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 9 of 22.
“Therefore, I hope that whenever the Government introduces any new policy, it should be properly explained before implementation so that the people would readily accept it. Mr Speaker, Sir, the second point I would like to touch on concerns a gracious society. Since Prime Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong made the call to transform Singapore into a gracious society, much efforts have been put in by various Government departments to improve the social behaviour and attitude of Singaporeans so that they are in tune with our economic development. To improve the social behaviour and overall quality of our people, we cannot rely solely on the Ministry of Education to teach our younger generation in schools. In addition, the Ministry of Information and the Arts and the Ministry of Community Development should jointly promote the concept through the mass media like television, radio, the press and even community organisations, in order to penetrate into the homes of the people so as to influence their behaviour, habits and way of life. As a member of the Government Parliamentary Committee (MITA), I am disappointed that the budget for MITA this year is only $173.29 million, which is only 0.13% of our GDP, and an increase of merely $15.08 million over last year's allocation. Likewise, it is hard to accept the fact that the Ministry of Community Development is only granted $379.8 million, which is only $31.45 million higher than that of last year's allocation. As a matter of fact, if we compare the allocations given to MITA in FY91 and FY96, we will notice that the increase over the past six years is just over $20 million. How can you develop Singapore into a gracious society with just over $20 million?”
“I could not help feeling sorry for the residents of Hougang. They say one thing but they do another. Policies should be properly packaged. For example, many parents are impressed by the implementation of the Edusave Merit Bursaries because when they accompanied their children to the award-giving ceremony organised by the grassroots organisation to receive such bursaries from the Member of Parliament or its Advisor, they felt very proud. It is not a question of how much they receive. Most Singaporeans are also happy with the CPF Share Ownership Top-Up Scheme (SOTUS) for the purchase of Telecom shares. People living in the PAP constituencies are also happy with the benefits given to them by the town councils. They are satisfied with the rebates for the cleanest block because they feel that they have a part in it. The positive response from the people shows that good packaging is as important as good policies themselves. I would like to give an example to show the importance of commercial packaging. Once I bought some high quality tieguanying Chinese tea from its place of origin in China. It cost less than $20 because the packaging was poor. However, the same quality and quantity of tea from its place of origin that was exported to Taiwan through Hong Kong, costs more than $100 in Taiwan after it has been beautifully packaged. It is selling very well and people are rushing to buy it as a gift for their friends. The packaging greatly enhances its value. Therefore, the importance of packaging is beyond doubt. Thus, all policies must be attractively packaged. I suggest that the new tax policies and, for that matter, all future policies should be packaged nicely before they are announced.”
“The Opposition parties term this Budget as an "Election Budget". I can fully understand their sentiment, because it is much too destructive to the opposition parties. From my point of view, this sort of misunderstanding is often due to the fact that although we have very good policies, we lack good packaging to present these policies to the people. How many people would really feel grateful to the Government for the rebates on HDB service and conservancy charges and rentals? How many people are aware that the Government has been transferring large sums of money every year into their CPF accounts under the CPF Top-Up Scheme? Many are only aware that they have to pay the HDB service and conservancy charges and rentals and so on. Therefore, they develop in their mindset an imbalanced attitude. The give-away of the Government is often taken for granted and they seldom give it a second thought. The Opposition Member, Mr Low Thia Khiang, recited a nursery rhyme in Teochew to the effect that the Government has plenty of money but the folks have none. This saying of his is still being echoed by many. From this saying, we can see that the problem lies in the fact that we have not given good packaging to our policies when we present them to the people, in order to let the people understand and appreciate the generosity of the Government. Yesterday, Mr Low said that what the Government had given to the people was a mere pittance. I do not know whether Mr Low, while managing his own Town Council, has given any benefits to the people in his constituency in the form of rebates. It is easier said than done. Whenever I visited my relatives in Hougang I could not help noticing that the paintwork of a great number of flats was peeling off.”
“As such, the FY96 Budget will enable all the people of Singapore to share in the fruits of our economic success. Sir, this Budget Statement is one which the PAP Backbenchers, and even the Opposition Members, find it most difficult to debate. Opposition Members will have difficulty finding any weaknesses in this year's Budget. It is good to distribute wealth to the people. However, I do not think it is good just to transfer the benefits into the GIRO accounts or CPF accounts of the people merely because it is administratively convenient and efficient. People barely appreciate the generosity of the Government and some even do not appreciate the Government's good intention of distributing and sharing the wealth with our citizens. Some would merely regard the small amount as mere pittance or in the Cantonese dialect sub sub suey. Therefore, I do not think it is wise to transfer the wealth to the people through electronic means (GIRO) without proper packaging. Although Singapore lacks natural resources, our PAP Government has done much to turn it into a stable and prosperous country. With a high standard of living, the vast majority of Singaporeans live happily and peacefully. Today, it is common to see Singaporeans travelling abroad with the whole family for holiday. However, there are still some Singaporeans who complain openly that the Government has not done enough and that the policies are not sound. The Opposition Members, Mr Ling How Doong and Mr Cheo Chai Chen, grumbled that the Government made them pay and pay with nothing in return. From their speeches we can see that they have nothing to add to improve this year's Budget. What they were talking about were just some old tunes of the 70s. Nothing new at all!”
“Before I conclude, I hope that the Government will pay attention to Singapore Telecom's service of 1-900 Audiotex services. This kind of service may well turn into a different kind of gambling, fund raising or profit making gimmick, and can cause a lot of inconvenience to telephone subscribers. As their families may have children who, out of ignorance and curiosity and without the knowledge of their parents, use this telephone service thereby increasing their telephone bills. Of course, the organisations concerned have always reminded the people that those under the age of 18 years must get their parent's consent. But to busy parents who are working, it is not possible for them to monitor and supervise their children every minute of the day. Although Singapore Telecom has also provided a locking system to prevent children from abusing the telephone, this service is not provided free of charge. So this is unfair to the telephone subscribers, because these subscribers have such problems caused by the 1-900 service provided by Singapore Telecom. Finally, I would like to thank Mr Speaker for the opportunity to express my views in this Budget debate. Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar GRC)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Budget presented in this House by the Finance Minister is indeed an exciting one. The Budget for FY96 is, by far, the most comprehensive I have come across since I became a Member of Parliament. This Budget benefits not only the low income group, the middle and upper income groups, but also the retirees, the NSmen and their families. In addition, the rebates on water and electricity charges will serve to alleviate the worries of Singaporeans about the proposed increase in electricity tariffs.”
