool of potential kidney donors should be the first ones to benefit from the pool. I think the Ministry must not resort to the introduction of disincentives other than less priority for receiving kidneys to those who opt out.”
“It is a very emotive issue and we must be very sensitive to this, and any high-handed approach will spell disaster for the Ministry of Health. In this connection, a special team of trained counsellors should be made available in each authorized hospital to counsel and provide emotional support to the families of every potential organ donor. The team must not only be highly trained but they must be very strongly motivated and, above all, available on call at any time to handle members of the bereaved family. The potential donor's family should be screened from all unnecessary bureaucratic contacts and red-tape. In extreme cases or even in unusually resistant cases, the team should be authorized to grant an exception so that the Government would not be seen as totally insensitive and devoid of compassion or flexibility because, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must remember that while the plight of our kidney failure patients deserves our fullest sympathy and support, we must be sensitive to the relatives of the accident victims. Another fear is that this legislation will give the Government that eventual right to all the organs of the body. There is a general concern among the people that the kidney is only the beginning of a whole gamut of organs to come. The Ministry must allay this public anxiety. I know that some of my colleagues here have requested that organs should not only refer to the kidneys but also to the other organs. But I would advise caution now. Let us go step by step. Let us win the confidence of the people before we proceed to the other organs. In this respect, we should have a good programme to educate the public and I must say that the Ministry of Health has responded to the Feedback Unit's request for an information paper on this Human Organ Transplant Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Bill. This legislation attempts to save the lives of most of the 200-odd Singaporeans who die of end-stage kidney disease each year. And this figure continues to rise. For the past 15 years, the Ministry of Health and the National Kidney Foundation have tried to persuade the public to donate their organs, their kidneys, and for all their effort they only received about 24,000 pledges. We need 800,000. So you can see how far short we are of that figure. It is pathetic to see many Singaporeans struck by the disease, some at the prime of their youth wasting away on the dialysis machine, while at the same time healthy kidneys are not made available to them because of prejudice and fear. This, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the size and depth of our problem. We cannot run away from this. It will be with us and it will continue to get worse. No Singaporean must turn his back against this. We must fight prejudices and fears about organ transplant. We must persuade those who want to opt out to opt in. We must give hope to the 200-odd Singaporeans. Therefore, we must all support this legislation and convince those who oppose that there are sufficient safeguards in the Bill to prevent abuse. These safeguards have been mentioned this morning by the Minister of State for Health. One fear among Singaporeans is that doctors would simply remove the kidneys as provided by the law when the victim had not opted out before his death. I think this is an important concern. It is important because we must be aware that these kidneys will have to be taken from someone who may be dead but nevertheless has very real and meaningful relationships with people who are still alive.”
“My dad gave me a simple example. He says, "Sidek, if you want to uphold truth ---”
“I think no one should fear this Bill because I am sure that Singaporeans, after 25 years, have become more articulated and they are aware of the happenings and, in fact, they fully understand now the pretensions put forth by the Opposition. What needs to be said, I think, is the truth. Do not tell tales. I remember of a freedom fighter who, when asked by journalists what he wanted inserted in the newspapers in order to disseminate his struggles, his objectives, replied, "The truth will do." However, we find that people find it hard to tell the truth. Untruths abound us. I think much glib talks have been flung around. I know of an English saying, "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." What I fear is that "woman" here refers to a widow or widower. It means that a person had at one time been a member of a certain association, subsequently he left the association. Maybe at one time he had worked for the government and is no longer working now. A widow or widower who backchats about her husband or wife, however untrue, there are some people, and here I emphasize "some people" and not all the people, who believe in the story because at one time they had been living together. It is for this reason, I think, that such widows or widowers say more untruths than truths. Like the Chinese say, Pofu ma jie - a woman scolding somebody in the street. So, I think we cannot adopt such a stance because this august House has no room for such talk. We need to be brave to face it. I do not think the Opposition need fear if they are true leaders, possessing true leadership spirit, because leaders place truth above everything else. If we think that we are right, we need not fear the jail, nor the fines; we need not even fear about our own lives. That then are the qualities of leadership.”
