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 22 of 22.
“'The Director of Research and Testing Division blamed the poor performance in science on the manner in which teachers drill their students to answer PSLE questions. We are reaching a stage where students are drilled in certain skills so that they can answer on cue and pick the right answers taught in class. She went on to explain that in a badly set multiple-choice question in which four answers are given, the bright student knows that all four answers can be right. But a student drilled to answer such questions will automatically pick the answer the teacher wants. Supporting her, the Director of Education said that students are trained to answer PSLE questions from the first day they enter Primary 6 - instead of learning for a whole year.' What puzzles me is that these Ministry of Education officials seem to know the reasons why the students do not do well, and they are the people in charge. They know it, but why do they allow it to continue? I hope the Minister will take corrective measures to ensure that this does not happen.”
“I will refer Members to Topic 2. This topic discusses Vegetative Propagation. I wonder how many of us know the meaning of these words Vegetative Propagation. In this one lesson introducing one particular concept, there are listed so many ways of doing it. There are the detailed references of each method, and on top of this the students have to remember all the scientific words - if Members will bear with me I will read them out. Apart from the term "Vegetative Propagation", you have rhizomes, corms, tubers, bulbs, suckers, runners, cocoyams, gladiolus and crocus. I think there must be about 40 such new words for the poor Science student to master just for this particular topic. They cover eight topics in this book. There is so much detail in just one chapter and the teacher has to make sure the students master these scientific terms and languages to do well in PSLE. No wonder the teacher hag no time to do the simple act, for example, of planting a ginger or potato. I take these two examples because it is related to these bulbs and corms, which would form a most vivid and lasting impression on the students. Are the Ministry of Education officials aware that the whole system of Science teaching in our schools would not have achieved its purpose, which is to produce an observant person? But Mr Speaker, Sir, can they bear to throw out all these painstaking details which they have befuddled so many a PSLE student? My contention is that Science as being taught in our schools suffers from a flood of factual details, and from a famine of scientific practice, the bas's of which is observing, recording and deducing. Let me refer Members to the Sunday Times, 14th March, 1982. Let me read this report and the Education Ministry's reason for the poor performance in Science.”
“Thank you, Sir. Sir, while I share the Minister of State of Education's concern over the high failure rates in Mathematics and Science in last year's PSLE, I would like to sound a warning that while we should be concerned we should not over-react, lest in trying to correct this we might detract from our bilingual policy. How far has bilingual education succeeded? Judging from last year's PSLE results, we can conclude that the Ministry of Education has scored a success in this direction. Sir, I believe that one of the chief aims of primary education should be devoted to the teaching and learning of languages. If a child has mastered the languages, then it will put him in a better position when he is in secondary school to learn the sciences and the other subjects. The child must be able to comprehend what he is reading, and this is a basic and essential component to learning. This ability to comprehend is tied up with knowing and mastering the languages. Therefore, when I read the Sunday Times headlined "Dismal show in science and maths by PSLE students" and the comments by the Minister of State of Education that the problems of teaching and learning Mathematics should be discussed at the next Schools Council meeting, I conclude that corrective measures would be taken to check this trend. I have, therefore, taken this opportunity to caution the Ministry not to over-correct as to slow down the learning and studying of the languages. On the other hand, I hope the Ministry of Education will examine the contents and the teaching of Science and Mathematics. Mr Speaker, Sir, if there is anything wrong with the PSLE Science results, I place the onus squarely on the Ministry of Education. Look at this [indicating]. This is a Primary 5 Science textbook for 10-year old students.”
“May I be allowed to join in this debate, Sir?”
“" Since then, Members of this House have fought this issue on two grounds, the quantum of relief and the conditions for relief. In the 1974 Budget Statement the sum was increased to $750 after repeated calls by Members of this House. And finally, in this Budget Statement the quantum has been increased to $1,000. With regard to the condition that the taxpayer must be staying with the parents to enjoy this tax relief, a case can be made out for the taxpayer who stays on the same floor with the parents, but not sharing the same address. This is possible because during resettlement large families are housed close to each other in the same block. The parents may be staying next door to their son who is a taxpayer. Can he get tax exemption if he is the chief provider for his parents? Sir, the tax relief on CPF contributions and its benefits to the taxpayer need no elaboration. Once again, I would like this House to note that these concessions given by the Minister for Trade and Industry were made, I am sure, after considering the many pleas by Members of this House over a long time. I could continue to quote from the Hansard to prove my point, similar to my earlier discourse on the PUB tax and estate duty. The point is that PAP MPs and this Government do care and are fully aware of the needs of the people and that these tax concessions are won by the sheer persistence of the caring PAP MPs over the years. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion. 7.03 p.m.”