“But if we consider the background and reasons of the rebates, then the so-called generous budget is nothing more than a small hong bao given to the people on the eve of an election. I would nowlike to raise a few issues in this year's Budget concerning CPF Medisave Top-Up scheme and on the pre-Medisave CPF Top-Up scheme, I would like to express my views. I am of the opinion that, to people who are facing very expensive medical costs and who nonetheless need medical assistance, these two schemes are of not much help. Therefore, I would suggest that apart from implementing these schemes, the Government should also allocate from the $6.4 billion surplus at least $100-200 million into Medifund to assist the low income group, senior citizens without income who are receiving medical care and treatment, and designated charitable organisations to apply. I would like to appeal to the Government to allow those people who have substantial amounts of savings in their CPF accounts to apply for withdrawals, up to a certain limit, for emergency use, such as helping themselves or their relatives to pay for medical expenses, their children's tuition fees and their daily living expenses. If the Government allows this, it will not only be convenient to the members of CPF but it will also give some impetus to our retail and service industries. This will not affect the needs for retirement funds of these CPF members. Sir, I am glad to know that in this year's Budget there has been an allocation of more money for the promotion of culture and sports. I think this is very significant in our march towards a gracious society. I would like to appeal to the Minister for Finance to further increase the allocation for these areas.”
“On the other hand, the revenue of the Government is increasing all the time because after corporatisation and privatisation, the Government still remains the largest shareholder of these privatised companies. By right, the role and function of Government are different from those of private companies, the former is to look after the interest of the people whereas the latter's main concern is to make as much profit as possible. Unfortunately, from the present situation we can see that the Government seems to have forgotten its own basic obligation. It is gradually taking on the identity of a commercial business organisation, more "commercial" than the business companies themselves. The Government, being different from that of a commercial establishment, should ideally have a balanced budget, ie, you have enough revenue to cover expenditure. If there is a small surplus, it is certainly not a bad thing. But if the surplus is too much, this would be abnormal, especially when the people are suffering in hardship with the rising cost of living. From 1st April 1994, by virtue of tax reform, the Government implemented the GST system which had caused prices of goods to rise. In order to ease the people to adjust to this form of tax, rebates were subsequently granted, such as rebates for HDB S&C charges and also a small income tax rebate which does not benefit the lower income group. For the same reason, in order to pave the way for the future increase of electricity tariff by Singapore Power, the Government has also, for the first time, provided to HDB flat dwellers $100-150 public utilities rebate in this Budget. Dispassionately speaking, if we disregard the background and rationale to the tax rebates, I can say that this year's Budget is quite a good one.”
“But we must also continue to work hard to build wealth for the country so that at each Budget session, the Government can announce the sharing of this wealth in the form of upgrading of HDB flats, CPF Top-Up schemes, rebates on HDB service and conservancy and rental charges, rebates on utility bills, 10% tax rebates on personal income tax, reduction in property tax, withholding taxes and company tax. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Budget is good and fair. It does not matter if some choose to call it an election budget. At the end of the day, Singaporeans must know that such budgets do not come by chance, but by prudent financial policy and planning. Sir, I strongly support the Budget. Mr Cheo Chai Chen (Nee Soon Central)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday, several Members of this House expressed concern over the rising cost of living. I share their concern. Rising cost of living and rising prices of things in Singapore are caused by Government policies. For example, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) has directly caused rising prices, the Certificate of Entitlement (COE) system has adversely affected business and the transportation industry, thus the rising cost of doing business in Singapore has caused a chain reaction with goods, services and transportation costs to increase. The corporatisation and restructuring of Government hospitals and the introduction of independent schools have also raised the cost of medicine and school fees respectively. Now, with the proposed corporatisation of Singapore Power, tariffs are going to rise. The whole series of Government's taxations and the corporatisation of Government departments have caused the people to face huge pressures of the rising cost of living.”
“However, there are cases where special provisions may have to be incorporated in a day-care centre and this may exceed the approved area. Thus, to avoid all these and to ease our fatigued fund-raisers, I suggest that the Government build these centres or provide a one-off grant to build the centre and let the organisations run it. The annual running cost can be shared by the Government and the organisation concerned on a 50-50 basis, as is happening today. We must quickly build more of such centres. Our population is ageing fast. We must give our hardworking citizens a strong sense of security in old age. They must know that while the family will look after them, there will always be community institutions to turn to if the family, for whatever reasons, cannot look after them. It is comforting for our old to know that such provisions are being made for them. Singapore will indeed be the best place to call home. Having said all this, I am also aware that there is a greater need for intellectual space among our educated young. We must engage, not confront, young Singaporeans in open discussions where an exchange of ideas can lead to the development of better policies and where an understanding of the constraints and challenges which face this country can be made clear. This will lead to a rational acceptance of Government policies and do away with cynical scepticism. We must involve our young to develop our artistic and cultural pursuits, our social and political goals and help the Prime Minister to create a more gracious society.”
“Another gesture of Government's intention to help needy Singaporeans is that another $100 million is proposed to be given to the Medical Endowment Fund, bringing the principal of this Fund to $500 million. Mr Speaker, Sir, our older Singaporeans need support. There is an urgent need for respite homes, nursing homes, homes for the aged and aged sick and day-care centres. The Government must be generous in providing these community support institutions to assist the family. The family is the cornerstone of our society. But to be an effective unit, the community must support this family unit in times of difficulty. Working couples have this twin problem of looking after their young children and their aged parents. If no one is ill, everything is fine and the family is happy. But of late, as a medical practitioner, I am seeing strains in this family unit setting in. As the population ages, more are succumbing to illness and disabilities, and desperate mothers are looking for homes to house their old and asking for maids to look after their sick, aged parents. I am asking the Government to have a relook at the financial arrangement of building such homes by charitable organisations and religious bodies. At the moment, these organisations must raise 20% of the capital cost of the building, while the Government grant is 80%. In principle, this sounds reasonable. But 20% of the cost these days is not the same as 10 years ago. Moreover, this 80-20 ratio is based on approved area and approved cost. Thus, if the building exceeds the approved area, the excess area will receive no grant. I cannot quarrel with this formula or there will be over built centres. I agree with this formula.”