“Because many still maintain that legislation made here, made by the legislators, tabled or delivered by somebody who is not a lawyer since not all Ministers are lawyers, must come back to this Chamber to be amended or defended by the Government. To do otherwise would be "a naked usurpation of legislative function." But we also know, especially those who are lawyers, that every piece of legislation that we bring up in this august Chamber usually has different interpretations to different persons. However, there is one man, who, I think commands the respect of many lawyers, a Maverick, like Lord Denning. He says that if we wish to give the meaning of a law or rule in a Bill, choose the meaning that accords two important elements, ie, reason and justice. And I quote what he says in his book, The Discipline of Law: "If you have to make a choice, choose the meaning that accords reason and justice." I am confident that every one of our Ministers who tables a Bill in this House bears in mind these two important factors. We must also be aware that when we argue on something, we must include two or the twin-pillars of justice, and that is, impartiality and the element of fairness. So if there are attempts to strip, to tinker with these two aspects, such people must bring forth cogent reasons. We cannot resort to innuendoes, indulge in jabberings only because if right-minded people attending a court of law go away thinking and saying, "The judge is biased", I think that is the beginning of the end of law and order and of confidence. This is what I have discovered of late, attempts to fault a Bill without advancing valid arguments.”
“In fact, in Africa itself we have heard that some countries have not succeeded because they have inherited a system that is alien to their cultures. Perhaps there is this one party system, poverty, tribal enmity, maybe corruption. But we also know that there are some African countries which, after making modifications, come to realize that political stability is vital for the prosperity of the country. Therefore, countries like Ivory Coast, Botswana, Senegal, Cameroon, Kenya could defend the system that they have inherited and achieved political stability through a strong central government, pragmatic leadership and so on. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think that after these powers have been invested in the Committee of Privileges, an individual like yourself, an individual like Dr Tony Tan, and those who sit on the Committee will make an arbitrary decision because their decision will be studied, will be scrutinized by everyone of us here, by lawyers, judges and the whole of the Singapore community. I say it is impossible to make judgment haphazardly, just like somebody stealing epok epok or curry puff, he should be punished like someone who has robbed a bank. You must have heard that in an Islamic country, even somebody who steals will have his hands cut off. It does not mean that somebody who steals epok-epok will also have his hands cut off. And I am sure that the system that we have inherited, the laws that we have inherited, including laws in Britain today, are being observed especially by judges and lawyers themselves. In present day Britain there exists two viewpoints. We have two kinds of thinking. One feels that any legislation passed can be changed by the judges.”
“Moreover, Mr Speaker, Sir, one need not fear to speak out unless the motive is wrong or suspect. Some Singaporeans outside this House sympathize with the Opposition Members because we PAP Members of this House, by our sheer numbers, are perceived to be bullying them. But this Government has a responsibility to the majority of Singaporeans who voted the PAP and this Government has a responsibility to let Singaporeans know the truth. This amendment is to ensure that, to seek the truth, there must be fair and responsible debate, and if an allegation is proved false, the Member must apologize or face censure. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and Industry (Encik Sidek bin Saniff)( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the amendment moved by the Leader of the House because I feel that in the interest of the integrity of this House and the honour of our citizens as a whole, we need to make this amendment as it encompasses matters that cover our social life and the administration of our country. It also encompasses the life of an individual in this country. I am sure that, as a former colony, we have inherited many things from the colonialists, not only the bad things but also some good things which are suitable to us. One of them is the democratic system, that is, the parliamentary system, the legislative system. And we should be thankful. And I am thankful that the Government has decided that matters that cannot be resolved in our Court can be referred to the privy council. This should be maintained. We also know that modification should be made to suit the needs of the country.”
