Wang Kai Yuen
Singapore
“Sir, would MDA not, in monitoring these sites and when they have found such a content on its own, make it as tenable evidence and pass it to the Police rather than have the complaint from the public?”
“I would like to find out from the Minister of State when will the content of these blogs start becoming from being just mere offensive to tenable and verifiable evidence that could be tendered in court for an act committed in Singapore that is punishable under the Penal Code, such as homosexual act, oral sex and sex with underaged ladies.”
“Once they are disqualified, they might as well close shop. Sir, I am sympathetic to their plight and that it is unfair to apply the demerit points to a single company as a whole, regardless of the number of ongoing construction projects. This could act against big companies with multiple projects.”
“Individuals just make less money when they sell their flats. Hopefully, if they were to buy another flat, they could also pay proportionately less as well. However, when the market is on the way down, like in the last few years, or stagnate like now, the loss would be substantial, as many would be saddled with negative equity.”
“Sir, would the Minister agree that since the Singapore law is primarily based on the common law and since the UK Parliament has found it necessary to legislate that glorification of terrorism is a crime, would he agree that there might be a gap in our laws that our current law would not cover where the current UK law would now cover?”
“Thank you, Sir. The Minister indicated that he would monitor and would plug the hole when the need arises. Would he want to follow the UK example that they would only pass such a law after a terrorist attack in the tube? If a similar event happens in Singapore, would it be a bit too late to plug the gap? Assoc. Prof.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,025 lines we hold for Wang Kai Yuen, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 21.
“It is learning about the value system, the culture of our ancestors and, to a great extent, understanding our own sense of place as an individual in the universe. Like it or not, our language ability is also in our genes. Here, I mean more than the mental faculty to master one or more languages. Just as our genes dictate our physical features, the colour of our hair, eyes and skin, genes also influence the development of our ancestors' oral language in the way that they influence our voice boxes and our tongues, how they are constructed. This might sound chauvinistic, but some Korean parents actually believe in this and go to great lengths to send their children for painful surgical operations to lengthen their tongues so that they could speak better English. Sir, I also heard a programme over BBC recently reporting a study that demonstrated the intimate linkages between a language and the music created by a native speaker of the language. This study just covered two languages: the English language and English classical music; and the French language and French classical music. It showed that the pitch changes in the classical music mimic closely the pitch change of the spoken language. So, one could find the pitch jumping up and down the scale much more frequently in English classical music, compared to that of French classical music. I am not sure about modern rock music but, definitely, in classical music, that was the case. Sir, if the spoken language influences creative works like music, it is also highly probable that the spoken language would influence other mental processes. I believe language influences the thought processes and, by extension, our behaviour as a person. In this area, I am not an authority. Nonetheless, let me use a few examples.”
“Sir, as regards the recommendations, the key ones that would address some of the current shortcomings are: (1) more emphasis on the practical use of Chinese Language; (2) engaging and relevant instructional materials; and (3) enhancing Chinese Language learning through IT, including giving each child an electronic dictionary. To succeed, Sir, I hope Mr Wee's committee would jettison the old mindset and adopt a completely new one. In this area, I hope we can teach old dogs some new tricks. If not, maybe an infusion of new blood into the relevant Curriculum Planning and Development Division is necessary. Sir, I am positive about these changes. If Singapore could successfully develop a new pedagogy of Chinese Language instruction for children, combining understanding of how language is learned and the use of IT, it would open up a new phase of education in Singapore. We might even become the forefront of a new era where the use of IT would negate the disadvantages of a logographical language like Chinese, and make learning such a language a lively and enriching experience. We could, indeed, as the Minister of State, Mr Chan Soo Sen, has hinted, become a centre for the learning of Chinese as a foreign language for the world. Sir, I have not touched on the economic value of the Chinese Language nor do I intend to do so. It is not that economic value is not important. It is. As China continues to grow, its patronage will continue to be felt in far corners of the world. The announcements of Chinese investments in Cuba and Argentina are just some recent examples. Sir, ultimately, learning a language is more than just learning how to speak, read or write the language.”
“By learning a character one at a time, it is like building a wall, starting with individual bricks. Thus, before one can even paint anything meaningful, one has to build the wall first. This is a slow approach, making a basic assumption that human learning is a linear function, and that is why in our current curriculum we learn 300 characters a year and it goes linearly. But this is not how human learning takes place. Those of us who have observed how young children learn to walk and talk will notice that when kids first learn a few words and sounds, they are tentative, uncertain and slow. But, before we knew it, the child could suddenly start to walk and talk. Actually, human learning is not linear. It is actually slow in the beginning and, suddenly, it takes off exponentially. Therefore, Prof. Guo recommended a return to the classical approach. It is similar to teaching the students to paint first without having to first learn how to build a wall. Based on his findings, he spent three years to come up with a 4,000-character prose, with no word repeating itself but which rhymes much like a song. In other words, his students can actually learn how to sing this prose and, in the process, recognise close to 4,000 characters, starting from kindergarten. The results have been very impressive. His students of five to six years old, after two years in kindergarten, could easily read up to 1,000 characters, which would enable them to read books and newspaper reports. I would recommend that the Committee headed by Mr Wee tap into the expertise of Prof. Guo in coming up with a new curriculum.”
“He observed that from ancient time until then, Chinese at that time was taught in wen yan wen. In private schools, pupils learned to recite ancient texts like qian zhi wen or san zhi jin. I wonder whether Members also recall seeing old paintings depicting schools in old China where the tutor would be holding a cane and the students would be bent over books but, if you observe carefully, the students would be reciting verse, reading books. Very few such paintings would depict pupils holding brushes learning how to write. Sir, therefore the recommendation of the Report to promote "recognition first, and writing later" is not a new experiment, as Prof. Low suggested. It rests on past practices and perhaps very sound principles. Indeed, Prof. Guo asked the very simple question: why were there reports in ancient times of geniuses in China who would be able to recite lengthy texts at a very young age and yet, in modern China today, despite universal education and a much larger population, there is no such occurrence. I do not think the Chinese have become dumber or the genes have changed that much that geniuses are not produced. His conclusion is that what we considered as a traditional approach of teaching the language was indeed introduced recently about 100 years ago by the Chinese nationalist government after the overthrow of the Qing dynasty. As a result, we are now teaching Chinese, learning the characters one at a time, learning the strokes and the sound, completely out of context. In other words, we learn a word, and it will be out of context. Prof. Guo used an analogy in describing this way of learning Chinese characters. The end goal of learning a language can be viewed as preparing a blank wall for a budding artist to draw a painting.”