“' This tax concession was, however, offsetted by the increase in PUB charges, and members of the public and MPs were particularly vociferous in the call for the abolition of the Government tax on PUB bills. This call was last made in Parliament by the Member for Alexandra during last year's Budget debate when he maintained that this tax was an unnecessary burden on consumers, even more so with the new rates. This year's announcement that Singaporeans would enjoy lower PUB bills because fixed charges on PUB bills such as sanitary appliance fee, domestic refuse charge, rental for appliances and nightsoil removal fee, will no longer be included in the computation of the 10% tax is only a small concession but nevertheless it is a start for more concessions in the future. Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall now turn the attention of this House to the tax relief for aged parents. As far back as 16th March 1972, the Member for Delta appealed for tax concessions, and this is what he said [Hansard, Vol. 31, No. 10, col. 607]: 'I hope the Minister will consider providing tax reliefs for taxpayers who maintain their parents, At the moment there is tax relief for the taxpayer's wife and children. Since we are going to increase the remission of income tax from $100 to $300 per annum for expenditure on maintenance of gardens, I hope that at the proper time the Government will also allow taxpayers a certain relief for the maintenance of their parents.' In 1973, in the annual Budget Statement, the Minister for Finance agreed and granted tax relief of $300 per parent but stipulated that the parents must stay with the taxpayer citing that "the Asian concept of the extended family is of a family living together.”
“It was therefore not surprising that, in the annual Budget Statement in February, 1978, the Minister for Finance made the following announcement on 27th February 1978 [Hansard, Vol. 37, No. 7, col. 422]: 'One concession which I propose to give to consumers is by the abolition of the 5% tax on PUB bills which is now effective for consumption levels between $35 and $50 per month. With effect from 1st April, only consumption levels of $50 and above will be subjected to tax at the same rate as before, of 10%. The revenue loss is estimated at $5 million.' Of course, the Member for Anson at that time in 1978 was among the first to shower the Minister for Finance with praises saying [col. 652]: 'This is also a timely gesture to the majority of the low-consumption consumers whose bills are within that range. This gesture will also help other consumers to be thrifty in the use of utilities so as to avoid paying the 10% tax on bills which are above $50!' He was supported by other Backbenchers, including the Member for Boon Teck who said in that same debate [col. 681]: 'it has been another major concession in this Budget Statement for the Finance Minister's decision to scrap the 5% tax on PUB bills of between $35 and $50. I am glad that this Government is not oblivious to the voice of its people through their representatives in Parliament. This is a popular move because there is an actual savings of about $2 per household per month. I am happy that the merits of the abolition of this tax will no doubt provide an added incentive for Singaporeans to save water and to conserve energy.”
“If $600,000 proves to be inadequate because of escalating property prices, we can always look into the possibility of upping the exemption ceiling.' Then this year the Minister for Trade and Industry agreed to the repeated requests and granted the exemption from estate duty for one house. And this was after the perseverance, persistence and dogged effort on the part of my senior colleagues in this House. Let it be made known that this concession and the other tax concessions which I will be touching on later are given not because of the presence of an Opposition Member. I would like to draw the attention of this House to the repeated pleas of the Backbenchers over a 10-year period or more and how, bit by bit, tax concessions on estate duty were given because this Government is manned by pragmatic and reasonable people. Let me illustrate further. I shall touch on PUB tax, a very common man's concern. Mr Speaker, Sir, the question of tax on PUB bills was brought up in this House way back in 1971 when the Member for Whampoa on the 30th July 1971 during the debate on the President's Speech [Hansard, Vol. 31, No. 2, col. 85] said that: 'Certain taxes are inherently regressive, that is, they bear on people who can least afford them. I am concerned about the incidence of such taxes as taxes on PUB bills, for example. Although the tax is graduated with a higher tax on bigger bills, poor people with large families, and therefore using more utilities, are adversely affected.' Between 1971 and 1977, many MPs showed concern about the PUB taxes and rising PUB bills. The Minister for Finance rebuffed the arguments and said that the tax on PUB bills would be reviewed from time to time.”