“Allow me to continue, Mr Speaker. The United Kingdom and Commonwealth option, namely, to suspend, to expel, to commit to prison and/or a fine, has been effective in checking the behaviour of its Members. We have an added option, and that is, the withdrawal of immunity and privilege for a certain period. I think this is a fair move. It gives the recalcitrant MP a chance to remain in this House. He may also speak, though he has to learn to speak with reason and decorum, no more wild allegations and half-truths. Some of our citizens will react very unfavourably to this amendment. It will be interpreted as Government's action to silence the Opposition in Parliament. It is the wider implications of this amendment that they should think of. We can conduct ourselves in an orderly, fair and responsible way to get things done. Members of Parliament should be able to conduct themselves well, with dignity and decorum. There is no need to yell, cast aspersions, fabricate stories in this House to prove that we are serving the people. People outside this House, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Punggol, addressed us hon. Members as "Honourable". So let us live up to that. There can be no honour, Mr Speaker, Sir, without responsibility. Therefore, I am prepared to go along with this amendment Bill even if privilege, so vital in the conduct of debates, has to be withdrawn temporarily from a Member. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is fear expressed that this Government may be too quick to refer MPs, especially Opposition MPs, to the Committee of Privileges for sanction. I am sure this will not happen. If this Government or majority party does that without valid reasons, we will be in trouble because we are on television and people are watching us.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have never interrupted him when he was speaking.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, at present this House can only reprimand, suspend or impose a fine of up to $1,000 on errant MPs. This is a very light form of penalty and will not deter certain Members of this House from continuing to abuse the privilege accorded. There have to be very compelling reasons for Parliaments in the United Kingdom, Malaysia and other Commonwealth countries to impose more severe penalties. We are just keeping up with standard practice in the Commonwealth.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to join the debate along with the Member for Punggol in supporting this motion standing in the name of the Leader of the House. Mr Speaker, Sir, privilege in Parliament is something we, as Members of this House, cherish. It allows us to speak without fear, to engage in free and open debate on matters of public interest. It should not be used as a passport to cast aspersions on people or systems, especially if such aspersions could not be substantiated. There must therefore be some degree of fairness and responsibility in our utterances, and to ensure this, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must be guided by some rules. Individual Members of this House cannot make up their own rules for debate. We must follow the House rules and if we do not abide by these rules we must answer for it. There must, as the Leader of the House has pointed out, some decorum and dignity in the way we conduct ourselves in this House. We expect our citizens to follow the rule of law in this country so that others do not suffer from the consequences of bad behaviour. If this be so, surely Members of this House must not be allowed to get away with unsubstantiated utterances that may be injurious to people within this House or outside. The Leader of the House has pointed out that the present ruling in this House is inadequate to deal with this and it is precisely our inadequacy to deal with this that we are debating on this amendment. The degree of punishment for our citizens varies from a fine to a hanging. In other words, it varies with the nature of the offence. Likewise, the degree of penalties in this House must vary with the severity of the offence and this amendment seeks to do so.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Minister would allow refuse collection to be carried out in the way some shopping centres and condominiums are doing, Ayer Rajah is prepared to give it a try for six months. And if this is a success, then these dirty bin centres will be a thing of the past. And I shall come back to this House to request the Minister to close down some of these bin centres and convert them into RC Centres, Senior Citizens' Centres and community halls. I hope the Minister will allow me this chance to compare the cleaniness of the estate operated by the Ministry of the Environment and by the method to be adopted in Ayer Rajah.”
“I think it is in the region of $50,000 to $100,000, depending on its size and the time it takes to built. It is getting bigger because rubbish trucks are getting bigger. It is unsightly, smelly and, especially around markets, it is an eye-sore. Then there are rubbish chutes at HDB blocks, where collections are still done manually. At each collection there is a lot of spillage. Surely there must be a better and cleaner way of rubbish disposal. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is high time we looked into the possibility of mechanizing our refuse collection. I will ask the Clerk of Parliament to distribute some photostat pictures of what I intend to tell this House about this rubbish. [Copies of pictures distributed to hon. Members.] Yes, I see the Minister has got a copy of these photostat pictures. Mr Speaker, if you look at photograph A and compare it with photograph B, you will notice a remarkable difference. Photograph A shows what is being done now, and photograph B illustrates how it can be done in a very neat and tidy manner. Photograph C shows one of the ways in which collection of rubbish can be done in a proper way. You will notice that one method is clean and tidy while the other is unhygienic and a disgrace. I know this issue concerns also the Ministry of the Environment. But as HDB has allowed the Ministry of the Environment to handle this rubbish collection, surely HDB can advise MOE to upgrade the method of refuse collection. This is in line with our policy of mechanization. And if MOE is not able to do this because of cost or for other reasons, then HDB should allow someone else to do it, of course with no additional cost to the flat dwellers.”