“If you remember, in fact, a second set of simplified characters was introduced but it was later withdrawn because of unfavourable response. There was also an attempt to replace the written form altogether by using pinyin. And for those of us who remember, from time to time, we can still see Chinese products with pinyin characters on it, a continuous stream of syllabus that makes no sense to anyone that is not initiated. It also did not go very far and peter out after a while. In fact, the future of the written form is still being debated in the scholarly circle as to whether the language ultimately would be replaced by pinyin as more and more Chinese become conversant with it. Sir, even today, learning Chinese in China is not without problems, though most of the Chinese today speak putonghua. This could be observed from the many attempts to introduce new innovations in learning the language in China, the experiments that Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay talked about in Parliament yesterday. If there is a need to find new ways to teach the language in China, what more in a multi-lingual environment in Singapore? Sir, I found the work by a Chinese scholar, Prof. Guo Bao Hua of ZhengZhou University, very interesting. Prof. Guo made several observations. First, he observed, which is a well-known fact, that Chinese is a tonal language. The learner would have to exert much greater effort if the teaching of the language does not take advantage of this fact. In other words, if you can teach Chinese through songs, for instance, like MOS Chan mentioned, maybe the effort of learning the language could be simpler. Second, he observed how Chinese was taught before the establishment of modern schools in China after the Qing Dynasty, another fact mentioned by MOS Chan.”
“Of the two major forms of human languages that we know of, linguistic languages and pictorial languages, history has already shown that pictorial languages ultimately become too cumbersome to learn, too difficult to use and many have become extinct. We can find examples of them when we visit museums, like the one I just visited this year in Mexico City where they do have the ancient Mexican pictorial languages in display, or if we go to Lijiang, you will find some of the existing pictorial languages in use, but mostly on tourist souvenirs. In fact, the Chinese script is perhaps the only one single surviving pictorial language in major use in the world today. Therefore, we must accept that the Chinese script is inherently difficult to learn. Sir, like all pictorial languages, since its emergence several thousand years ago, as MOS Chan has mentioned, the Chinese script has always been only mastered by a very small elite class at the top of the social hierarchy. And to achieve that, students were grilled from very young to become basically walking dictionary, memorising the sound, the stroke of every character. The script was not meant to be learned by everyone in the population as universal education was only attained in recent times in China. In fact, the difficulty of learning the Chinese script has always been an ancient curse in the Chinese society. Prior to the establishment of the People's Republic of China, the Chinese communists have viewed the Chinese script as a historical baggage designed by the scholars to suppress the proletariat. Therefore, the first thing they had done, when the PRC was established, was to introduce the simplified characters in an attempt to make the script easier to learn.”
“Parents are already giving mobile phone to their children at a younger and younger age. And many of these mobile phones are highly intelligent that have a complete Chinese dictionary in them and they also have the frequency of use of Chinese characters encoded in their memories. So the question is: why do we not take advantage of this development and why do we not take advantage of mobile phones in our Chinese Language instructions? As adults, we could actually function perfectly well today in Chinese without having to write the characters by hand. What is more important is the correct use of the Chinese characters and the correct use of the phrases in our communication, a fact already pointed out by Low Thia Khiang. Therefore, we need to ask ourselves whether our existing method of teaching Chinese, which we have inherited from China, unchanged perhaps for generations, is still the best way for today. Sir, at this juncture, may I seek your indulgence to give a short discourse on the Chinese Language. In the oral form, Mandarin is a member of the family of tonal languages in China. In a monolingual environment, every human being is endowed with the ability to speak one language. Chinese Language is no different. In fact, compared to western languages - like English, German - Chinese is simpler to learn as there are no singular or plural words, no present tense or past tense. In the written form, Sir, the Chinese script is a logographical language, derived from pictorial language, tracing its roots to the oracle bones script found in the excavation of ancient Shang Dynasty archaeological sites.”
“On the other hand, the Chinese texts he would be able to read are so simple that he finds them boring, dull and uninteresting. Sir, we would have to ask ourselves what would motivate our children to learn Chinese in school. Today, I believe our answer is simply "Because I said so". For parents amongst us, we all knew that using "Because I said so" would ultimately fail in inculcating desirable behaviour in our children. You must want to learn the language. Therein lies the key problem. Do we see the issue as a contest between two languages for the interest of a young mind when it comes to learning Chinese by our children? Perhaps, our stance on the mother tongue policy does not help the matter. As learning Chinese mother tongue is compulsory, the onus is actually on the child to make the effort to learn the language or face the consequences. As a result, innovation in the teaching of language, by and large, ceases. We are all aware that many of our students might score "A" in the subject but actually the command of their language is rather poor. I said earlier, worse, many have developed a dislike of the language. As more and more of our children carry this dislike into adulthood, what would happen to our mother tongue policy some time down the road? Sir, the second major trend that the Chinese Language pedagogy in our school did not take advantage of is the high penetration of IT in our society. We should have noticed how Chinese in the written form is being used in the real world by adults today as IT technology becomes ubiquitous. We write our speeches or letters using Chinese word processing on the PC. We send SMS to each other on our mobile phone, which is already becoming an indispensable and constant companion.”
“Yet, the ways we had learned the language by ting xie, mo xie, remain the burden of our children today. Sir, some might ask: what is the problem? They would point out that this traditional method of teaching Chinese is common in all Chinese communities in the world. The same approach is now used in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. So, why would we change when the other major Chinese school systems in the world are not changing? Sir, in my mind, if we were to continue unchanged, we would be ignoring two significant changes that have taken place in Singapore. First, our language environment has changed. Many of us have already spoken on this topic. The language used in our homes is increasingly English. And English is a language of knowledge acquisition and the knowledge of new and interesting things for children like science and technology. It is the language of the latest creative work sweeping the world that appeals to our young; movies, such as "The Lord of the Rings" and books, such as "Harry Potter". Thus, from the perspective of a typical Chinese Singaporean child, there are two languages out there competing for his attention, competing for his effort. One is English - fun, lively, easy to learn, easy to grasp, the key to knowledge and entertainment. The other is Chinese - arcane, difficult, boring and, to him, of not much practical use. I have observed the behaviour of my 10-year old son who is currently in P4. In English, he has mastered the language enough to be able to read interesting novels of very enticing plots. He is able to pick up new vocabulary on his own through reading. He would surf the Net to find out new information and knowledge through Yahoo and Google.”