“Perhaps it could be made autonomous, similar to some of our autonomous schools which are different from the independent schools, but where subvention grants are more generous and some degree of autonomy is given. Here, I suggest that the Ministry of Finance should be generous to Alexandra Hospital if there is any change in future. Alexandra Hospital should be a first-class, low-cost general hospital to meet the needs of a sector of our population. We have in place a couple of health schemes to help Singaporeans pay for part of their health bills - pre-Medisave top-up scheme introduced by the Prime Minister last year and this is to help those who have retired before April 1984 without Medisave accounts. And I believe the Government will be putting aside $85 million for this. Medisave, MediShield and Medifund have provided for the medical needs of nearly all citizens, but there are still those who worry about their health bills. The Minister for Finance thinks that this worry is really not justified. However, I quote him: `As a gesture to reassure Singaporeans and to emphasise the key role of Medisave in providing for the medical needs of citizens, the Government will pay $200 into the Medisave account of every Singapore citizen aged 21 and above.' This gesture will cost the Government $390 million. Thus, we can see in this Budget that the Government is not only monitoring but also reassuring Singaporeans that their health care needs will be met by the introduction of schemes when and where the situation warrants it. And this is in addition to the standard health plans of Medisave, MediShield and Medifund.”
“Equally significant is the fact that households with relatively low incomes in 1980 achieved a greater increase. For example, in 1980, median income was about $10,000 only. Whereas in 1990, this had risen to between $20,000 and $30,000, an increase of between 100% and 200%. While he sees his income increase in terms of tens of dollars and the rise in HDB flats in terms of thousands of dollars, it is no wonder he harbours a fear that he may not be able to buy his HDB flat. And this is where the Ministry of National Development and the Government must continue to assure the young couple that an HDB flat is still affordable for the first-time HDB flat buyer and that is why, year in and year out, I cut the Ministry of National Development's main estimates to seek reassurances from the Government that HDB flats will always be affordable to the first-time HDB buyer. This year is no different. I have again made a similar cut. The third issue is health. Health costs have gone up. Hospitals have restructured, because people want better health facilities and programmes. But this upgrading also brings with it problems. There are those who are very concerned and worried about not being able to pay their medical bills. And there are those who find these changes very disturbing, because they do not know how to utilise and maximise the many new facilities in our health institutions, resulting in higher cost for them. Like schools, I think we must have more choices of health institutions for the people. For example, do people have much choice if all the Government hospitals are restructured? Therefore, I hope that hospitals like Alexandra Hospital be kept separate from the restructured hospitals.”
“Singaporeans want to upgrade their flats and precincts faster, because it adds value and comfort. So housing has taken a new dimension, not one so much of need but monetary gain as well, because the price of the old houses will have increased manifold. But upgrading of old flats is different from building new ones. We need better workers, skilled ones, not just ordinary construction workers. We need better supervision. We cannot hurry over this kind of work, as retrofitting and renovation is a skilled job. Singaporeans do not quite understand this and want upgrading fast, but I am sure at the cost of poor workmanship. Therefore, it is not that the Government wants to delay, but upgrading, to a large extent, has been checked by the lack of skilled workers. Singaporeans shun construction work. Yet they want to have quality homes. We need Singaporeans to supervise and build their own homes to get quality. How has the Government responded to this demand on housing? If we look at page 505 of the Budget book, there is a $1.058 billion subsidy grant for building new flats, upgrading old flats and maintaining HDB estates. This reflects the Government's commitment to provide good affordable housing to the Singapore citizens. Yet, the man-in-the-street may not quite understand how this subsidy helps him. He looks at his own pocket, how much is he earning per month. Will his income be able to meet the cost of the new HDB flat? This is the concern of young couples starting out in life. So I looked at the 1990 census report to check whether the average household income has indeed increased to meet the cost of housing, and there has been a marked increase of 140% from 1980 to 1990. In fact, the average household income rose from $14,885 per year in 1980 to $35,817 per year in 1990.”
“To make sure that scholarships are not all taken up by the premier schools, we should establish scholarships at the neighbourhood school level. I think a very good start has been made in the form of the Edusave Merit Bursary Award to the top 25% of the students whose parents are earning less than $3,000 a month. I note that the Ministry of Education has set aside $76 million of its operating expenditure for bursaries and scholarships. I would like to see this amount being shared among more students. If the Ministry of Education succeeds in meeting my call for a better spread of quality primary, secondary and tertiary institutions, then the Ministry of Education should deserve more than the 20.3% of the budget allocation because to maintain standards of quality schools, the Ministry of Education will need more funds to recruit staff and to make provisions for better facilities and quality education programmes. The other concern is housing. In spite of our proud housing programme, admired by many outside Singapore, we still hear grumbles about HDB. Singaporeans now complain about waiting time for their flats, increasing costs of flats, poor quality of workmanship. So like our early independent days, housing is still a problem, not as big as before, but nevertheless a concern. The problem is not so much to meet a need but to meet higher expectations. Thus, housing is not just a roof over the head, but relates to location of flats, whether it is near amenities or not, whether the MRT station is close-by and whether the design and space meet that expectation. Thus, we stopped building 3-room flats because of lesser demand and we started an upgrading programme to bring these old flats up to present day's needs and standard. But this brought further demands on HDB.”
“I will, and I am sure my PAP colleagues, go into the details of these areas of concern in the Committee of Supply. However, I will examine these on a general note. Let us take education. The Government is spending approximately $4 billion for education which is 20.3% of the budget. How will this money be spent to meet the expectation of Singaporeans? It is not just building schools that will satisfy Singapore parents. They are asking for more choices in quality primary, secondary and junior colleges and a better spread of these institutions so that the present so-called neighbourhood schools are not second cousins to Raffles, Chinese High School, River Valley High School, ACS, etc. This is a challenge facing us in the future. So if we look at the Development Expenditure for the Ministry of Education, which is about $330 million, the bulk of this expenditure will go to the upgrading and rebuilding of schools and for the introduction of computer-based learning in primary and secondary schools. Where are these schools built? Is this upgrading spread equally among neighbourhood and premier schools? Then there is a $500 million allocation to the Education Endowment Fund bringing the principal in this fund to $4.5 billion. This is a large sum and this fund must be carefully utilised to bring out the best in our students. Our aim should be to make every school in Singapore good enough for any Singapore parent to want to put his or her child in and, if successful, would help to cut down all this queuing for schools and allaying the fears and anxiety of parents by removing this prejudice of neighbourhood schools being inferior. Scholarships and bursaries should be more evenly spread among the schools.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I come to my speech, I have listened to Prof. Walter Woon very carefully. I think his arguments for cost recovery of an innocent accused should be carefully examined and, in fact, I support him. It will reflect well on our judiciary system. In fact, it will reflect better on our judiciary system, if some form of cost recovery be given to the innocent. Mr Speaker, Sir, our Prime Minister recently made a call to make Singapore a better place for Singaporeans. In my opinion, to achieve this, we must monitor carefully three areas of concern, namely, education, housing and health. These three areas must remain affordable. To maintain these as affordable is a constant challenge for any government. In our early independent years, we were also struggling with the three concerns and we thought we had overcome these, which we did to a large extent. Our society has since changed, standards of living have gone up and these three concerns are still with us, but in a different vein. Some young Singaporeans worry about not being able to afford an HDB flat. They have problems paying the 20% downpayment for their flat because they cannot save enough. Each delay results in higher costs for their future flat, and they are not happy if they have to wait too long for their flats. Singaporeans worry about not able to find places in good schools for their children, while some worry their children are unable to go to independent schools because of the higher fees. Tertiary education as well is getting more expensive. Singaporeans still worry about not being able to pay their medical bills, especially after they stop working. It is in this context that I examine the budget. Has this budget tried to address some of the concerns and, if so, are they adequately addressed?”