“In 1972, the Minister for Finance in his annual Budget Statement allowed for remission from estate duty on estates between $10,000 and $25,000, and you must listen to his reason. In Hansard, Vol. 31, No. 9, col. 537, he said: 'This will ensure that poor beneficiaries inheriting small estates do not suffer by having to sell or mortgage their modest dwellings and possessions on the death of the breadwinner.' Then in 1974, after repeated appeals by Members of Parliament, the Minister for Finance raised the exemption and made remission limits on estate duty in respect of one owner-occupied family house but rejected the call for exemption on one house when, in a reply to a Backbencher in Hansard, Vol. 33, No. 1, col. 71, he said: 'Such an exemption would benefit the wealthy more than others and result in discrimination against other forms of assets like shares, deposits and life insurance policies.' He went on to say: 'The proposal will give full relief to people in the lower income group living in all, even the largest, HDB flats, who form about 40% of the population. The people in the middle income group living in owner- occupied terrace, semi-detached and even detached houses will have the burden of estate duty considerably reduced.' The exemption on one house for estate duty was again rejected by the then Minister for Trade and Industry last year, when he said: [Hansard, Vol. 40, No. 8, col. 771]. 'I would think that the proposal would be inequitable because, what is a house? There are houses which are worth a couple of million dollars and there are houses which are worth $700,000 or $800,000, and others very much less. A more equitable basis is what we have done - to set a quantitative ceiling on exemption.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, last year at the annual Budget Statement debate, the Member for Punggol in his discourse on estate duties called for a change in the ruling on estate duties. I quote Hansard of 17th March 1981, Vol. 40, No. 7, col. 740: 'I think it is time we changed the rules and, if I may be allowed to suggest, we should consider granting exemption of estate duty to a single residential property or a family house. In other words, if the owner of a residential property has only one such property, then upon his untimely demise his family will not be displaced just because his property is valued to be in excess of $600,000 or whatever figures set down.' Then, together with the Members for Telok Blangah, Henderson and Changi, he went on to discuss pensions and tax reliefs for maintenance of aged parents. He said: 'I believe that repetition of appeals can help to drive home to the Minister the importance of these issues and cause him to re-think, and hopefully touch some soft spot in him which I am sure he is not without any, because he must also realize that it is only a matter of time before he himself would be a pensioner and an aged parent.' With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to go into the Hansards over the past 10 years. On tax matters, let me illustrate how diligently our senior Members of Parliament in this House have fought and finally touched the soft spot of the current Minister for Trade and Industry who finally agreed to the request on tax concession on estate duties, PUB bills, relief for aged parents and tax relief on CPF contributions and pension concessions. Let me take the subject of estate duty which has been debated in this House for a long time.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. Minister for Trade and Industry has presented a "breather budget" to quote the Straits Times of 6th March 1982. It further reported that while cautioning the economic dangers facing the Republic, he still had some good cheer to spread around. Very few can quarrel with this budget. Nevertheless, I would like this House to share with me and, in particular, the Member for Anson, a few observations on how the various tax concessions were asked and fought for by my caring senior MPs and perhaps drive home the point that this Government did not start caring from 1976 but as early as 1959. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!”
“Sir, I asked a very simple question but I got a very complicated answer, Is the Minister of State for Culture aware that he has given the Members of Parliament an option, and may I ask whether this option can be extended to others?”
“My question is whether the Ministry of Education has taken into account the family planning policy of our nation. The Minister of State has said that the Ministry of Education has not made any promise to the people of Singapore on this priority. Can the Minister of State of Education clarify this point for this House?”
“Sir, if you stop me at this stage, it is not very fair. I think I must continue further.”
“Thank you very much. These policies were further intensified in 1972. These include, among others, higher priority for choice primary schools for children, one of whose parents has been sterilized after one or two children. I ask, higher priority over whom? Obviously it must be over those who are not sterilized. In line with our national policy in 1975, a total of 9,495 women were sterilized. 16% of those who ligated did so after one or two children, Why did I choose 1975? I chose 1975 because children born then will be going to school now. 16% works out to 1,520. These 1,520 mothers made a bold decision. They underwent an operative procedure and not without its hazards of surgery and anaesthesia, only to realize six years later that what they were promised in 1975 did not materialize to their expectation in 1981. They may have other reasons for sterilization but one of their considerations is priority over those not sterilized after two or three children. This is the policy of our family planning. Unless the Ministry of Education thinks otherwise, I feel very sorry for the Family Planning Board and I am wondering how are they going to explain to the people in future. The First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Point of order, Sir. Is the hon. Member delivering a speech or asking a supplementary question?”
“Sir, I think I need to explain before I come to the supplementary question. I think you must allow me to continue, Sir.”
“Yes. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to draw the attention of this House to the Family Planning and Population Board which was established by an Act of Parliament and inaugurated in January 1966. I refer you to the Family Planning Board Paper 45 and the Family Planning Board Paper 52.1. I would also like to draw the attention of the House to a set of social policies introduced in 1969-70.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before I ask my supplementary question, I would just like to enlighten the House on the family planning programme of our nation.”
“I have written a letter to the Ministry and I request early action on this matter. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Port of Singapore Authority has given notice to its employees to quit their houses in which they have lived for a long time. Some of the PSA workers are foreigners and they are doubtful whether they are eligible for HDB flats. Since it is not possible for them to look for their own accommodation, this housing problem is causing them great anxiety. Therefore, the Minister in charge must help these people to obtain HDB flats. I would also request the Minister to persuade the PSA to assist these people in their re-housing needs because they have worked for a long period of time. Sir, the HDB has been praised for its expeditious and efficient management by experienced and able personnel. However, the Minister for National Development who is endowed with good administrative skills should protect the lower income group who may not be able to purchase HDB flats in the future. I implore that steps be taken to prevent a situation where only the rich enjoys all the benefits. Even the poor should be given the opportunity to buy flats. Therefore, I support the views expressed by the Member for Punggol and others here to-day. 4.36 p.m.”