“I understand the Chinese teachers got rather disheartened by the Report of this Committee. They were already very disappointed that the requirement of Chinese Language was removed as an entry requirement in computing the mark into university last year. And in his speech, Mr Chiam was probably catering to this sentiment when he made a complete U-turn regarding Chinese Language Studies and called for the reinstatement of this requirement. Collectively, our Chinese Language teachers feel responsible for the state of Chinese Language instruction in our country. Perhaps, they feel that the future of Chinese Language will become even dimmer when the recommendations in this Report are implemented. In my view, our Chinese Language teachers had done a most admirable job under the circumstances. They tirelessly encourage their charges, many of whom are reluctant learners, to keep up with the effort to learn the language. They operate under the constraints of the curriculum imposed by the MOE Curriculum Planning and Development Division, even though many of them are aware that many of their students have different abilities in mastering the syllabus. So, if anyone is at fault, even though I said I was not finding fault, it is MOE. It is appropriate that MOE today takes the initiative and leads in making the changes. Sir, the teaching of the Chinese Mother Tongue Language has remained unchanged since I learned it almost 50 years ago. Other than the introduction of simplified Chinese characters and hanyu pinyin, there have been very little changes over the years in this half century. On the other hand, over the same period, the world has changed. Technology has advanced by leaps and bounds.”
“What is more important in sustaining our bilingual policy is the attitude of our students towards the Chinese Language after they have gone through the education system. In this respect, it is lamentable that more and more students study the language simply because it is required of them. The love for the language seems to be missing. It is not used by the students as a language to explore new knowledge or new frontiers. In school or outside, it is a language of not much high practical use for them. Furthermore, many students got completely turned off, despite much effort, and developed a strong dislike for the language, some intensely. This is indeed a very undesirable outcome of our education system. Sir, I believe the instruction of Chinese Language in our schools is at a crossroad. We could leave everything alone and do nothing, as urged by some Members. The situation will then just deteriorate further and 10-20 years down the road, our education system in Chinese Language will, I believe, collapse under its own weight. Alternatively, we could grab the bull by the horns and make the necessary changes. In this respect, Sir, I must compliment the Minister for coming to grips with the situation soon after taking over the Ministry and setting up the Review Committee in February 2004. Credit should be given to the Review Committee for its cogent analysis and appropriate recommendations. Reading the Report, Sir, I conclude that the Committee has gotten to the root of the problems facing Chinese Language pedagogy in Singapore. Sir, prior to commenting on the various recommendations, allow me to give my observations about the current problems. In making these observations, I am not trying to find faults.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the issue of Chinese Language instruction in Singapore is always an emotive issue. Paradoxically, whenever we discuss this topic, it is always with a sense of angst, a sense of anxiety, never in a sense of joy or in a sense of living the language. I can ask a simple question. After all these years of compulsory mother tongue education, is the standard of Chinese Language in Singapore lower or higher than before? A very simple question, but I believe the answer can be different depending on your perspective. One could argue that, based on average achievement, the standard is higher. Why should I say so, Sir? I say so because the penetration of Mandarin, both in the spoken form as well as in the written form among Singaporeans, has indeed reached the highest level ever as most of our school-going children have close to 10 years of Chinese instruction. Whereas in the past, when Singapore had distinct language stream schools, a much lower percentage of our students had similar exposure. The standard of the spoken language is also much better than before, as our children now have the benefit of pinyin and better trained teachers. Sir, on the other hand, based on the peak achievements attained by our better students, I believe the peaks are now much lower than those of earlier times. The school system is producing very few outstanding individuals with strong command of the language, like Mr Low Thia Khiang, and, more importantly, people who want to pursue the love of the language as a long-term career. In this important aspect, the standard of Chinese Language in Singapore has dropped. However, Sir, in the context of our bilingual policy, perhaps having high peaks of excellence is not really sustainable.”
“A clarification, Sir. Is the Minister of State, in her reply, implying that the tables produced by the Straits Times from the IRAS data on the revenue collectedfor the first nine months, were subject to my interpretation? In other words, they are not accurate. And, if they are not accurate, would the IRAS not issue or request theStraits Times to clarify or makeamendments rather than leaving the data in the minds of the public?”
“And it gave a table which showed that estate duty increased from $49 million for the first nine months of the year in 2003 to $339 million for 2004. My question is:how would a booming economy increase the collection of estate duty? Because, most of the time, estate duty is levied on assets, and assets, I presume, are primarily based on, besidesshares, mostlyassets like real estate and, in the prevailing period, I do not believe real estate has increased that much. So I wonder whether it is more rich men have died during this period or the collection has become more efficient. On this note, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I did not plan to speak butsince we are on the Estate Duty (Amendment) Bill,I thoughtthatwe should address the principles in debating this Bill. According to Dr Tony Tan, in his speech to Parliament in March 1984, he mentioned that estate dutyis, in principle, the fairest of all taxes. When a person dies, the State takes it all. But priorto 1984, there were many Members calling for the abolition ofestate duty, including Dr Augustine Tan and Mr Chau Sik Ting. The principle is that the rich men can avoid estate duty, but the burden of estate duty tends to fall on mostly the middle-income group. So, in his Budget Speech in 1984, Dr Tony Tan amended the estate duty rate to the current rate,thereby relieving the burden of the middle-income group. So my question to the Minister is whether the current regime continues to fulfill that objective and whether there is a need to review the wholeestate duty,and whether Mr Chiam's call for scrappingestate dutyis justifiable. Of course, my GPC Chairman, Dr Ahmad Magad, has pointed out that in today's global environment, we might have to review estate duty in view of competition. I refer to theSouth China Morning Post of21st Julythis year which commented that the long running debate on whether Hong Kong's estate dutyshould be scrapped should be resolved by the next Budget. So within Asia, at least we have a territory, whichis a competing economy, that might scrap estate duty altogether. That is the principle that I would like to address. I would like to ask the Minister for her reply. In terms of estate duty collection, I have a clarification to seek. The Straits Times, in November this year, highlighted that with abooming economy and a solid economicrecovery, it swelled the taxman's coffersby $1.3 billion.”
“Sir, the Minister provided a table with the numbers of employment changes. I would like to ask the Minister whether these new jobs are occupied 100% by resident Singapore workforce or the non-resident workforce is also involved. If non-resident workforce is involved, what is the percentage of the non-resident workforce?”
“Including work permit holders, they can get married anywhere in the world without our approval.”
“My question is whether anyone would need the approval of Government to get married.”