“If I get it correct, if you earn $2,000 you can still afford to have a maid. Maybe the Minister can clarify.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I seek a clarification? Is the Member saying that those who are earning about $2,000 can afford a maid?”
“Can I seek a clarification from the Minister? Will the racial mix principle that we have in HDB flats apply also to these Executive Condominiums?”
“My Ministry does not have the manpower to deploy officers everywhere, nor should we be spending so much public funds to employ large numbers of enforcement officers to stamp out littering. We are grateful that the public bus companies are willing to assist us in our endeavours. This is the right spirit. Keeping Singapore clean is everyone's responsibility. Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, I would like to reaffirm my Ministry's commitment to protecting the environment and ensuring that the public continues to enjoy a high standard of public health. The amendments proposed in the Environmental Public Health Bill are necessary to prepare us to meet the future challenges. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“The number of cases of illegal dumping detected has increased from 59 in 1993 to 105 in the first nine months of 1995. Of these, we managed to prosecute 34 cases in 1994 and 35 so far in 1995. These unscrupulous people who dump their wastes illegally often do so to avoid paying disposal fees. Their actions are totally irresponsible and they can do very serious harm to our environment and endanger the health of our people. 41.2% of our land area is used as water catchments for drinking water and, if left unchecked, illegal dumping can pollute our very precious water resources. It is not easy to catch those who dump waste illegally in the act; but when we do, we want to come down hard on them. The existing penalty is clearly not effective enough to deter them. We will, therefore, increase the maximum fine and include a jail sentence which can be imposed on a first-time offender. For a repeat offender, we will introduce a mandatory jail sentence. Private Waste Disposal Facilities The third amendment that will be made to the Environmental Public Health Act will be a provision to allow for the setting up of private waste disposal facilities some time in the future. This will allow the Government to privatise the provision of such facilities in the future. Littering The fourth and final major amendment will deal with the problem of littering. To assist my Ministry in the enforcement against littering, we will amend the Act to allow bus drivers, conductors and ticket inspectors to enforce against those who litter in public service buses. Unfortunately, even after decades of education, enforcement action is still required to deter and remind the minority of Singaporeans who still litter that littering is an anti-social act.”
“To achieve the objectives of higher efficiency and keeping costs down, my Ministry will be taking a number of steps. We will corporatise the Ministry's refuse collection unit on 1st April 1996 so that it can operate as a company and function with greater flexibility. In three years, by the year 1999, we will allow private waste collectors to come into the market to compete for the collection of refuse from domestic and trade premises. The Act will be amended to allow for this change in system and to include provisions to ensure that the collection of refuse from domestic and trade premises will be done in an orderly and organised manner. Dangerous Waste and Illegal Dumping The law will also be amended to make those who generate or are in possession of wastes that are dangerous fully responsible for the proper disposal of such wastes. Those who behave irresponsibly or those who dispose of such wastes illegally will be dealt with severely. Currently, the Act already regulates the disposal of toxic wastes. The Bill seeks to regulate the disposal of a new group of dangerous substances, such as petroleum products and explosives. Generators of these dangerous substances will be required to treat these wastes before sending them for disposal. If they contract out the collection and treatment of these wastes, they are responsible to ensure that the contractors are fully aware of the nature of the wastes. The contractors who receive these wastes for treatment will also be responsible to ensure that these wastes are properly treated and disposed of. The appropriate Regulations and Code of Practice will be drafted to spell out the details. The Bill will also provide for stiffer penalties for those convicted of illegal dumping.”
“An effective system for refuse collection and disposal is critical to the standard of public health and the quality of the environment in any country. A poorly managed system will result in a rapid deterioration of public health standards, giving rise to all sorts of health hazards. This is especially so in countries located in the tropics where the heat and humidity accelerates the decomposition of wastes; and particularly so in countries that are highly urbanised and densely populated, as in the case of Singapore. The task of maintaining an efficient system of solid waste management in Singapore will be very difficult in the future unless we make changes now to deal with the problems ahead. Corporatising Solid Waste Collection and Introducing Competition The refuse collection service provided by my Ministry to domestic and trade premises today will be faced with a manpower shortage problem in the near future. About 45% of our workmen are over the age of 50. We are also facing difficulties recruiting new workers to work as refuse collectors. We need to make changes now to solve this problem. We need to restructure the work content, improve productivity and implement more responsive and market oriented schemes for remuneration and service conditions which will reward higher productivity. But flexible shifts and remuneration structures cannot be implemented in the current system without civil service-wide implications. While my Ministry is always searching for new ways to manage solid waste more efficiently and thereby keep costs down, in the longer term, the better way to encourage greater efficiency at the system level is to introduce competition into the area of refuse management.”
“The incidence of communicable diseases is low and under control, despite the fact that Singapore is situated in a region where many tropical diseases are endemic. Refuse is collected daily; food is safe; and our streets are swept regularly. We have come a long way from the days when our streets were polluted with rubbish, our waterways exuded the odour of decomposed wastes and our air was polluted and dusty. Much hard work has gone into making our city clean and green: careful planning, many years of public education and cooperation from civic-minded members of the public, and strict enforcement of environmental legislation have all helped to achieve the present high quality of our environment. To keep up with the rising public demand for a better environment and the need to address emerging concerns, my Ministry has from time to time amended the Environmental Public Health Act which was first enacted in 1969. The Act was last amended in 1992. We are now, once again, proposing that the Environmental Public Health Act be amended to prepare us for the challenges of the next century. One key issue we need to address is solid waste or refuse management. We have two factors working against us - a tight labour situation and a scarcity of land. Both of these make it costly for us to deal with increasing quantities of solid waste. And the quantity of solid waste that is being generated as Singapore becomes more affluent is growing. The quantity of refuse that has to be collected and disposed of has increased from 2,138 tonnes per day in 1975 to 4,105 tonnes per day in 1985 and 7,268 tonnes per day in 1995, almost doubling every 10 years.”