“Jabbar (Radin Mas)( In Tamil): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this topic. I wish to bring the following to the attention of the Minister concerned. A great number of Singaporeans who have registered for HDB flats are now in a quandary. Those in the lower income group find it difficult to meet from their salaries the daily expenses, expenditure on the education of their children, and their family needs. People who had previously lived in the kampongs are inconvenienced when they are resettled or when they obtain a new HDB flat. Singaporeans who have registered for flats have to wait for up to three years to obtain their flats. These people have to pay a substantial sum as deposit. In order to alleviate the problems faced by these people, may I request the Minister to consider allowing these people to pay their deposit in instalments during the waiting period of three years. In this way, those in the lower income group and who do not have any funds in the CPF will benefit. People who have been occupying rented flats for a long period have been distressed by the announcement of the Minister for National Development that the price of HDB flats will be increased annually. These people wish to purchase the flats in which they live. If this suggestion is implemented, those residing in rented flats will not be disturbed any more and it will help the respective MP of the constituency to give his best service to the people. For example, when I visited my constituents, those living in rented flats told me that they wished to purchase their rented flats and requested me to do the needful. When questioned, they told me that being in the lower income group they were unable to buy flats at a higher price.”
“They must comply with a series of do's and don't's and in addition they will have to pay a $230 monthly levy per worker in lieu of contributions that contractors and foreign workers will have to pay to the CPF. When the Labour Ministry was asked why there was this levy, the answer was, and I quote from Straits Times, 27th March, 1981: 'The aim of the levy is to encourage contractors to improve the existing conditions and wages to attract more local workers.' We have clearly failed in our attempt to attract Singaporeans into the building industry. Perhaps it is time we faced up to the fact rather than impose all sorts of restrictions and disincentives which will endanger the whole construction industry, We must avoid the attempt to push Singaporeans into the construction work at the expense of the construction industry. Let us be more flexible in our ruling with regard to foreign workers, traditional or non-traditional, and carry on with the past good work of the HDB. While we must ensure that foreign workers coming to Singapore are not exploited, we must also not place too many obstacles in the way of those who need them. Perhaps we should go back to the original method of allowing our traditional workers the usual block permits and remove this $230 levy on foreign workers from non-traditional sources. In the meantime, the move to mechanize the building industry must be encouraged. Perhaps when the Singaporean sees that houses can be built without those fright- ening scaffoldings and that machines can help to build houses, they might join the construction trade. Till then, we have no choice but to depend more on foreign workers to build most of our homes. 4.31 p.m. Mr M.K.A.”
“This move helps to make up the minds of many traditional foreign workers to return to their homeland, instead of contributing incessantly to the CPF Board for which they see no advantage, Therefore, the original aim to attract more foreign workers into the labour-hungry industry, has backfired with such moves. In fact, I quote the Minister for National Development as saying, during a tour of Block 41 Sims Drive, that it would be unfair to deduct CPF from the wages of foreign workers as this would force them to leave. [Straits Times, Monday, 10th November 1980]. With the uncertainty of the labour workforce, coupled with inflation, shortage of materials, and short delivery, it is no wonder that the construction costs have gone up, and so has the price of HDB flats. The CPF contributions required of contractors will have caused a number of contractors to go bankrupt if they comply, as the contract secured from the Government did not include any provision for CPF payment for foreign workers. The Ministry of National Development came to the rescue of these contractors, promising to pay $50 million as compensation to contractors and block permit holders working on public sector projects tendered before 4th August. Although half the sum went to those working on HDB projects, I have a hunch that this sum lost has also contributed to the rising price of the present HDB flats. Am I correct, Mr Minister? Having lost our traditional ground of foreign workers because of our CPF move, contractors were asked to try their luck in non-traditional sources, like Thailand, Sri Lanka, India, Indonesia and the Philippines.”
“Sir, in deliberating this debate on the increase in prices of HDB flats, I was tempted to put the blame on the Ministry of National Development, but on further consideration I find that the Ministry of Labour, the Immigration Department and, in particular, the CPF Board, all have a finger in this. Perhaps it is our attempt to persuade Singaporeans into the building industry that started this chain of events. To encourage Singaporeans into the construction trade, the latter was brought into line with that of the other industries. This means that the building trade will be treated like the other sectors, and that the contractor has to contribute CPF and so has the worker, irrespective of whether he is a local or a foreigner. In the past, block permit holders pay only $10 application fee, and this amount was usually borne by the sub-contractor. With the introduction of the new CPF ruling on 1st January, contractors have to pay CPF contributions in two phases. Under phase 1, con- tractors have to contribute 10% of the worker's salary, while the worker pays 9%. In practice, the contractor pays the whole 19%. Under phase 11 in July 1981, employers will have to contribute 20% and workers 18.5%. This time the contractors have decided not to pay the workers' share, as the sum involved is very large. The workers, on the other hand, not being Singaporeans, see no reason to contribute to a fund that benefits them very little. They cannot use it to buy SBS shares or HDB flats. Moreover, they are here on a temporary basis.”