“I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether a marriage can take place, under universal law, at any place on earth and does not require the approval of the Singapore Government. The Singapore Government can only grant permission to get married in Singapore, as a result of which, with our approval, they can gain residential status in Singapore. Is that a fact?”
“But he was first among his equals, and he had the grace and the wisdom to tap the greatness of every member of his team. In the depth of recession, Mr Goh, in his 2003 National Day Rally Speech, talked about being in the valley of gloom. He promised to show the nation "the way out of the gloomy valley and up into the sunny highlands". Typically of Mr Goh, he fulfilled his promise. Once achieved, he did not linger to bask in the glory but stepped aside so that a younger team, led by Prime Minister Lee, could take Singapore into the next phase of its development. Sir, this is the hallmark of a great leader - a selfless leader, a leader that will endure in the hearts of Singaporeans for all time! After 14 years of Mr Goh's leadership, we have emerged as a more united people. In his National Day Rally Speech of 2002, Mr Goh talked about Singapore thus: "This is home because we built it. Every Singaporean has given a part of himself, big or small, to the country. Singapore is the sum of our dreams, our fears, our sweat. It reflects who we are and what we want to be." These words still resonate with us. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe I speak for all Singaporeans when I say, "Thank you, Mr Goh. We love you." [Applause.] EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, That the proceedings on thebusiness set down on the Order Paper for today be exemptedat this day’s sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [MrMah Bow Tan]. CONTRIBUTIONS BY SENIOR MINISTER GOH CHOK TONG Debate resumed.”
“His policies reflect his genuine concern for the lower income group. Mr Speaker, Sir, from the feedback I got from the ground, Mr Goh is beloved by all Singaporeans, the old as well as the young, the rich as well as the poor. Mr Goh has changed the way we live our lives, care for our parents and nurture our children. He has implemented wealth-sharing schemes such as the Edusave and Medifund. Together, they provide a comprehensive and yet reasonable welfare net for Singaporeans to ensure that they have access to good healthcare, even if they fall on hard times. More importantly, the Edusave scheme ensures that every child in Singapore would start from the same starting point in running the next lap. Ultimately, Sir, the rootedness of Singaporeans is primarily a matter of the heart. In this respect, Mr Goh fundamentally changed the relationship between the Government and the people. Looking ahead to the time when Mr Lee Hsien Loong would take over as Prime Minister, most Singaporeans believed that the days of the gentler Government would be over, as they expected the new Prime Minister would pursue more hard-headed policies based on logic and less on the heart. Contrary to expectation, PM Lee chose to pursue the open approach of Mr Goh. Thus, indeed, the trend towards openness introduced by Mr Goh is entrenched. The legacy of Mr Goh lives on. Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore has benefited from his steady hand on the helm during the good times and bad. He became Prime Minister at age 49 and stepped down at 64. It is a tribute to the man who has devoted the most productive years of his life in the service of Singapore. I know he will say that he did not do this alone, and that he had a good team.”
“He said:"I would like to encourage greater participation by Singaporeans in shaping the destiny of Singapore." Later, he also said: "Younger Singaporeans want to participate in determining the course of Singapore and we should encourage their participation." Apparently, this 1985 message is still valid as Prime Minister Lee also called for younger Singaporeans to step forward in his recent 2004 National Day Rally Speech. The role of feedback is also given prominence in policy decision-making by his Government. Mr Goh, in his message to the book, "Building Bridges, the Story of the Feedback Unit" reaffirmed that, and I quote: "To govern effectively, the political leadership and public service must have their ears close to the ground. Feedback helps us to understand the concerns of the people." Sir, it is clear to all that he implemented his policies with a heart. I remember how the Medifund scheme came about. At a debate in Parliament on the restructuring of Government hospitals, it was pointed out that such changes would impact Singaporeans already past their prime, who no longer had the earning power in the time remaining in their active life to save up for their medical care. The situation was indeed more grave for those who had already retired. To address these concerns, Mr Goh introduced the Medifund Endowment scheme in April 1993 with an initial capital of $200 million as a safety net. Another example is that of the GST increase from 3% to 5%. When recession hit Singapore badly in 2003, it became an issue whether the Government should go ahead with upping the GST from 3% to 5% in one step or to 4%, followed by another 1% one year later. It is Mr Goh's concern for the lower income that swung the decision in favour of a two-step increase.”
“He instituted Inter-racial Confidence Circles in all wards as a new grassroots initiative. Sir, as a result, I believe that relationship between the races is now stronger than ever. Mr Speaker, Sir, during his tenure as Prime Minister, his popularity increased year by year. He led the PAP from the low electoral popularity of 61% in 1991 to 65% in 1997 to the high of 75.3% in 2001. Still, few would view Mr Goh as the consummate politician. But it is political suicide to underestimate him - as Mr Chee Soon Juan learned painfully in the General Election of 2001. Chee Soon Juanhectored Mr Goh at a campaign walkabout in Jurong GRC, in front of television cameras, for all Singaporeans to see. As a result, the Jurong team polled the highest among the GRCs - 79.8% of votes, and the SDP became a spent force. In fact, in the General Election of 2001, some districts, with new PAP candidates, polled as high as 80%. Sir, Mr Goh has a long coat-tail that carried these new MPs into Parliament. Sir, he achieved his popularity despite the numerous unpopular measures that had been implemented during his term of Government. For instance, bus fares cotninued to be adjusted from time to time, PUB bills went up, Town Councils' charges increased, medical bills increased as hospitals were corporatised, GST was introduced and later raised during his tenure. Bread and butter issues continued to irk the population. The interesting thing is that people blamed the Government and the civil service. Hardly anyone blamed Mr Goh. To me, that is the feat of a consummate politician. How did he do it? I think it is a difficult question. I do not know the answer, but perhaps I can offer some hints. For instance, he mooted the idea of the Feedback Unit in 1985.”