“Sir, may I just seek a clarification. I am still not clear about the interpretation of this particular clause. I do not read it that way. If I am a doctor and I find this patient is terminally ill, I will adhere to all the procedures. I will check with the Registrar and let us say he has not registered his directive. By law, as I read it here, it is quite clear that I cannot proceed with what is required in this Bill. If you say that a minor, for example, cannot make a directive because he is a minor, we can still go back to our present status of removing the tubes should the parents agree. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, that is precisely the legal position. That is our intent and that is the legal position, and that is what is expressed in the Bill. If the AMD does not apply, then what applies is the present ambiguous situation. Of course, it is not ambiguous for things like organ transplant. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Resolved, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. - [BG George Yong-Boon Yeo]. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.51 pm The Acting Minister for the Environment (RAdm Teo Chee Hean): Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Mr Speaker, Sir, Singaporeans today enjoy a very high standard of public health.”
“What I mean is that the Ministry of Health should provide more information through the mass media, including video tapes, and if this is still inadequate, then I agree with the proposal by the Minister for Health who has proposed that the Bill be sent to a Select Committee so that more organisations, especially individuals who are familiar with their own religious beliefs, would come forward to give their views because this is a sensitive matter. To me, the more information and inputs we get from them, the better it is for us so that those who have understood the latest development in the medical field will understand and realise the importance of introducing this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“In fact, if there is an element of force or fraud, the said advance medical directive can be abrogated and the offender can be charged and sentenced according to the provisions in the Bill. Although the said individual has made his advance medical directive, he is still free to withdraw and cancel the said medical directive at any time. The principle of individual freedom, which is the essence of this Bill, indicates that the Government has no intention to force anyone to be subservient in all the decisions that have been made by the Government. Therefore, in my opinion, this Bill is not contrary to any religious belief even though there are still some feelings of doubt about the real interpretation of the advance medical directive which is almost equivalent to euthanasia. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would also like to call upon the Government to ensure that all provisions of the law are made to prevent any mischief or misuse by persons responsible for the implementation of the advance medical directive. In this matter, I support the move to have a certification which should be signed by three medical experts. These experts should confirm that the patient is suffering from a terminal illness and cannot be cured with modern medicine according to the current knowledge of the medical experts. Only then, the life supporting machine or equipment can be dismantled. But I would like to call upon the authorities that efforts to give medical care to the patient in an appropriate way should continue until he draws his last breath. Mr Speaker, Sir, for those who are not yet convinced, I would like to call upon the Government to educate them about the benefits of this Bill.”
“Therefore, many Malays or Muslims prefer to bring home their terminally ill loved ones who have no hope of living as they prefer that they die at home rather than in hospital. At home, he will be at the bedside with members of his family who will say prayers for him. In principle, this Bill is proactive, that is, it is aimed at underlining the action that can be taken or done by an individual to overcome the critical moment when facing death, and also to make arrangement with his next-of-kin to face with his critical situation. This will erase any misunderstanding which may arise when he is facing the final moment of his life. In fact, the advance medical directive is not euthanasia, or mercy killing, or determining one's death on the ground of mercy. Euthanasia is an action carried out deliberately on a person who is terminally ill so as to cause death immediately. Euthanasia is just like committing suicide which is prohibited by most religions. I oppose euthanasia because it is against the principles of my religion. The advance medical directive actually allows an individual to leave a will to his next-of-kin to let him die peacefully. His next-of-kin does not have to do anything or take any action merely to prolong his life. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill because an individual is given the freedom and the right to determine his own destiny while he is in a critical moment of death. The individual is free to make the said advance medical directive at the time of his good health and after having all the information about his own self and his family condition. No other person can force him to make an advance medical directive.”
“However, it gives the legal framework for doctors and Singaporeans to operate. To make sure the Bill is fully understood and accepted, I am sure the Ministry of Health must have plans to embark on a big public education exercise after the passage of this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill which, I think, must be referred to a Select Committee for fine-tuning. Encik Harun bin A. Ghani (Hong Kah GRC)( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in the debate on the Advance Medical Directive Bill. After reading the Report of the National Medical Ethics Committee which studied the issues pertaining to this Bill, I am happy with the Report and I fully support this Bill. In fact, the Fatwa Committee of the Muslim Religious Council of Singapore had discussed this matter on 25th August 1994 and they had agreed with the following matters, and I quote, `Islam allows anyone with sound mind to make a will or advance medical directive stating that he does not want or refuse to accept any treatment to prolong his life when his illness is incurable and terminal and that there is no hope of him to continue living. This is allowed because a patient who is terminally ill cannot live longer and is prepared to endure the suffering and wants to die peacefully and calmly. This is because he believes that his destiny is in the hands of God and the time has come for him to go and that he will die.' Mr Speaker, Sir, it can be said that all Muslims want to be at the bedside of their loved ones who are dying. They believe that they can teach the dying loved ones to repeat the two Islamic declarations of faith.”
“However, the Bill is not so clear in the definition of "extraordinary life-sustaining treatment" which the Bill defines, and I quote, "any medical procedure or measure which, when administered to a terminally ill patient, will only prolong the process of dying when death is imminent, but excludes palliative care". What is "any medical procedure or measure"? This is the question that many doctors, and even lay people, ask. Does tube feeding at the first case of a cancer patient or intravenous feeding in the second case of a hypertensive patient fall into this definition? I think the medical profession needs further guidelines on this. Having said that, no doctor will stop providing palliative care to the terminally ill in order to alleviate his pain and suffering. Clause 11 of the Bill is very clear on this. The Bill is also clear that treatment must be given first and that it is an offence to enquire whether a directive has been made. This is again reassuring for Singaporeans who sign up and is again spelt out clearly in clause 15. In all my years of experience in medical practice, the doctor has always been most reluctant to pull the plug. Times, unfortunately, have changed. Doctors are no longer in charge of hospital administration and policy. Hospital culture and hospital philosophy have changed. Medicine has been called an industry. I am thus glad that clause 15 was inserted because there is a temptation for hospitals to prolong those who have no directives. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must assure our people that the Advance Medical Directive Bill does not force Singaporeans to sign. It is voluntary. It is not mercy killing. It is not euthanasia. In fact, it is to safeguard against this. It is very clearly spelt out in the Bill.”