“The fact that 88% of this group opted for the Express stream confirms my fears that parents make this choice not out of a realistic appraisal of the child's ability but on the social implications of labelling. As for teachers, being human, they form pre-set attitudes on students, and this will affect their teaching. Later on in life, their employment will depend on the type of label they carry. Finally, adolescent kids receiving unfavourable labels will have intra-personal and inter-personal conflicts. They may react with shame, resentment and even hostility. Children who are tagged Normal or Monolingual may become withdrawn and refuse to interact with those more superior around them because they have an inferiority complex due to this tag. I appeal to the First Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Education to consider my observation, and I am sure many in this House and outside look forward to a favourable reply. I am not asking for an answer now. It will not be fair. I am hoping that the Minister will put this on the agenda of the next Schools Council meeting, i.e. dropping the use of such labels as Monolingual, Normal, Express and Special.”
“Reads newspapers. Goes to movies. Average height. Cracks jokes. For one group, however, the word "intelligent" was included. The first group had no difficulty in describing the factory worker. The second group, however, where the word "intelligent" was included, had difficulty to form a unified impression of the person because of the term "intelligent", as it was inconsistent with their view of the factory worker. This is how they described the factory worker: He is intelligent but not so much since he works in a factory. Or, he is intelligent but does not possess the initiative to rise above this group. We can. see from this example how this group has used various manoeuvres to maintain their previous attitude of what a factory worker should be like. What have we learned from this? Sir, the practical lesson from this is that in everyday life we can come to conclusions about people on the basis of very few hard facts, simply on labels like Normal, Express and Special. I fear that we are going to have stereotype views of the Special, Express, Normal and Monolingual. For example, Special and Express equals good and intelligent. For Monolinguals, they are already relegated to be bus drivers and factory workers. What are our social side effects? I have illustrated earlier how this has resulted in parents reacting with anxiety and concern and how they wanted their children to change schools. A fear of receiving the unfavourable label has resulted in parents pressuring their children to study, preferably with tuition. 5.45 p.m. Sir, in the last PSLE examinations those in the borderline pass group of 40 to 49% were given the option to choose either the Express or Normal stream.”
“Sir, thank you for allowing me to register some of my views on education today. The primary cause of all this anxiety about the education policy, in my opinion, is the labelling of our children as Monolingual, Normal, Express and Special. At the meet-the-people session, a parent insisted that I should help him to transfer his child out to a so-called better primary school because he feared that the present school in which the child was studying would not be able to prepare him well enough for the Primary 3 examination. The record of this case is with the Ministry. This case illustrates parental concern and anxiety associated with the fear of being labelled unfavourably. Likewise, when two good neighbours stopped talking to each other because their children went to different streams, one Express and the other Normal, I am again driven to question whether the Ministry of Education has taken into account the social side effects of the education policy. When I asked a parent which school his son was studying his reply was, "Express School". He did not even mention the name of the school. There is no such thing as an "Express School". The Express label is a good and prestigious label, just like the Mercedes Benz. What about the Special students? He is a cut above the others, a superior breed. This brings me to the question of attitudes and prejudices that will develop among our future population. Sir, these words - Normal, Express and Special - are stimulus words. Psychologists will tell us that the original stimulus words will initiate an attitude which will colour whatever impressions that one may have of that person. Let me illustrate. Two groups of American subjects were asked to describe the factory worker based on the following descriptions: Works in a factory.”
“Sir, allow me to make a point of clarification. The Minister for Health has stated that the powder form of ampicillin dissolved in sugar water can only last for three days under room temperature. I agree with him. But if we put it in a refrigerator, it can last for at least a week. I just want to point this out to the House.”
“Sir, the Minister mentioned that the Ministry of Communications held back the bus hike in February. There must be good reasons for doing so. What convincing arguments did SBS put forward later to change his mind?”