“Sir, I move this amendment to thank the Minister for allowing free parking on Sundays and public holidays in Ayer Rajah. Almost four months have passed and the scheme has worked very well. Relatives and friends and my constituents are very happy about this scheme. 5.15 pm There was the initial fear that the scheme would be abused but this did not happen. My constituents helped to police the scheme by advising drivers who parked wrongly not to do so, and this method of persuasion apparently paid off. We do have our fair share of abuses but this did not amount to more than what had taken place before the scheme. I believe that Singaporeans are becoming more aware of the importance of social discipline. I hope the Minister would, therefore, like to consider extending this scheme to the rest of Singapore if this HDB pilot scheme proves successful. My reason for requesting this is to encourage more social interaction amongst our people. It is not to save Singaporeans a few cents in parking fees. If the Ministry is worried about abuse, then extending the scheme to all estates will overcome this fear. In fact, I was initially apprehensive when HDB allowed free parking only in my constituency because, by doing so, HDB has imposed upon my constituency the potential danger of abuse by residents of neighbouring constituencies. Fortunately, through the help of the HDB Area Office and my constituents, we managed to overcome this potential problem. We persuaded people not to abuse the privilege and advised residents that free parking is not tantamount to disorderly parking. I would, therefore, ask HDB to allow free parking on Sundays and public holidays throughout the island. Mr Speaker, Sir, rubbish bin centres in HDB estates cost a lot of money.”
“This cooperation was demonstrated at the highest level. It is now up to the civil servants of all levels to follow up on the initiative and develop a greater understanding of the private sector. The recurring theme at most of the feedback sessions is the inflexible attitude of our civil servants. A plea for more understanding of the private sector is a usual request after each session. To enhance the understanding of the private sector, I am making a suggestion. Perhaps the Government should consider recruiting civil servants at all levels from the private sector and not just for the basic levels. If we can make a Finance Minister out of a private individual, from the private sector, what is there to prevent the civil service from making similar appointments of Permanent Secretaries or Deputy Secretaries. Of course, this is a radical change. But if new directions are being charted for the economy, new styles of recruitment should not be looked upon as being too radical. What I have just said should apply equally to our dealings with the man-in-the-street. There must be greater understanding of the people's problems and needs and greater flexibility in discharging duties. Sir, rules are made to make life better, not more frustrating. Mr Speaker, Sir, the President's call for the people to cooperate and work together will be heeded by the people. I hope that the Government will make it easy for them to do it. 12.57 pm”
“In actual fact, the problem of drainage can be solved effectively by modifications of the terrain requiring minimal costs to the developer but because of an implacable bureaucracy, the developer finally gave up his original plan and decided to shelve the project.' To be able to exercise flexibility and to be confident that the flexibility is correctly exercised, the civil servants must be well versed with what is happening in the various sectors of the economy. Unfortunately, most of our civil servants enter the Government service straight after leaving school or university. Many never had a chance to work in the private sector environment. The appreciation of the nitty-gritty of industry can therefore be somewhat limited. But this limitation can be overcome with more consultation and open dialogue. There is a wealth of information and knowledge in the private sector on how we can improve our country waiting to be tapped by the civil servants. But I know that some civil servants are worried that the private sector people have a vested interest and hidden agenda, that they want to take the Government for a ride whenever they can. Of course, some of our businessmen are no angels but, by and large, our people are sincere and helpful. We know this from the feedback sessions at our constituencies and the Feedback Unit. The civil servants must realize that it is not a sin to have personal interest, to want to make profits. If we kill this desire, where will we find the people to take risks and seize opportunities? The Economic Committee comprises members from the Government, business and trade unions. Their ability to work smoothly together to chart new directions for our economy clearly shows that the Government and the people can work together.”