“First, South-East Asia was struck by the Asian financial crisis in 1998. Then followed September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001, and the economic recession aggravated by SARS. To help the lower-income groups, as soon as the budget permitted it, Mr Goh announced in his 2000 National Day Rally that there would be a CPF top-up of between $500 and $1,700 to be given to Singaporeans. The first payment would benefit 1.9 million Singaporeans, and the second payment would be given out in early December 2001. By 2001, it was clear that many would miss out on this top-up, as they did not contribute the $100 required to qualify. In his 2001 National Day Rally Speech, one year later, Mr Goh announced that the 187,000 Singaporeans who missed out would be given a second chance. This demonstrated once again his flexibility and his genuine desire to help those who truly needed it. By then, Sir, Singapore was in the second year of a recession. Factories were relocating and the unemployment ratewas atan all time high. The Economic Downturn Relief Scheme was implemented to assist those who lost their jobs on an urgent basis. This was a concrete, practical and compassionate way of helping Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, Sir, during this period, Mr Goh also handled well some of the more divisive issues facing Singapore. For instance, the JI terrorist arrests, starting in December 2001 and continuing into September 2002, could have driven a wedge between the various races in Singapore. At that time, the newspapers reported that some Chinese Singaporeans would view any Muslim wearing a beard and a sarong with suspicion. Instead, Mr Goh seized the occasion to build a stronger bond between the races. He met with all the Malay Muslim leaders.”
“In his National Day Rally Speech, he noted that people were turning to strawberries instead of pineapples, and observed that even NTUC FairPrice now sells sushi. But Mr Goh knew that at a time of plenty, there would still be those who need help within the community. Way back before any of his wealth-sharing policy was implemented, Mr Goh shared with the MPs his concerns on the trend of widening income gap between the higher-income groups and the lower-income groups in Singapore. It was at a time when the forces of globalisation wreaking changes were still not obvious to many people. At one lunch with myself and two other MPs, he talked about his concept of "negative income tax" as a way of income distribution to bridge the widening income gap. I believe this was the genesis of the various wealth sharing schemes such as Edusave, the various rebates and top-up schemes as well as the ESS shares. Of course, these goodies are popular. But I do not think this was what made him popular. What did was his concern for the lower income and the less fortunate ones amongst us. Mr Goh knows that the best way to help them was not to rely on a faceless bureaucracy but on the grassroots leaders and self-help groups, and to give resources to volunteer organisations and empower local interest groups. Thus, in 1997, the Community Development Councils were set up. At the swearing-in ceremony of the first batch of Mayors, Mr Goh said, "The establishment of the CDCs is part of the process to build a tightly-knit, compassionate and self-reliant society." As a result, today, we have more young professionals participating in a new kind of volunteer community work with the CDCs. Sir, the next seven years from 1998 to 2004 were lean years.”
“Despite his affability, or rather because of it, Mr Goh would emerge as the natural leader once he wins over your confidence. Sir, even though Mr Goh did not seek the job of Prime Minister, once he assumed the responsibility, he devoted his heart and soul to it. The future of Singapore and the welfare of Singaporeans, especially Singaporeans from the lower income groups, became his foremost concerns. He governed with his head but ruled with his heart. Senior Minister Goh's achievements as Prime Minister are numerous, and have been well documented by the newspapers during the run-up period to 12th August 2004. I do not intend to cover the same ground but, nonetheless, some mention would be appropriate. In his 2004 National Day speech earlier this month, Mr Goh spoke of seven bountiful years and seven lean years during his tenure. In good times, he shared the wealth, opened up our political space and put in new organisations to unify us. Inbad times, he was generous to the needy, attentive to the unemployed, and worked tirelessly to help Singapore build up economic ties with other nations. Sir, the first seven years produced bountiful harvests. In 1990, the per capita GDP was $27,950. By 1997, this had increased to $37,351. The average annual GDP growth during those years was 8.8%. Our average household income grew from $2,300 in 1990 to $3,600 in year 2000. Between 1990 and 1995, purchasing power rose an average of 4.9%. The mid-1990s marked the high point of Singapore's consumer spending. The changing lifestyles of Singaporeans created an upbeat, hopeful and vibrant feel across the island. Sir, all this was in line with the Government's Vision of 1999. In 1996, Mr Goh, in his usual homespun humour, pointed out the way lifestyles of Singaporeans were changing.”
“At that time, education in RI was a six-year affair, from Form 2 to Form 6, or the equivalent of Secondary 1 to JC 2 in today's nomenclature. Sir, an interesting event occurred which, in retrospect, appears to be oracular. In those days, Form 6 students typically provided the leadership for school societies. Mr Lim and his fellow students in Form 5, however, were a rebellious lot. They felt that they were equally good, if not better than some of theForm 6 students. In one society, the Historical Society, this group of friends fielded their Form 5 candidates and organised to get their candidates elected. This they could do readily as there were five classes in Form 5 whereas there was only one Arts stream in Form 6. Thus, the number was in their favour. What was different was that these rebels did not study history as a subject because, in those days, History was not offered and most of the better students were studying Science. Imagine a group of Form 5 students putting up young Mr Goh as a candidate, albeit a reluctant candidate, overthrew the sixth formers in the election of office bearers for the Historical Society. Sir, coincidentally, Prof. Jayakumar, DPM, a sixth former at that time, was a casualty of Mr Goh's popularity. Upon assuming office, young Mr Goh proceeded to organise two speaking sessions on democracy. Sir, that was the era of self-government under the Rendel Constitution. The Society invited the then Chief Minister, Mr David Marshall, as well as the fiery Secretary-General of the Opposition party, the PAP, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, to speak to the students. The sessions were packed. Thus, according to Mr Lim, he was not surprised when Mr Goh was chosen by his peers to lead Singapore as Prime Minister.”
“Not only that, he continues to use the cake of soap until it is minuscule, a frugal habit he acquired as a child. Sir, from such little things, one gets a true measure of the man. Indeed, he is a Prime Minister Singaporeans can readily identify with. By his own account, Senior Minister Goh was a reluctant politician who gave up a successful career in the corporate world to become an MP. When his peers chose him to be Prime Minister, he was not the first choice of the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew. I believe we still remember Mr Goh being described by Mr Lee Kuan Yew as being 'wooden' in his delivery of speeches. Thus, at times, one was not sure whether Mr Goh enjoyed the blessing of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who remained as Secretary-General of PAP for a period after stepping down as Prime Minister. Sir, Mr Goh wore his own shoes. At ease with himself despite the constant comparison with Mr Lee Kuan Yew, he was able to leverage on his personal attributes which turned out to be his strengths. And in so doing, he changed the whole tone of the Government after he became Prime Minister. Mr Goh succeeded in bringing Singaporeans from all walks of life, from all ethnic groups, closer together. More than all his achievements, Mr Goh leaves behind the legacy of openness which laid the foundation of a more dynamic and vibrant Singapore. Sir, this tendency of Mr Goh, not seeking the limelight on his own but elected by his peers as their leader, was already manifested in his senior years in secondary school. This story was told to me by Mr Lim Jit Poh, a career civil servant turned well-known corporate figure. Mr Lim was a classmate of Mr Goh in Raffles Institution, back in 1958, close to 46 years ago, when Mr Goh and Mr Lim were in Form 5.”