“Sir, I hope the principle of mixing applies equally well to our schools. The Minister has brushed aside the HUDC question by appealing to the emotions of the Members of this House when he puts the question: who gets preference, the single person or a family? While I agree that consideration must be given to families, the point here is that a number of principles have been violated in this HUDC issue. First is the question of contractual agreement between the buyer and the HUDC. I think this principle has already been violated. There is also the violation of the principle of orderly queueing. Let us practise what we preach. If NUS needs housing, for example, let them start building their own. Do not just pinch. Then there is the question of inconsistency in policy. Lastly, and this is very important, there is also the question of credibility.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on hearing the Member for Alexandra airing his anger and frustration at the policy of the HUDC, I have decided to ask this question now instead of by way of an Oral Question to the Minister for National Development. I would like to ask the Minister what was the basic objective of setting up the HUDC, and whether the basic rules of the company have been undermined when it recently allowed itself to be used as a panacea for solving personnel management problems among the various public institutions and services to the extent of allowing queue jumping. Can he enlighten the House on the purpose of the continued existence of the company?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Punggol, in his long talk, has forgotten that the Minister of Defence has not answered one of his questions, and that is, how will national service be affected by the streaming of students.”
“If the Minister of Education were to group children of very high intellect into special schools where they only play and work together, could the Minister let me know whether they would be able to relate themselves to the less academically endowed children?”
“Sir, can the Ministry assure me that they have taken steps to monitor the effects of streaming on children into special environments? Would not these highly intelligent children branch into special schools, where they play and study together, develop attitudes and prejudices peculiar to their group? Would they be able to relate to the other less academically endowed children?”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $7,603,840 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Second Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1980 to 31st March, 1981. Question, "The sum of $14,222.890 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Second Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1980 to 31st March, 1981 contained in Paper Cmd. 8 of 1981 ". put and agreed to. Resolution to be reported. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.”
“Extension of OPD' hours will impose too great a burden on the Ministry in terms of operational cost and personnel. I would suggest to the Minister to request the cooperation of the private hospitals to have an A & E unit in their hospitals, if they do not have one at the moment. The reasons for requesting private hospitals to have their own A & E unit are as follows. First, they will take some of the load off the A & E units in public general hospitals. Secondly, it will make medical attention more readily available at night, as these private hospitals are quite conveniently located. Mr Speaker, Sir, however, I do know of cases of abuse. Examples have been quoted to me by a doctor working in the A & E unit. For instance, many of those who are entitled to free treatment at Government clinics prefer to go to the A & E unit at night for treatment when they should have gone to the OPD during the day time. One reason given is that the waiting time at the A & E unit is much shorter than the waiting time at the OPD. I would regard such attendances as abuse but to raise the A & E charges will not stop them because they do not have to pay for it anyway. Raising charges will penalise the genuine patient and indirectly help these abusers. How many of the so-called non-emergency cases are contributed by this group of abusers? I would request that the Ministry look into this matter. Let us not penalise the majority for the wrongs of the minority.”
“Diarrhoea, high fever, vomiting, stomach cramps and many other symptoms are regarded as emergencies by the layman. Many such symptoms can be treated as non-emergencies but only after the doctor has ruled out heart attack, appendicitis, meningitis or severe food poisoning. Mr Speaker, Sir, do we penalise a man for his ignorance? Would any person, thinking of saving his own life or easing his pain, be deterred by $10 or $20, or even $50? Should we make more money out of him just because he does not know better and has no one else to turn to in the dark of night? Which Singaporean would want to give up watching those compelling Chinese shows on TV, and go and wait for hours in the Emergency unit to see a harassed doctor for a dose of medicine if he did not think his life was being threatened? Besides the $10 charge, please add another $10 for return taxi fare. Mr Speaker, Sir, has the Ministry examined deeper into its figures to see if attendances rise after 5.00 p.m. when OPDs are closed, and after 9.00 p.m. when all private clinics are closed? If the bulk of attendances comes after 5.00 p.m. (and still more after 9.00 p.m.), it reflects a need for such A & E services. Raising charges will in no way deter them. If the Ministry wants to unclog the A & E departments, then it must look for other ways. As a long term solution, I suggest education of the public on how to use the A & E unit. This could be effectively done by the Training and Health Education Department of the Ministry of Health which in the past has produced excellent brochures on various health aspects. Apart from the press and TV, our RCs and CCCs can help to disseminate this message to the lay public.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead PC-03 Object Group 1410. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg your indulgence as to why $78,500 in additional allowance is required when Accident and Emergency charges are already so high at $10 which is higher than what most general practitioners charge. Sir, at the last Parliamentary sitting the Minister for Trade and Industry and Minister for Health hinted at the possibility of raising the A & E charges. The reason given was to discourage attendances at A & E by so-called 'non-emergency' cases. Like all good, systematic, hard-headed analysts, our Health Ministry officials took attendances at A & E units, divided them up into emergency and non-emergency cases, put one figure upon the other and came out with an attendance of 46% non-emergencies. And what better way to cut attendance and maintain income than by raising charges - the perfect solution. If the Health Ministry has valid reasons for increasing the A & E charges - like the increased petrol prices, wages, building costs, etc - let them come out and say so. But if their purpose is to stem abuse, they will fail again. Let us examine this so-called 'non-emergency' cases closely. Are the criteria for non-emergency cases based on the doctor's opinion after examination? Or are they based on the layman's perception of what is emergency? Obviously they have based it on the doctor's, but this is inadequate because the layman has not got the benefit of medical training and his perception will not coincide with the doctor's. How is he to determine what is emergency? To him a chest pain may indicate a heart attack, but it may be just bad indigestion.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, would you allow me to clarify three points made by the Minister for Health? The first point is that he said that if the OPD doctors were to refer patients direct to the specialist clinics at the hospital, the specialist clinics would be clogged up. How can a specialist clinic be clogged up when the cases ultimately seen at these clinics irrespective of whether they are referred by the GP direct or indirect by the OPD doctor are the same? The second point is that I did not say that the lack of career development is the main cause why doctors resign. I did list out a number of other causes. Career development, I agree, is planned only for the specialists in the hospital but there is yet no career development plan for the medical officers and this is the point that I want to clarify.”