“I am sure many in this House and outside will thank him very much for this unexpected but most welcome gesture. While on the subject of flexibility, I learn from my hon. colleague, the Member for Kebun Baru, that there are as many as 8,000 unemployed households. If this is so, then we must request CPF to look into the matter of helping these people. We just cannot lock up their savings in the CPF when they have no money to buy the basic essentials or pay for utilities. Our present CPF ruling will not allow this but under such conditions we must be bold enough to make a change. Such flexibility in making and applying rules to suit people in different circumstances is needed not just from the economic-related ministries but from the whole Government. To set up a company and do business in Singapore, one has to contend with a whole lot of rules and regulations imposed by the ministries and departments. Each one has its peculiar requirements and sometimes they are not well coordinated. If this carries on, our private sector may be frustrated into giving up, not because of poor market or high cost but because of a rigid bureaucracy. I shall read to you a case which was brought to my attention at the Feedback Unit to illustrate the rigidity of our system. 'A local businessman has a piece of freehold land which he wants to develop into a housing estate. After submitting his plans to the various departments, he was asked to acquire an adjoining piece of Government land because of MOE drainage requirements. The problem is that the Government land is a 99-year leasehold while his is in perpetuity. Another point of discontent is that the Government is selling land for $80 per sq ft while the prevailing market rate for that area is in the region of $40 to $50 per sq ft.”
“In implementing the Economic Committee's recommendations, the administrators should not try to apply just one set of rules for everyone. There must be sufficient options given so that they can get more benefits from the new policies. Let me give you another example. Many of my colleagues have called for a reduction in the employee's CPF contribution by 5%. While this will be good for some, I do not think the reduction will appeal to all CPF account holders. Those who are heavily committed on mortgage repayments will find that a large portion of the 5% cannot be spent but instead will be used to pay for the housing loans. On top of that, the 5% that is released is taxable, as pointed out by the First Deputy Prime Minister. These people will be worse off. I therefore propose that instead of imposing a single rule to allow or disallow the reduction in employee's contribution, each account holder should be given a choice either to retain the current contribution rate or to reduce it by 5%. If at the end of the day, Mr Speaker, Sir, the worker decides to have a reduction in his CPF, then he has made his choice and must know full well the consequences of his choice. For those who have no housing loan to service, it would mean they have to pay tax on it and if they are wise, if they have no other commitments, it will be prudent to leave it in the CPF. The idea behind this proposal is not to pump more money into the economy but to allow flexibility in the use of the CPF. Lest I be accused of sugar-coating this issue, let me remind the House that the sweetener was given by the First Deputy Prime Minister when he allowed an across-the-board 25% rebate on personal income tax to the tune of $250 million.”
“They fear that all these new policies will ultimately be bogged down by red tape and regulations. The Government must therefore dispel these doubts quickly. It must demonstrate in no uncertain terms that, in asking the people to work with the Government, the Government will reciprocate by working closely with the people and by providing clear and consistent signals to guide them. The private sector is not asking the Government to guarantee them anything. However, they are going to look upon the Report by the Economic Committee as a guide to the likely scenarios for at least the next few years. To them the Report is an important one. The private sector will take the adoption of the recommendations in good faith. They will plan their investment and make their adjustments accordingly. It takes time before they can see results - time to react and time to earn a return. Therefore, once the Government has decided on a course of action, it should maintain consistency and avoid making sudden changes which will be unsettling for them unless, of course, the measures are not working, in which case, the people must be given clear information well in advance of the changes that are to take place. Consistency is important. Let me give you a down-to-earth example. A company took up the Government's call to set up a pre-fabrication plant in a special designated area. This was to be the future regulation for all future pre-fab work. He spent money, time and bought expensive equipment. Before long, he was surprised to find that pre-fab work was being done at work-sites outside the special area and with the approval of the authorities. Imagine the frustration and anger. It is this inconsistency that people are worried about and it seems to affect those who comply.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, after listening to the appeal of the Acting Minister for Trade and Industry to the people of Singapore to work hard and build a new Singapore, let me assure him that the people of Singapore, workers and businessmen alike, will certainly take heed of his message, the First Deputy Prime Minister's message and, of course, the President's message. But at the same time I sincerely hope that the Government will also take heed of the message. The Government too has a part to play in working together with the people. Let me explain what I mean. While the people have no doubts about the integrity and the noble objectives of the Government, there is still some worry about whether the Government will really feel comfortable to let the private sector take more initiative. For example, for years, the private sector has pleaded with the Government not to put up its own companies to compete with them in the local markets. Among other things, the private sector has argued that if we let them make profits Singapore will ultimately benefit as they are taxed 40% on the profits. However, during these years some private sector people have come to the conclusion that the Government's attitude is, "Why take only 40% of the profits when we can take 100%?" Therefore, the private sector is very sceptical of the Government's intention to privatize the many Government-owned companies. They think that only non-profitable ones will be sold. It is not surprising therefore when one of my community leaders doubted the call by the First Deputy Prime Minister that the Government welcomes all types of industries, high-technology or otherwise. "Will EDB allow this?" was his simple and straightforward reply. This concern and doubts are in the minds of many Singaporeans.”