“Another young lady told me that at theSeventh month festival last Sundayshe believed that Mr Goh has a passion for Singapore as he put his heart and soul into the job as Prime Minister. Sir, I believe the image that will stay onpeople's mind when one thinks of Mr Goh would be the smiling Prime Minister, waving with his right arm raised, as he walked towards the lectern on National Day Rallies. It is an image that projects the persona of Mr Goh well: approachable, compassionate, caring and warm. Sir, Mr Goh has immense capacity to listen to differing views without taking personal offence. As such, he encourages open and frank discussions. I still remember the MP caucus meeting where the topic was "The Next Lap: the Swiss 1984 standard of living by 1999". It was during the time when Coca Cola introduced the new Coke which, if you remember, failed miserably in the market place. At the meeting, I had the audacity to describe that slogan as a glass of cola which had lost its sizzle. The fact that Mr Goh did not take offence exemplified the Chinese saying"宰相 肚 里 能 撑 船 (Zaixiang du li neng cheng chuan)", which could be roughly translated to mean that "the Prime Minister has immense tolerance for criticism". Indeed, Sir, Mr Goh, as a person, can be described as what you see is what you get. Those of us who have the privilege to work with Mr Goh know this. As a person, Mr Goh retains his roots after 14 years as Prime Minister. I gained an insight of the person when the topic of Singaporeans' consumption of personal hygiene products was discussed at one of the MPs' Tuesday lunches. Mr Goh disclosed that he still used a bar of soap for washing and bathing - not hand soap, not some of those fancy bath foams, when the sale of such products exceeded the sale of bar soap.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the desire of the fellow Members of Parliament to find the earlist opportunity in this House to express our thanks to Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong is unanimous. In fact, Dr Tan Cheng Bock, who is overseas on Parliament business, has asked me specificially to mention that he shares the sentiment and the feelings of Singapore on this occasion to thank Senior Minister Goh for his tremendous contributions as Prime Minister. I am sure Dr Tan would have much to say if hewas present in the House, given that he is a contemporary of the Senior Minister since secondary school and has served in Parliament together with Mr Goh since December 1980. Further, the four of us have put our names down so that the motion could be moved in the four official languages to affirm the fact that as representatives of Singaporeans we speak with one voice on this motion. Mr Speaker, Sir, when asked what they think of Senior Minister Goh, the responses from the people from all walks of life are consistent. Let me give two examples. Mr Pang Kim Hin, former PAP candidate for Anson, characterised Mr Goh as a "people person". To him, Mr Goh is firm but, at the same time, open to others' human failings. Mr Goh is approachable, someone to whom you could pour out your problems and would get a sympathetic ear and not got clobbered in the process. With Mr Goh, one feels comfortable and accepted. In contrast, according to Mr Pang, his predecessor, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, is a no-nonsense person.Sir, this change in the leadership style is more in tune with the time. Mr Goh brings out the best in you because you want to, and not because you have to.”
“Sir, why 24 months of National Service and why have we not been able to cut it shorter for those who, for example, are currently serving 24 months of National Service? As I explained, we need to maintain sufficiently large units in order to have a standing force to meet our peacetime contingencies. Our units are made up of both "A" level and diploma National Servicemen as well as those who do not have "A" levels and diplomas. So they are mixed units. We need about 12 months in order for the men to complete their individual as well as collective training to reach a sufficient level of proficiency for the whole unit. And after that, we need to have enough units who are operationally ready in order to meet these peacetime contingencies. Our estimation of the situation is that we need the units to serve for one year after they have been trained for 12 months in order to have sufficient units to meet our peacetime contingency requirements. If we were to reduce the period of National Service below 24 months, even for some of the soldiers, what it would mean is that there will be gaps in those units which will not be filled, and those units will not be able to fulfil their operational duties.”
“Sir, before I put my question, I would like to congratulate the Minister for making a very bold decision in the history of National Service. I would also like to explain why I applauded his decision and also why other Members applauded. I believe we applauded not because of our diminished commitment to National Service nor public pressure to reduce the NS period. The SAF, being a human manpower oriented organisation, I believe it must have been very difficult to get his commanders' agreement to reduce the National Service period, and that is the reason why we applauded for his very insightful decision. The question I would like to ask is why would he only reduce the National Service period for those who are committed to serve 2 1/2 years and these National Servicemen are primarily commanders and officers. Have they considered reducing correspondingly those non-commander National Servicemen by even a token period, not necessarily by six months but maybe three months, given the fact that there is a confluence of two factors which he mentioned, like the 3G SAF and also the increased number of National Service intake? RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Dr Wang for his remarks and compliments. But the compliments also go to my officers in the Armed Forces because they have studied this matter very carefully over quite a long period of time. They themselves have come to this conclusion that the way forward for the SAF is the 3rd Generation SAF, and that this is the way to get more capability for the SAF while maintaining the period of National Service for as short as possible in order to meet our defence needs.”
“Would the Minister consider retaining the time bar as a policy but adjust the period as a flexibility to meet market conditions?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Minister's response, the time bar was introduced to prevent competition between upgraders and first timers. Is he saying that there is still competition between first timers and upgraders, given that there are 10,000 flats that are not sold for the past few years and for the next few years? Mr Mah Bow Tan: As I have said earlier, we cannot frame policies on the basis of what is the current situation which is not something that is permanent. It is not HDB's policy to maintain a buffer stock of 10,000 units all the time. The 10,000 units will be taken up. It is a matter of time. And when that happens, what do we do? Change the policy back again? Obviously, we cannot do that. So the policy has got an intention behind it, which is to make sure that people do not sell their flat, get another flat without any hindrance or deterrence, or that they will just sell their private property and get a HDB flat, again without any hindrance. So there is a purpose in that policy, and that policy has served us well. Yes, it is true that there is a surplus of flats today. But do we change the policy to solve the surplus problem? I do not think so. I think that is a wrong thing to do because one day, the surpluses would be gone. Then what happens? Do I change back again?”
“Sir, would the Minister of State agree that at the airport, the security charge paid by the passengers for checks and security scanning is not for the security of the facilities? Whereas in this case, it is the security of the facilities that we are talking about, and the security guards are not scanning or checking the baggage of persons and so on. Would the Minister of State not consider expanding the definition of the term "installations" in the train stations so that police officers could be deployed without the employment of security guards?”