“Three years' Specialization or Vocational Training Programme If he opts to specialize, then he joins the specialization scheme where he undergoes a three-year intensive posting on the speciality of his choice leading to the degree of Master of Medicine (M. Med.) He becomes a senior registrar if he passes his Master of Medicine and, together with this accelerated promotion, he gets a pay increment plus specialist allowance. He has the chance to be a consultant and head of the unit. For those who have gone through the training but for one reason or other not the examination, there is still an alternative career mapped out. Without the accelerated increment and specialist allowance, he can still be a registrar and even a senior registrar. In a similar vein those who opt out of the specialization scheme could go through a three-year period of vocational training programme designed for the Member of the College of General Practitioners (M.C.G.P.) examination or its equivalent and follows similar career patterns as those in the specialization programme. While I will admit that there may be flaws in the above system, I would like the Ministry of Health to look into this Career Development Plan in greater detail. There are many advantages of such a system. (1) A career has been mapped out for the doctor. (2) There is optimization of available talent leading to better deployment of manpower. (3) Morale booster. (4) Manpower shortage relief. (5) The final product is better because at the end of the five years' training he will be a more rounded doctor. 5.27 p.m.”
“However, for the polyclinic to succeed in its upgrading programme, there must be enough manpower and it must not incur additional financial burden to the Ministry. Opening the lab and X-ray facilities to the general practitioners at a reasonable cost will help to generate revenue for the clinic. The question of manpower invariably brings to mind the many reasons why doctors resigned from the government service. While reasons like poor pay, overwork, lack of fringe benefits, unsatisfactory working conditions and unreasonable heads of units have been cited, I am of the opinion that one of the fundamental causes of job dissatisfaction in the Ministry of Health is a lack of career advancement and the Government medical officer is a victim of this oversight on the part of the Ministry. For the majority of medical officers who have no preference for specialization, there is no alternative avenue for furtherance of their career. With no hope of being registrars or senior registrars, their only alternative is to leave for the private sector. The Ministry should, therefore, devise a career development programme for doctors from the time he enters the service as a house officer. Career Development Scheme for Doctors Two Years' Compulsory Posting On completion of his housemanship, the young intern goes through a two-year compulsory rotating posting, the details of which can be worked out. Manpower Development and Personnel Unit After his two years' compulsory posting, he will then be able to decide what type of career he wants to choose. To assist him, the Ministry should set up a Manpower Development and Personnel Unit to advise him on the state of the various departments, its scope and opportunities, including scholarships available.”
“By developing a system of open policy for lab/X-ray services to general practitioners the patient can benefit from not having to make an extra trip to the hospital, and having to pay less than if he were to use private facilities. Each polyclinic can be developed into a regional lab and X-ray centre for general practitioners in the OPD's catchment area. The advantages are: (a) Convenience for patients and general practitioners who hitherto have either to refer them to hospitals direct, via the OPD, or send them to private labs and X-ray facilities which may be, again, far away and also expensive. (b) It will also generate revenue for the polyclinic. Processing Centre for General Practitioners for Secondary Health Care Problems The polyclinic can be the processing centre for general practitioners for secondary health care problems that can be handled on an outpatient basis where the general practitioners cannot handle because of lack of equipment, lack of time or lack of skill. This includes cases like: Investigation of hypertension, Minor surgery, Second opinion and advice on further management. To prevent a huge unnecessary follow-up pool, the polyclinic will refer the patient back to the referring general practitioner once it has served its function. This arrangement will: (i) save unnecessary loading of hospital specialist clinics, (ii) be cost effective and time saving and convenient to patient, (iii) provides a system for upgrading the skill of general practitioner and poly-clinic staff. Upgrading the polyclinic would relieve the hospital of a big load of the less severe cases thus allowing the hospital to expand and improve on their existing facilities and advance into the fields of nuclear medicine, coronary by-pass surgery and microsurgery.”