“If I remember correctly, the Ministry of Labour, when announcing the Government's decision to raise the CPF ceiling, issued a statement to the effect that it was the Government's decision to raise the ceiling again next July to $7,000 to bring the private sector in line with the public sector. This was the only concern of the Government then. I think the Government should not have raised the CPF ceiling last July and I sincerely hope that it will not raise the ceiling again next July. The Government should not be concerned with this differential at this point.' Then he went on to talk about the SDF. Let me tell you that this letter is one of 51 letters written to the Feedback Unit concern ing the economic downturn. It is a fairly representative letter and I think this House should know. On SDF, he said: 'It is true that the Government has reduced the SDF rates from 4% to 2%. But I think the SDF should be suspended altogether until the economy picks up. I understand that we have some $400 million in the SDF. This is quite a sum. With the present economy, I think most companies are tightening their belts and are in no position to spend money on training, except in some very specialized and technical areas. The money we have in the SDF should be more than sufficient to provide grants to these few companies.When we have pulled ourselves out of this crisis in, say, two to three years' time, we can then think about re-introducing SDF.'”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to join this debate from a different angle. You have heard what Members of this House have said about the economy. Let me allow an ordinary Singaporean to join this debate by way of a letter written to the Feedback Unit. In this way, this House may have a better perception of the people on the ground, what they think of our economic downturn. I shall read his letter: 'Every citizen is concerned about the downturn in our economy. I know our government is doing its best to pull us out of this. I am confident that we will succeed. It has been identified that wage cost is one of the main reasons for our poor performance, while I agree with our Prime Minister that the answer to this high wage problem is in pay restraint and not pay cuts, I feel we should look carefully at the wage cost and see how we can reduce it. The Government should also try to reduce the cost of living for the people, a number of whom have been retrenched and are unable to find alternative employment just yet. For those who are still working, they must be tightening their belts as they will not know when retrenchment will hit them. I would like to raise the following points and I would be grateful if you would please pass them to the relevant authorities for their consideration. CPF I agree with the Prime Minister that we should not now reduce the CPF rate but we must at the same time not increase the contribution either. I think it was a mistake to raise the CPF ceiling from $5,000 to $6,000 last July. Perhaps at that time the Government did not thin.k that we should be doing this badly.”
“Point of clarification. It is to outside hospital care, not to hospitals.”
“Should we then not rush into production now and wait for the latest method of using genetic engineering, and thus not spend large sums of funds in the project which, I believe, is in the region of $18 million or even more? I have a report from the Far East Health, a medical bulletin, that Welcome Foundation has signed an agreement with Biogen providing for the marketing of Biogen's Hepatitis B vaccine in major world markets. Now, Biogen is a big pharmaceutical giant and they are experts in the development of pharmaceutical products through genetic engineering. Will our project which is plasma-based vaccine be able to compete with these cheaper and safer vaccines? In the light of this new generation technology, I would request the Ministry to reconsider the whole position and, in all probability, not undertake production of the plasma-based vaccine.”