“The AMD thus lacks the extensive coverage of the Human Organ Transplant Act, because the AMD excludes a large section of the population, namely, the under-21s, and precludes their parents, guardians, from making any decision on their behalf. And because no directive can be made, no doctor can act. Therein lies the conflict between the AMD and the Human Organ Transplant Act. To me, this is an example of how a good piece of well-written, well-intentioned legislation can be done in by another equally well-written, well-intentioned piece of legislation, that is, the new Advance Medical Directive Act has rendered the Human Organ Transplant Act inoperational for this group of people. This will affect organ donations as most of such organs are obtained from young accident victims. Furthermore, Singapore parents have no choice but to continue to provide the life-support systems to those young terminally injured accident patients who cannot sign up. Therefore, may I request the Minister to review this clause carefully to allow parents to have a say in the event of those not having registered under the AMD as they will be responsible for the health bill eventually. If, however, there is difficulty in amending this clause, may I suggest that we amend the Human Organ Transplant Act to make the Human Organ Transplant Act operational for those who have not or cannot sign on the AMD. This way, we tidy the two Acts to operate together. Mr Speaker, Sir, the three cases that I have mentioned show that the Bill has set out clear guidelines and procedures for the doctor and his colleagues to follow when confirming terminal illness. I am satisfied with the assurances given to those who sign up and their relatives that due diligence will be practised when confirming terminal illness.”
“The problem arises when his parents want to will his organs for transplant. I could have gone along with this Bill without much reservation, had I not read of the death of Wah Liang, the comedian who died tragically in a road traffic accident. His parents gave consent to allow his organs for transplant. It suddenly dawned on me that had Wah Liang not given a registered directive, his life-support systems could not be switched off. Under the AMD Bill, his parents could not be in a position to permit the donation of his organs to save several other human lives. Mr Speaker, Sir, I refer you again to this clause of the Bill which states in no uncertain terms that no one can act on an unregistered directive. This very clause has made the Bill very restrictive. It excludes those below 21 years old and those who are of unsound mind. Sir, you must keep in mind that AMD is an opt-in legislation. You must ensure that should you desire to be caught by the AMD Bill, that means, you want to be in this Bill, you have to take steps to register your directive with the Registrar before any doctor or doctors would act on your directive. And this is where I cannot reconcile the AMD with the Human Organ Transplant Act. Let me explain. The Human Organ Transplant Act is an opt-out legislation. In other words, no active steps need to be taken to be caught by the Act. Unless otherwise indicated by default, one is caught by the Act. Its coverage is therefore very extensive. Many may fall under this Act because they are either unaware of this or they may be indifferent or may even find it too troublesome to take the time to sign the release form. For these and other reasons, many Singaporeans may also not register under the AMD and thus not come under its umbrella, having not opted in.”
“This scenario is straightforward and where procedures are adhered to, there should be no problem. Case two, the young hypertensive with a stroke, who is brought into the hospital in a coma, but his condition later deteriorates and he is brain dead. He has no registered directive. The relatives request to pull the plug, but the doctor will not, because he cannot do so. No new directive can be entertained, and this is stated very clearly in clause 5 of the Bill. In the present situation, as mentioned by the Minister earlier, in the absence of this AMD Bill, relatives, upon the advice of the doctors, can request for the plug to be pulled and the doctors can oblige. Mr Speaker, Sir, when a person is brain dead, he can be kept alive for weeks, months, or even for years. I recall the case of Karen Quinlan who was kept alive for years. Eventually her father sought a court order to have the life-support systems removed. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is sad to cite money as one of the reasons for having to pull the plug on those who are brain dead. But I do not want to pretend that this will not be the reason for some cases. Having said that, the irony here is that we are actually forced to artificially prolong the dying process in the second and the third case scenarios, contrary to the aims of this Bill. The rigidity of the rule in clause 5 which forbids anyone to act without a registered directive must be tempered by giving parents or next-of-kin some say. I will come to clause 5 again when I discuss in more detail the third scenario. Case three, as I mentioned earlier, is of a young man, 20 years old, who develops terminal illness as a result of his head injuries. He has no directive and, in fact, he cannot sign a directive - he is a minor.”
“In all, Mr Speaker, the three cases illustrate three different scenarios for the executors of the advance medical directive. The Bill has laid down a set of procedures for them, especially the doctors on the case, to follow. And a doctor, for example, cannot ask if the patient has a directive. It is stated clearly in the Bill. He must provide good medical care to all, including life-support systems, if necessary. However, if the condition of the patient deteriorates to an extent he cannot survive with all the life-support systems, he must carefully assess if that patient is terminally ill before invoking the AMD. And to do this, again he follows a set of procedures spelt out in the Bill, and this is important, to assure all those who have signed up. The doctor in charge, for example, checks with the Registrar of the Advance Medical Directive Board as to whether the patient has registered under the AMD. And if informed that he has, he discusses with two other specialists to confirm his findings. And if they agree, he then gets a written confirmation from the Registrar of AMD and then proceeds to execute the registered directive. He need not provide the patient with extraordinary health support systems, like the ventilator or the heart machine. However, in case of doubt, he and the two colleagues of his have to seek a third opinion of an independent panel of three specialists who must unanimously agree that the patient is terminally ill with no prospects of recovering. The safeguards are more than adequate. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me come back to the three scenarios I painted. I want to try to apply the AMD Bill, as it stands, on the three cases in more detail. Case one, the terminally ill cancer patient with a AMD.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Bill. However, Sir, the concerns of the medical practitioners and other Singaporeans must be well addressed in the AMD. To do this, I would like to draw yourself, Mr Speaker, Sir, and Members of this House into the actual working of a hospital set-up and how this Bill will apply to those who have to execute the directive and the safeguards in the Bill to prevent abuse. I would illustrate through three case scenarios. The first case scenario: a man with terminal cancer enters the hospital; he is conscious, extremely weak; he needs a Ryle's tube for feeding, a drip for intravenous feeding and medication. The doctor assesses his condition and concludes that he is terminally ill. This man has a registered directive. The second scenario: a young man of 38 years old is brought in unconscious. His family informs the doctor he has hypertension or high blood pressure. He is put into intensive care unit with all the life-support systems in place. His consciousness lapses further and the doctor thinks he has no chance of surviving. The patient takes a turn for the worse. His brain tracing is flat but continues breathing through a ventilator. His heart stops but is revived by a heart machine. He is fed by a tube, the Ryle's tube. His relative wants the tubes to be removed, but he has no registered directive. The third scenario: an accident victim, a young man of 20 years old, rushed into the hospital following a road traffic accident. He has sustained serious head injuries and stays in the intensive care unit. His condition deteriorates and he becomes brain dead. The doctor continues to keep him alive, in spite of his brain tracing being flat. His parents want to donate his organs for transplant. He is a minor and he cannot sign a directive.”
“Sir, there is no need for a recording to know. [Interruptions].”
“If a person is present, listening to somebody talking, obviously he must know. That is all I want to say and you are saying he did not know. You said you must get the full text of the speech, then you are able to reply. I think that is ridiculous.”