“I would like to ask the Minister of State, conceptually, what is the difference between providing security in the airport versus providing security in the train stations. From time to time, police officers and even SAF officers are deployed and we have not heard that there was a request for the commuters or the users of the airport to bear this security cost.”
“Question No. 3, Sir. In asking the Question, may I declare my interest as an independent director of ComfortDelgro, a listed company operating the North-East line.”
“Sir, this Head attracted not only the highest number of cuts but also the more emotionally-charged speeches. I thank the Minister, the Minister of State and the Parliamentary Secretary for their patience and their replies. In particular, I would like to congratulate the Minister for his bold policy announcements. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, there are basically two possible models of university admissions - a central university examination or a university-specific selection examination. Both are being used in the world and each has its merits. In Singapore, we have basically the central system. However, as each of the universities aims to differentiate themselves into different centres of excellence, there is a trend towards customising the admission criteria to its needs. Of course, even before this, specific faculties have their own tailored admission criteria. Furthermore, with the establishment of the Sports School and the Arts School, are we also going to see some adjustment in the admission criteria to accommodate the talents of students from these Schools? Sir, the Minister has painted a more competitive landscape for university education in Singapore down the road. One or two private universities will be coming on stream very soon, and they have their own admission criteria. Further, as we shift our emphasis towards greater thinking skills, university admission to the state-funded university will become more judgmental. What used to be a very simple network is becoming a more complicated maze. I think the students will find it quite a task to navigate. The question to the Minister is: how do we continue to ensure that the process is fair, equitable and transparent?”
“So far, everything seems to be, by and large, in good order as we have good men and women at the helm. What is there to assure that things will remain the same in the future? This is assuming greater importance as we contemplate changing the way the three state universities are funded. At the current funding level of 75% state funding, at least the university administrations feel obliged to caress the hand that hands out the money. What would happen if there are other equally important hands to take care of in the future? Would the Minister give an update on the governance of the three local universities and whether the governance of the universities could be improved, as they are given greater autonomy in the near future? University Admission Sir, the removal of SAT as an admission criterion is indeed welcome as its weightage has already dropped to a mere 5%. This shows the willingness of the Acting Minister to bite the bullet, and his willingness to make drastic changes. What he announced yesterday and today is a very refreshing move. Still, the experimentation of SAT was costly, both in terms of expenses and the time and effort of everyone in the JC system during this period. We should learn from this that the university admission criteria should be handled with a view towards the long term. Furthermore, the announcement that the mother tongue language is no longer compulsory also caused great changes in the mood of the MTL teachers as well as the students who are preparing for the university entrance examinations. As university education is the ultimate goal of everyone in the school system, whatever we set as the selection criteria has great impact on the cohort all the way back down to Primary 1.”
“Sir, MOE, traditionally, has left the running of our universities to the respective university councils and Chief Executive Officers. This is the right approach and I have no argument about this. On the other hand, as the enrolment of the universities increases over the years, the proportion of the budget devoted to university education has crept up to reach 25% of the total education budget. In terms of resources, this is a disproportionately higher amount compared to the other 75%, if we just judge on the number of beneficiaries alone. Yet, on the other hand, the attention devoted by the Ministry on the assessment and the evaluation of universities does not seem to be equally high. From the GPC perspective, our Members have not visited the universities for many years now. Sir, as we encourage greater autonomy for the universities, the balance of governance is indeed shifting more towards the universities. In the process of granting greater autonomy, not everything has been smooth or will be smooth. However, the feedback and monitoring process seems to be a black box. Many of us, observing from the outside, wonder who is holding the reins, how are the universities assessed and what are the performance measures. In theory, the various councils are empowered to ensure proper governance of the universities. In practice, as in the corporate world, much depends on the Chairman, the CEO and the tradition of the councils. The recent episodes in the US corporate world highlighted the danger of an imperial CEO. The question is whether MOE has a proper oversight in place to ensure proper governance of our universities. Are there checks and balances in place to prevent the emergence of an all-powerful CEO?”
“One of the key issues about streaming is labelling of the streams. In one clean decisive action, the Minister has removed the most bothersome aspect of streaming but has left the labelling untouched. I would like to congratulate the Minister for the very bold action taken on streaming. May I ask, what is the effective date of this removal of streaming? Is it effective today? How about those students in P5 and P6 who have already been streamed into EM1 and EM2? Are we going to remove this labelling and streaming for them as well?”
“These were written by Professor Guo Baohua of Zhengzhou University, entitled "Chinese characters classic". There are 1,000 sentences that rhyme. Each sentence contains four characters, and no one character is used twice. The first few lines are: 乾 坤 有 序, 宇 宙 无 疆 星 辰 密 布, 斗 柄 指 航 昼 白 夜 黑, 日 明 月 亮 风 驰 云 舞, 电 闪 雷 响 "Heaven and Earth move in order; The universe has no border; Stars are dispersed densely in the night sky; The Great Dipper guides sailors in sea so high; The bright day follows the dark night; As sure as the sun is bright and the moon shiny; Clouds dance with winds blowing; In tune with rumbling thunder and flashing lightning. Is this what kindergarten students are capable of learning? Prof. Guo said that he was merely emulating the ancient "1,000-Character Classic" or "Three-Character Canon". By the use of his teaching materials, the 5 to 6 year-old children can pick up about 1,000 characters, facilitating them with the capability to read books and newspapers. I think MOE needs to study this set of teaching materials. It may not be the panacea, but there may be quite a lot of things that we could learn from.”
“From the time when I was in the primary school to the present time, the way the Chinese language has been taught in school remains unchanged, except for the use of Hanyu Pinyin and the simplified Chinese characters to replace the traditional characters. In this period of 50 years, great changes have taken place in the world economy and society, but dictation and writing passages from memory remain the baggage of students. This is a problem not only in Singapore, but also in China and Taiwan, where the learning of Chinese characters is not a simple matter. In the bilingual environment of Singapore, I think the teaching methods should be innovated. We have not explored new methods probably because of the compulsory Mother Tongue policy. Since it is compulsory, there is no need to innovate. If students do not get admitted into the premier schools, then the implication is that they have not worked hard enough, hence they could not score well in examinations. In the circumstances, students take up the Mother Tongue for the sake of the examinations, and not for the love of it. Those who cannot cope, will hate it even more. I can see from my own four children, especially my 9-year old child. With his standard of English, he can read interesting story books, such as Harry Potter. But with his meagre standard of Chinese, he is unable to read books which are likely to interest him, while the only books he could read and understand are probably too elementary to arouse his interest. With modern technology, even the handphone has a dictionary. Therefore, I think word recognition is more important than writing. If you forget how to write, we can always look it up. I have recently read a report about some kindergartens in the Henan Province using some new teaching materials.”