“For clear-cut cases as described above, direct referral without going via OPD be implemented for a fee of $15 (this being the fee if the patient goes to the OPD and then to the specialist clinic). This will save the patient time by having to see one doctor (the hospital specialist) instead of two (OPD doctor and the hospital specialist). This will reduce the workload of the OPD doctor. To implement such a system a few criteria must be set: (a) A list of cases that can be referred this way, e.g. hernia, lumps including breast lumps, radiologically proven cases. (b) A list of specialist clinics taking in such cases on selected days. To prevent overload, the specialist clinic can keep an appointment list. The GP taking over Post-operative and Follow-up Cases from Hospitals Presently, many of the post-operative and follow-up cases are being followed-up by Government OPDs. This may pose inconvenience for the patient who may live far away from the OPD. Secondly, this will clog up the OPD. The general practitioner can take over this function of Government OPD doctors. The question, of course, is whether the general practitioner will charge more than the OPD. For this scheme to work, definite criteria must be set out. (a) A fixed charge be levied, e.g. $2 for a dressing, $1 for injection of insulin or streptomycin (the patient brings the injection from OPD). (b) A list of doctors in the private sector who are willing to participate in this scheme which is, in part, a community service. Open Policy for General Practitioners to use Government Laboratory X-ray facilities Presently, the Government laboratories and X-rays are not directly available to general practitioners.”
“But I have yet to hear statistics quoted to show that non-linguists make poor mathematicians or scientists. Mr Speaker, I shall now comment on Health. While it is desirable to make Singapore a medical regional centre, it must not be done at the expense of the health needs of our population. Our primary concern is to look after our people's health first, and to this end we must continue to improve and expand on the existing health facilities. In the delivery of our health care system we must make no distinction between the doctor in government service and those in private practice. The most important consideration of the doctor, irrespective of whether he is in private or government practice, is the patient. With this in mind, I would now like to make the following suggestions to our health service. Suggestions to improve our Health Care Services: Streamlining our General Practitioner Referral System There are presently two ways for a general practitioner to refer patients to the hospital specialist clinics. One is direct to the specialist clinic and this would cost the patient $35. The other is via the Outpatient Department and this would cost the patient $13, $3 for OPD and $10 for the specialist clinic. There are, however, certain clear-cut and radiologically proven cases that presently must go through the OPD. Indirect referral of this kind represents a duplication of effort in those cases where hospital referral is clearly indicated, e.g. lumps and hernias. What I am suggesting is that there should be direct hospital specialist clinic referral for certain selected clear-cut cases.”
“To make the Normal stream even more unpalatable, the Ministry merely told parents that the course content would be spread evenly over five years - to give their children more time. There is no promise of special assistance to those weak in languages such as those given to the superkids in immersion classes. There is no promise of getting the best language teachers to help the weakest. Must the talented always be favoured over everybody else? Moreover, we seem to be too enamoured over streaming when the West is having second thoughts over the system. Perhaps the Prime Minister's observation on mixed housing applies equally to our schools - a good mix of abilities will certainly go a long way to discourage intellectual snobbery which I think is far worse than social snobbery. The "intellectually well off" will not then be conditioned into thinking that they must have the best of everything without regard to those less well-endowed. Intelligent children, so segregated, run the danger of developing intolerance and a superiority complex to those less able. The ultimate aim of our education policy as stated "is to produce a new generation of Singaporeans who are better educated and better trained to meet the demands of an economy which places emphasis on higher technology and higher skills." In our enthusiasm to implement our bilingual policy, have we lost sight of this aim? If we want to produce computer experts, scientists and engineers, should we deny higher education to those who are weak only in a second language but possess the necessary computational and logic skills? Arguments have been put forward that linguistic ability is linked to scholastic ability. That may be true.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion moved by the Member for Mountbatten in his Address of Thanks for the President's Speech. Mr Speaker and Fellow Parliamentarians, in line with the call by the President to Backbenchers like me to speak my mind, I will endeavour to do my best, although I am sitting on the wrong side. If we pursue the policy of a two-child family, then it is only logical that we provide for the best in their welfare and development. There are three prime concerns of Singaporean parents - education, health and national service, I shall limit my remarks to education and health. In education, we must take into account that we are dealing with two precious children and their over-anxious parents who have very high expectations. This is seen in the way these parents choose to put their children into particular schools. And the fact that 88% of the children in the borderline Pass group (40 - 49%) in the last PSLE opted for the express stream, despite being advised that their children would fare better in the normal stream, illustrates this point very clearly. Why do parents do this? Is it because they think they know their children's capabilities better? Or is it to avoid losing out in the social class struggle? Class division, undesirable though it may be, exists in muted form in our society. This is expressed in the way Singaporeans go increasingly for prestigious brands of clothing, bags, shoes, cars and even schools. And when we start creating prestigious labels such as superschools, special and express streams, no Singaporean wants to be caught with the merely 'Normal' label.”