Wong Kan Seng
Singapore
“We all want a better future for our children and the future generations. Amid the debates, let us not lose sight of what we are working for – we are working for the benefit and future of Singaporeans. Not for growth targets, not for foreigners, but for Singaporeans.”
“Mrs Mildred Tan also suggested doing a longitudinal study on the impact of new citizens on Singapore. I am told that there is a periodic study on the perception of integration and rootedness of Singaporeans and PRs. A study is now ongoing too.”
“All they need to do is simply declare that they meet the residential criteria. EASING IN US ECONOMY (Impact on Singapore) 9. Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Senior Minister what will be the expected impact on the Singapore economy arising from the US Federal Reserve's announcement on 3rd November 2010 of a "quantitative easing" of the US economy…”
“Well, from the data I have here, 553 registered to vote before the 2006 GE and this is the data I have but Ms Lim may be right. There may be 1,000-odd that Ms Lim had mentioned. From what I am told now, we have 1,325 Singaporean overseas who are eligible to register to vote have registered.”
“But, as I said, there are so many other possibilities that they could come in and there could also be many possibilities that we could have missed and they have entered or left Singapore. LAND SWAP AGREEMENT FOR KTM STATION AND RAILWAY LANDS 2.”
“They are also recruiting people by offering them scholarships. So, we hope more of our companies can do that. Hopefully they come here to work for a while and, if they like our place, they may want to settle down. This is a place which they can think about. POPULATION AND TALENT DIVISION 5. Assoc. Prof.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,192 lines we hold for Wong Kan Seng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 41 of 64.
“It will also allow the building industry time to familiarise themselves with the shelter requirements. The duration of the grace period was decided in consultation with URA and professional bodies such as the Singapore Institute of Architects and the Institute of Engineers of Singapore. The enactment of the Civil Defence Shelter Bill is a significant milestone in the Government's efforts to provide shelters for the protection of all Singaporeans. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Such an order can be in force for only seven days unless the President decides otherwise. Clause 8 specifies the duties on owners or occupiers of improvised shelters; these are similar to those in clause 4 for household and storey shelters. Part V of the Bill touches on the use of shelters during a state of emergency. Clause 9 empowers the Commissioner to serve a notice requiring owners or occupiers of any shelter to prepare it for occupation during a state of emergency. In the case of non-compliance, the Commissioner or any authorised person may enter any storey, public or improvised shelter to prepare it for occupation, and recover the costs and expenses incurred in doing so from the occupier or owner. Clauses 12 to 29 in Part VI of the Bill provide the Commissioner, SCDF with additional powers which he would require to regulate and enforce the law effectively. These include empowering the Commissioner and his authorised officers to enter and inspect any premises and shelters. There will be a consequential amendment to the Building Control Act (BCA) so that a shelter as defined under the Shelter Bill will fall within the definition of `building' in the Building Control Act. This will enable the submission and approval of shelter plans, construction and commissioning of shelters, and any addition and alteration works to shelters to be governed by the BCA and its regulations. Conclusion Sir, my Ministry will give the private sector a grace period of six months after the Bill has been enacted before enforcing the new legislation. This will allow building plans which are already in an advanced stage of preparation or have already been submitted to be approved without any shelter requirements.”
“The shelter can be built either within each dwelling unit (termed household shelter), or at a common area to be shared by several apartment units located on the same storey called storey shelter. Clause 4 of the Bill specifies the duties of flat/house owners and occupiers in relation to the household and storey shelters. For example, they are allowed to carry out addition or alteration works which may affect the shelters only with the written permission and in accordance with the conditions imposed by the Commissioner, SCDF. They are also required to maintain the shelter and, as necessary, carry out improvement works directed by the Commissioner. As long as the occupiers abide by these rules, they are free to use the shelter space in peacetime. However, they should promptly prepare the shelter for occupation once notice is given by the SCDF to do so. Some possible uses of the household shelter space include a pantry or study area or even storeroom, while households provided with storey shelters could use them as storage space. Parts III and IV of the Bill provide similar legislation for public and improvised shelters respectively. Clause 5 of the Bill will empower the Commissioner, SCDF to require Statutory Boards to build public shelters in non-residential buildings which they own. Clause 6 specifies the duties of the Statutory Boards in relation to the public shelters; these are similar to the provisions in clause 4 for household and storey shelters. Clause 7 of the Bill will empower the Commissioner, SCDF to designate suitable buildings as improvised shelters during emergencies. But he can exercise these powers only when the Minister for Home Affairs deems a Proclamation of Emergency imminent or when he deems it necessary in the interest of public safety.”