“With your indulgence, Sir, I would like to raise the issue of criteria used in streaming. In our streaming process, we actually use different criteria. For children selected for the gifted programme, the selection is based on their analytical skills, not so much of their mother tongue proficiency. On the other hand, the emphasis of PSLE is very much on languages, with English and mother tongue carrying two-thirds of the total 300 points. This emphasis has tilted the balance of education towards language rather than learning of knowledge such as Geography, History and Arts. As a result, I found that our P6 pupils are narrowly focused compared to the pupils of other educational systems of comparable standard in the world.”
“Regarding mother tongue, Sir, the introduction of Chinese B has created heated discussions within the Chinese community regarding the teaching of the Chinese language. They are also concerned about the decline of the Chinese language. Surprisingly, because of two main newspapers - one in English and the other in Chinese - covered the issue from two different perspectives, the issue has even threatened to become a proxy contest of wills between the Chinese educated versus the English educated Singaporeans. Sir, this is unnecessary. The issue also shifted to focus on the value of the Chinese language with the ascendancy of China as an economic power. I believe that we should all review the issue of mother tongue and ask ourselves why do we insist that our children should learn their mother tongue. Yes, language and culture are as inextricably tied to the economic development of people using the language. Still, for Singaporeans who are descendants of immigrants, I think the most important factor for us must be the issue of our identity. I think it would be tragic if our children growing up in Asia end up completely cut off from our heritage by giving up on their mother tongue. This goes to the core of us being human beings. For Chinese Singaporeans giving up Chinese would be especially regrettable, as we have everything in place to retain proficiency in the language. Given this anxiety, I would ask the Minister to reaffirm the Government's resolve towards the commitment of mother tongue education in our schools. Sir, another topic that is close to our heart is streaming, which is a hot topic judging from the number of cuts.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head K of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, the Ministry recently changed several long-standing policies such as school ranking, single intake for pre-university and scrapping of SAT for part of the university admission criteria. After many years of debate in this House, it seems that our voices were finally being heard. I would like to congratulate the Acting Minister for his bold and decisive actions. The quick turn-around on SAT requirement is especially dramatic, given the justification of SAT in this House just two years ago. I hope these small changes are reflective of the change in emphasis and focus in MOE towards education in primary and secondary schools. These changes, though minor, went to the heart of the problem. I believe we are doing the right thing, moving away from the over emphasis on grades. Instead, we should focus on the development of our pupils and students to be upright and productive citizens of Singapore - our future citizens who grow up confident of their ability to tackle the challenges of the future, self-assured and well equipped to stand on their feet in a globalised economy in the future. In my mind, Sir, the best way forward is to do so by engaging them in sports and other supervised CCAs. Another change is the relaxation of mother tongue requirement for university admission. My understanding is that in the past, students could still gain enrolment into the university, even if they failed the mother tongue, provided they take remedial lessons in the university. So, in practice, the impact of the change is not that great. Nonetheless, the removal of penalty as a disincentive should address the source of angst in many parents and students regarding mother tongue.”
“There is a BBC radio report comparing the cost of prescription drugs sold in the US and those sold in Canada, which is just across the border in the state of New York. There was indeed a substantial difference. This has led to grassroots activists among US retirees to call for legislation controlling prices of such drugs in the state of New York. Sir, I am not very sure whether legislation will be very effective. In any event, my questions to the Minister are: how do we allow greater freeplay of market forces in the demand and supply of medical personnel like doctors, nurses and branded medicine like drugs? How do we remove man-made barriers to foster greater competition? Competition between Medical Clusters”
“Sir, when the Government restricted the enrolment of Singapore medical students into overseas universities, it justified the action on the basis that it would prevent the over-supply of doctors. In so doing, the Government embraced protectionism for the medical profession. Soon thereafter, Sir, we started to see distortions in the demand and supply of doctors. In fact, the Government hospitals themselves started to recruit overseas-trained doctors. This showed that market manipulation by anyone, including the Singapore Government, is not going to work very well. In this respect, I am indeed heartened that DPM Lee has announced in his Budget speech a further expansion of the approved overseas training universities to about 70-plus, effectively driving the nails into the coffins of protectionism on the supply of medical doctors. But the effect of the old policy lingers on. By and large, the cost of medical care in Singapore is high, especially the fees of specialists. For instance, a cataract operation by a private-sector surgeon would cost close to S$5,000 per eye. I noted that, despite better technology procedures thereby resulting in better productivity, this cost has not come down over the years. Furthermore, Sir, the issue of branded drugs in Singapore, being more expensive compared to those just across the Causeway, has been brought up in this House before. Then Minister Lim initiated some actions - I cannot remember what - but we heard nothing about it after a while. Sir, it is well-known that drug companies will price their drugs differently in different countries based on the per capita income or their ability to pay. And this is not just happening in the case of Singapore and Johore.”
“Sir, within living memory, a free public healthcare has always been a safety net provided by the Government. To many Singaporeans, this is being viewed as a right of citizenship. To others, it is being viewed as an entitlement that they have earned after a life-time of paying taxes. Of course, if a person chooses not to be treated in a Class C ward, he does so on his own free will. With means testing, this right to medical subsidies is being taken away from him. This is a big step affecting every Singaporean and a step not to be taken lightly. In the deliberation of medical subsidies conducted by the Feedback Unit, there emerged a view from the discussions that perhaps the amount of subsidy a patient would have received in a Class C ward should be credited to him whenever he is hospitalised. So, if he so chooses, he could be warded in a better ward in a public hospital or even in a private hospital. Then he could chip in his credit. This is more or less the same concept the Ministry has adopted for some outpatient visits to private clinics. This way, if we adopt it, everyone is happy. There is no need to introduce means testing. Sir, I think this school of thought is flawed, dangerous and reflects a self-centred view of the individual. I believe healthcare is not a buffet meal. Healthcare subsidy should be targeted at those who really need it. To pursue the viewpoint that healthcare subsidy should be credited would be simply ludicrous because we will be taxing ourselves to pay for our own needs. I think it is important for the Minister to explain clearly and convincingly why introducing means testing is necessary and why it is good for everyone in Singapore.”