“In that case, I assume Dr Chee, being an intelligent man, would have got all that he wanted to hear about Francis Seow's comment.”
“I want to ask Mr Ling whether he knows Dr Chee was present at the time when Francis Seow delivered his speech.”
“So what Dr Chee and the SDP had done is that although they have adopted an indirect approach to attack our judiciary system, this was indeed malicious. They should be exposed and condemned. 1.34 pm”
“Is our judiciary the same as this? Sir, all these years our judiciary and our Government have been clean and incorrupt. We have always selected the best to serve the people. There is a high degree of transparency in our Government, and the independence of our judiciary and the integrity of our judges are known to everybody. Just now, my colleague mentioned the reports from various quarters. Our political leaders are clean and our judiciary is independent. This is the reason for our success. Recently, the Fortune magazine conducted a survey and they rated Singapore as the best city to do business in. Therefore, to uphold the integrity of our leaders and the independence of our judiciary is very important. It is not only the responsibility of the Government but the duty of every citizen. If there is a defect in our judicial system, the courts cannot give judgement according to the law, and we are unable to rectify it, then we will be in trouble. But if our courts are fair and just, all our judges are like "Justice Bao", the very fair and just Judge, then if anyone is to attack our judiciary system, everyone of us will have the duty to defend our judiciary system so that the people will not be misled. Although Dr Chee had been using the method of "borrowing a knife to kill others", and he was "wearing a pair of gloves" when he was in Williams College, we could see through his intention. Although he was trying very hard to do it under cover, he has actually shown his true colour. The evidence was overwhelming. He was misleading the readers. When he endorsed Francis Seow's attack on our judiciary system, there was no coverage at all in the SDP's newspaper.”
“On 15th September 1995, Dr Chee Soon Juan made use of the air ticket presented to him by the Americans and went with two of his officials to attend the alternative panel discussion organised by Dr George Crane in Williams College. As we all know, the purpose of this alternative panel was to try to pull our Prime Minister down. George Crane invited Francis Seow and Lingle, two fugitives, and the two of them put on a very animated performance on the stage and threw a lot of criticisms and unreserved attacks on Singapore. Dr Chee Soo Juan did not dare to go on stage but he was supporting them from the floor. When these two fugitives were performing on the stage, he was there adding fuel to fire from the floor. Mr Speaker, Sir, my view is that Dr Chee Soon Juan is putting up a very cunning act. He did not have to say it with his own mouth. He only said one thing. He said, "I must say I do agree very much with many things that Mr Seow and Dr Lingle have said." So he was actually borrowing a knife to kill others. He was making use of Mr Seow and Dr Lingle to attack the judiciary system and to undermine the image of our judges and the foundation of our judiciary system. I feel that his act had betrayed the interest of our nation. We know that the judiciary is the basis of our legal system in Singapore. It is precisely because of the integrity of the judges that we are able to stand so firmly as a small nation. Once it is shaken, people would lose confidence in our judiciary and our investors would also lose confidence in us. Let us look at the trial of Simpson in the United States. It is a very good example. I have here a press cutting. After the jury had delivered their verdict, there was this article in the newspaper which says "Money talk for Simpson's trial".”
“Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now I was listening to the Chairman of SDP, Mr Ling How Doong. The impression he gave me was that he was fighting a losing battle. He has been cornered. So he has tried to free himself. His defence is not convincing. He said that he did not have access to the full text of Francis Seow's speech. But my question is: before he came to defend his Secretary-General, did he find out from his Secretary-General? I believe that his Secretary-General is not a forgetful person. In fact, he personally attended the alternative panel in Williams College. On top of that, after Francis Seow had spoken, he offered his comments. So what did Francis Seow say at the College? What was the content of his speech? I am sure he would have no difficulty telling Mr Ling so that Mr Ling could defend him. I would say that his defence is not convincing at all. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is said that a picture is worth more than a thousand words. I have here a cartoon. Its caption is "To Add Fuel to Fire". This cartoon has captured what the leaders of SDP have done. Somebody was setting fire and attacking Singapore. They wore helmets and the uniform of the firemen and they were bringing the hose in order to fight the fire. But what came out from the hose is not water but petrol. So this is adding fuel to fire. When people are attacking Singapore, they took the opportunity to aggravate the matter, not once but repeatedly. At first, we had the Flor Contemplacion matter. Then we had the William Safire's matter, and now we have the Williams College incident.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not easy for us to stand before this House and defend the integrity of our judiciary system. Sceptics will always say we are praising ourselves and blowing our own trumpet. Therefore, it is always best if others sing praises of our system. Sir, I refer to two surveys mentioned by Dr Ow and also mentioned by the Senior Minister, and later on by Prof. Jayakumar but it is still worth repeating. The first survey was published in the Straits Times. I have got it here. It is titled "Justice System in Asia". It is very well headlined and I will come to this later. The first survey, as you know, is by a Hongkong-based Political and Economic Risk Consultancy which showed that investors rated the system here the best in the region. They reported foreign investors as saying that the Singapore system was one of the most user friendly legal and judicial systems in Asia. The second survey, and this is by the Swiss-based World Economic Forum, placed Singapore first in Asia. For the information of this House, this is a non-profit foundation founded in 1971 and based in Geneva. It functions under the legal supervision of the Swiss government. Therefore, there is credibility. The two surveys speak for themselves and I do not want to add further to it, except to ask those who criticise our judiciary system to take a look at this Foundation's report on the ranking of the justice system. Mr Speaker, Sir, since the critics of our judiciary are domiciled mainly in the United States, it might be of interest to them that the US ranked 22nd. And the country, Singapore, they condemn so much ranked 9th. Sir, I support the motion standing in the names of Dr Ow Chin Hock and Mr Davinder Singh.”
“I think we should invite this gentleman to come here and see for himself what we have achieved in the last 30 years. I think it is ridiculous. The SDP went to Williams College and this is the sort of advice they got. Does the SDP expect Francis Seow to help their cause? Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Francis Seow is so captured by his past history with Lee Kuan Yew, that he is not fighting for the SDP's cause. He is fighting his own private battle. And the SDP has allowed itself to be dragged into this by agreeing to what he said at Williams College. Except for Mr Chiam, who being the wiser, a more matured politician, cleverly stayed away from his Party's stand. And to be fair to Mr Chiam, he cares too much for Singapore to want to allow foreigners to throw mud at us. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!”