“We have all the ingredients to provide Singaporeans with a first-class health care at reasonable cost if we adopt this strategy of shifting health cost for an expensive area, ie, hospitals, to a less expensive area of primary health care, ie, care outside hospitals. The tragedy is that each time I manage to convince a Health Minister, he is transferred out of the Ministry. However, let me assure the new Minister for Health and the new Minister of State for Health that I am a very patient man. Mr Speaker, Sir, the patient I mentioned earlier has no Medisave and his son also has no Medisave. I would, therefore, like to take this opportunity to find out the status of Medisave for the self-employed. How many are voluntarily contributing to Medisave? What is the status of extending Medisave to self-employed on compulsory basis? Are Medisave account and contri- bution adequate? How many have overdrawn on the accounts and how much overdrawn? Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have a few minutes left, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister to give a report on the status of our ASEAN project, the Hepatitis B vaccine. Current hepatitis vaccines are made from infected human plasma which has a potential complication of infection, and for which supplies are limited. I want to know whether the Government is going ahead with the manufacture of this plasma-based vaccine, and whether the Minister is aware that a breakthrough in the manufacture of this vaccine through genetic engineering has been accomplished. This would mean a drastic cut in the cost of production.”
“And this gap must be bridged if we want to avoid expensive care in the hospitals. And I am convinced that many patients who should be cared for outside hospitals are at present being looked after in our hospitals. It is not possible for me within these ten minutes to outline the whole programme of care in this area which I call "secondary health care" in the ten minutes given to me. I have sounded this out in my maiden speech in February 1981 (Hansard col. 109), expanded on it in March 1982 (Han sard col. 1560) and improved upon i during the Medisave debate. It is a lot o reading for the two new Ministers. So t be fair to them, allow me, Mr Speaker, t give them a gist of what I had in mind. I would like to see the upgrading of our outpatient clinics, especially our polyclinics, into secondary health centres with ample facilities for better investigation of patients, rehabilitation of orthopaedic and mental patients and geriatric care. Geriatric care is very important because our population is growing old and chronic illnesses associated with the old will be more evident. These facilities should be open to the private sector for use because they will save patient costs. This, together with the setting up of the community health teams and health education, will, in my opinion, provide higher standards of health care to patients outside hospitals. Mr Speaker, Sir, health education is important and we should make a concerted effort to teach Singaporeans about health. If his knowledge of health improves, he takes better care of himself and he will help the system by not overloading the health provisions. It is therefore my belief that we must tackle this area of health care if we want to bring the cost of health down. And I said it is not difficult.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am a general practitioner. I have no vested interest in what I want to discuss. I have before me a hospital bill of a heart patient. He stayed five days in a C Class ward in Alexandra Hospital and he paid a total of $128. He is an ex-farmer and he has no Medisave. The bill was paid by his son who has no Medisave. His son complained to me that his mother paid $50 two years ago for a similar five-day stay and expressed his fear that as both his parents are old and sickly, he would have difficulty paying the health bills in the coming years. Mr Speaker, Sir, I sympathize with this gentleman and I also worry for him because our subsidy on health is now only about 80% and this will be reduced to 50% in the years to come, if a subsidy of % cost him $128, his health bill would definitely be very much higher when the subsidy is reduced to 50%. What then is the answer? The answer, Mr Speaker, Sir, is better patient care outside hospitals. I brought this up before in the House but I think it is worth repeating. I am not impressed by the building of new hospitals because hospitals do not solve health problems. If you look at our Main Estimates on Health, you will note that approximately $274 million was allocated for general hospital services but a miserly sum of approximately $41 million was given to care of patients outside hospitals. Now, hospital care is expensive because patients need more attention and more service. Doctors in hospitals tend to order investigations more freely because they want the best for their patients, little realizing that every instruction is cost to the patient. I believe that there is a gap between care of patients at the general practitioner out-patient level and care of patients in hospital.”
“(1) That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead PA-01 Object Group 1100 of the Main Estimates.”