“Thus, to have a Singaporean standing on a platform in the United States, shoulder to shoulder with such Singapore critics who have never been here, as I said, never stepped on our soil, and demanding changes to our judiciary and other policies, must be the biggest insult to the intelligence of Singaporeans. As MPs, we have gone abroad to international conferences and meetings to explain difficult issues, to explain detention without trial, human rights, press freedom. We will defend our stand. But we have never let ourselves to be used by foreigners for their own ends. Because this is our responsibility to the Singapore people who voted us in. And as responsible leaders, therefore we are extremely cautious whenever seemingly caring foreigners want to offer support. Let me read to you what a political science major, Zachary Cook, said at Williams College. And I quote the Straits Times of 16th September 1995, page 34. He said: `We hope to encourage Dr Chee and others to continue to challenge the People's Action Party. It is important that there is an opposition in Singapore to push and nudge PM Goh and the PAP in the right direction.' Let me go into more details on this. He hoped "to encourage Dr Chee and others to continue to challenge the People's Action Party." I think we cannot challenge that. They can come and oppose us. But I wonder how is he going to encourage them? By what means? Interfere with our politics here? "It is important that there is an opposition in Singapore." Here again, we have no quarrel on that. "... to push and nudge PM Goh and the PAP in the right direction." It appears as if we have been going in the wrong direction for the past 30 years.”
“If the PAP has really done such hostile things, such horrible things, as described by Safire, how could the PAP have been returned to this House every four to five years at every General Election. And for the SDP to stand on the same platform as these people shows their utter disregard for Singaporeans' democratic choice. Are Singaporeans not intelligent enough to make wise and correct decisions? Mr Speaker, Sir, I read in the Business Times on 20th and 21st September 1995 that SDP wants to start a Singapore chapter of the FDLAP. I am sure Members in this House will know what FDLAP stands for. I did not know until I read it. It is called the Forum of Democratic Leaders in Asia Pacific. But what is its objective? To promote and facilitate the growth of democracy. It sounds very noble. It is based in South Korea and it was started by a Korean politician, named Kim Dae Jung. I follow the Korean political scene and, as you know, there is a huge sum of money being slushed around (you can read all this in the papers), something in the region of US$910 million. Is this the type of democracy we want slushing around in Singapore? SDP may feel comfortable starting such a chapter. But Singaporeans should take heed of what to expect if SDP wants to promote this brand of democracy in Singapore. They are starting a chapter here, so they are prepared to promote that brand of democracy. And this is where I think we must be extremely careful. Singaporeans know that the PAP is not perfect. We have never claimed to be perfect. At times, our policies do irritate the people. But on balance, we are not so bad. We have acted as good custodians, to borrow the words from the Prime Minister. And the people know that.”
“And I believe they saw the visit by Prime Minister Goh as an opportunity to demonstrate their displeasure. So they roped in Dr Chee, two SDP members, together with Christopher Lingle, William Safire and Francis Seow, to lend support to their cause. They would not say this openly. In fact, they would deny this. But they have a good network. They want to put Singapore on trial. They want to debate Singapore in the United States to shame us for our crimes. On what? On human rights, on press freedom and a compliant judiciary system. And the SDP must have fitted well into their game plan when SDP announced it wanted to go to Williams College to attend the alternative panel discussion. And true enough at Williams College, the press reported Dr Chee agreeing with the utterances of Francis Seow and Christopher Lingle, especially on the subject of debate today in this House, ie, the integrity of our judiciary system. This is a dangerous move for SDP. It would discredit the SDP's leadership because the SDP has positioned itself by allowing outsiders into the Singapore political arena, helping them interfere with our domestic politics. Is this what Singaporeans want of the SDP, a party claiming to provide the alternative to the People's Action Party? Singaporeans must, therefore, judge wisely whether they want such leaders who are prepared to stand side-by-side with foreigners in a foreign land, condemning the Government Singaporeans voted in the last 30 years. Is this the proper and correct behaviour of true Singaporeans? Mr Speaker, Sir, the worst thing is that those people who took strong stance against us had never been to Singapore and depended on hearsay to justify the misguided view of Singapore. And SDP, as I said, was prepared to share their platform at Williams College.”
“And, Sir, the person who accepts the ticket has an obligation to return something back out of gratitude and, again, at Williams College, Dr Chee agreed with many things, though not all of the remarks made by Francis Seow, Christopher Lingle, William Safire and George Crane. Either the SDP is naive in failing to see the hidden agenda, or the leadership is silly to accept it. The embarrassment, Sir, must be quite telling for them to come out with the kind of headlines in this newspaper. The sponsors of the alternative panel discussion wanted Dr Chee to go to Williams College to help them champion a stand they made against the Prime Minister's award. They needed someone from Singapore to gain attention, to provide credibility for their stand and therefore help strengthen their case. Little did the sponsor realise that someone they got from Singapore was not such a big draw for their cause and, as it turned out, it was a failure, and the Prime Minster came out stronger than before. But there is more to this, Mr Speaker, Sir, and this was mentioned by the Senior Minister yesterday. Singaporeans must understand that the Human Rights group in the States, backed by the New York Times and Washington Post, found Singapore a pain in the neck for having taken a position not favourable to their ideals. And this can be traced back to what we said in the United Nations on Human Rights. It is obvious we do not see eye to eye on a number of aspects regarding this issue. This went against their philosophy and, thus, the hostility to Singapore. To make matters worse, many countries adopted similar stance and, thus, add to their frustrations. Human rights activists from Asiawatch and Amnesty International, I am sure, were at Williams College.”
“But, Mr Speaker, Sir, did not Dr Chee go to Williams College as an SDP member, and not as an individual? As he went as an SDP member, he must have had the blessings of the SDP's Central Executive Council, of which two of their members are in this House. Therefore, the SDP MPs in this House cannot disclaim Dr Chee's action at Williams College, as mentioned by Dr Ow. It is a question of shared responsibility. Can you imagine our Prime Minister disclaiming our Minister for Communications' policy on land transport? It is simply not proper for a responsible man to do such a thing. Did Dr Chee and two SDP members go to Williams College on their own, or on sponsored tickets? Reading The New Democrat, the SDP's newsletter, I learned that Dr Chee was provided with an airline ticket by students of Williams College, through an organisation called Polis. But what hurts me was the headline on the ticket issue in The New Democrat. It reads and I quote: `Economy or First-class Air Ticket? The contempt shown by the highest-paid PM in the world' I think it is a cheap trick. It is deception by distortion. Singaporeans cannot be bluffed to believe what they read. The truth of the matter is that SDP is embarrassed by this. Does it matter whether it is economy or first class? It does not matter at all. The important point is that it is a sponsored ticket and, with it, the implications of a sponsored ticket. Mr Speaker, Sir, when you travel on a sponsored ticket, the sponsor hopes to get something back in return. And in this case, the "anti-Goh" group wanted Dr Chee to help them strengthen their case.”