“Yes, I will be very brief. Sir, the Straits Times on the 24th January 1985, highlighted the news that Polytechnic students' fees would go up by about 20%. This resulted in a storm of protest from the Polytechnic students, and the Polytechnic Students' Union brought this matter up and they even condemned that the increase was unjustifiable, especially for the poorer students. They noted that in the 1984-85 academic term, there was already a rise in tuition fees by 20% as reported in the Straits Times. The students who enrolled in the 1984-85 academic term will suffer a 3-year consecutive drastic increment in the tuition fees. The Student Liaison Officer explained that the revision was necessary in order to reflect the increase in the recurrent training cost. My question is whether this increase in cost would mean that the students will be getting more and better quality lecturers and that the lecturer/student ratio will be decreased. Would the Minister like to explain?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to speak.”
“I do not think we have much hope for them. I have brought up these two important issues before as these are deviations from the policy and, especially as the Minister for Education is new, I make no apologies for repeating it. Many other points have been raised by Members of this House, especially with regard to priority of schooling for graduate mothers, and I will not go into it because of time constraint. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I asked a very good and concerned school principal what he thought was a positive aspect of streaming. He told me that with streaming all, if not most, pupils are in school. Before streaming, students left school without proper guidance and direction, but after streaming, the school knew exactly what happened to every child, and this is good because there would be less social problems in future. Mr Speaker, Sir, if my colleagues and I are prepared to applaud the Ministry for the positive aspects of the new education system, surely the Ministry must be prepared to listen more, be more flexible in its implementation, and be prepared to rectify the defects of the new education system.”
“The fact that they have been streamed to the Extended and Monolingual is already a blow to many parents. And to further disadvantage them by moving them to new surroundings in the new school is too much for these harassed parents and also for the students. Mr Speaker, the question of double weightage given to languages has been the bone of contention of many debates in this House and outside this House. This is a serious defect in the streaming because of the distortion it can cause. I know of a few cases of children streamed into the Normal course, after the PSLE, because of weakness in one of the languages. We must not stream children based on the strength of the languages but on ability. I hope the Minister will look into this when they review the policy. Another very equally important negative aspect of streaming has been pointed out by my colleague, the Member for Moulmein, and this is with regard to the Normal course. This course, as you all know, is meant for the weaker students. It is stated in the Goh Keng Swee Report that this particular group of students should be able to do the GCE in five years, instead of the present four years. However, in implementing this policy, this has not been carried out. The Normal course students have not been given the opportunity to do the GCE in five years. And, moreover, it was reported in the press and never denied by the Ministry, that the Normal course students were not adequately prepared to do the GCE. Can you imagine Normal course students being taught only 60% of the syllabus in four years and leaving them to do 40% of the syllabus in the last year? This is very, very impossible, because if these students are already weak, I cannot understand how they can cope within one year 40% of the syllabus.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I move this amendment because I want the opportunity to request the Ministry of Education to consider the following suggestions in its review of the new education policy. Like the Member for Moulmein, I agree with him that we should consider streaming our students at Primary 3 into two streams, the Normal and the Extended, rather than the present system of streaming students into Normal, Extended and Monolingual. If we stream students into the Normal and Extended only, both streams of students will have equal opportunities to do the PSLE, the Normal students in six years and the Extended students in eight years. By streaming students at Primary 3 to Normal and Extended there is hope for some of those who would otherwise be streamed into the Monolingual, under the present system, to have a go at the PSLE in eight years' time. Now this is because some of the Monolinguals come from disadvantaged backgrounds, like poor home environment, broken homes and a dialect-speaking environment. And this would also cater for the slow learners. In connection with streaming at Primary 3, I would like to draw the Minister's attention to a problem that has cropped up with a change of schools for children streamed into Monolingual and Extended. The Minister and the Minister of State for Education must have come across during their Meet-the-People sessions, parents frantically requesting that their children be allowed to remain in the old school. Can you imagine the dilemma of the parents, the trauma on the minds of these young children, aged nine or 10 at the most, who have to move out to a new school, to new surroundings, new environment, and to be dislocated from their friends?”