“Singapore is not the only country to implement such an extensive shelter programme. Sweden, Switzerland and Finland are among the many countries who require CD shelters for their citizens by law. Although their shelter programmes started in the 1960s, they have yet to achieve 100% shelter coverage today. We have learnt much from these countries, as we formulated our own shelter policy to meet our specific needs. Perhaps the most important lesson we learnt is that it requires a considerable period of time to implement a comprehensive nationwide shelter programme. Hence, it is imperative that we proceed with the next phase of the programme now - through the incorporation of household shelters in all new HDB and private dwelling units. Provisions of the Bill Let me now elaborate on the key provisions of the Bill. As I have said earlier, the legislation is targeted primarily at new residential developments. Re-developments involving addition or renovation works will not be required to incorporate shelters. But, of course, owners can voluntarily do so, and the SCDF will gladly offer advice if sought. Shelters will also not be required for housing developments meant for short term, non-private or commercial-type habitation such as hotels, boarding houses, nursing and old aged homes, hospices, service apartments and staff apartments. We will continue building communal shelters in existing housing estates as and when there are suitable new developments such as schools and community centres. Part II of the Bill spells out the specifications of, and regulations for, the construction and provision of both household and storey shelters. Clause 3 of the Bill requires every new flat or house to have a shelter that meets SCDF's specifications.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill requires developers of residential properties to build shelters in all new flats and houses. It also empowers the Commissioner of the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) to regulate and enforce the law. Before I go into the provisions of the Bill, let me share with the House my Ministry's rationale for the civil defence shelter programme. Rationale Despite the relative calm and stability in the region, Singapore cannot afford to take its peace and security for granted. Hence, our emphasis on total defence to prepare Singaporeans for any possible threat. The civil defence shelter programme is an integral part of our civil defence efforts. It will ensure that Singaporeans are well-prepared and protected in times of emergency. It will also provide psychological assurance to our servicemen in the frontline that their families would be safe. Progress to-date The shelter programme began in 1983, when public civil defence shelters were built in nine underground MRT stations along the North-South and East-West lines. Since 1986, public shelters have also been built at the foot of new HDB blocks and in other public buildings, such as schools and community centres. In 1994, we started to incorporate household shelters in new HDB flats, the first one was in Hougang. Today, we have a network of public CD shelters in HDB housing estates, community centres and clubs, schools and underground MRT stations around the island. Having household shelters in all new HDB flats and private dwelling units is the next logical step forward. Not only would they increase the coverage of the population, but they would also be more convenient and accessible to Singaporeans in times of emergency.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I move the motion to adjourn Parliament, on behalf of Members here, I would like to thank you very much for your patience and indulgence in listening to more than 40 hours of speeches during the last nine days. I know some Members were not able to move their amendments because of the time factor, but this year we have actually allowed for a lot more time for Members to move their cuts. For those who were unable to do so, perhaps one way is for them to file a Question and I think my colleagues will be very pleased to answer their questions.”
“Now, Sir. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."”
“What if it is too late, what is going to happen? We just throw him out the next time. That is all. No big deal! What criteria do we use in choosing functional groups? If we look at the list that I have mentioned, when we say "business and industry", we look at the big business and industry organisations. If we look at the professions, we choose the professions which are large and representative of that professional group. For the labour group, there is one big organisation, that is, the NTUC. As for the other social and community organisations, perhaps the National Council of Social Service plus some other voluntary organisations, but I cannot give you the details right now. For the academia, the sciences, the culture, arts, etc., we know that there are enough cultural and arts groups, and we have the universities and polytechnics where they can get together and form a panel. So I think we should just wait and see how we implement this new format for the first time. We can then improve on it the next time.”
“I thought I was very clear about this. I said that we would be very careful. The Committee would be very careful, and we hope Members also would be very careful, in watching out for such a person. But if inadvertently that person comes in - by accident we cannot find out because we do not know much of him - and he expresses such extremist views, then in one term, we will find him out.”
“He should not interrupt me. Let me finish first. This is not an issue of conscience, not an issue of morality, not an issue of life and death, and therefore the Whip is not lifted. But when it comes to an issue of life and death, the Party will consider lifting the Whip.”
“The Whip was not lifted. And the Whip would also not be lifted this time because this is a constitutional issue. This is not an issue of life and death, not an issue of conscience, not an issue of morality. Therefore ---”
“In 1989 when we had the Second Reading, and in 1990 when we had the Third Reading, Dr Tan, the Member for Ayer Rajah, voted for the amendment.”
“And all Members here play a role because the Speaker will circulate the names to the Members and they can then give us their comments whether the person is suitable or not. That was why Tang Liang Hong was not selected. So I think it is a good way of sieving out people. If we did not spot them, and they happen to come in, then in one term, in two years, we will find them out. So I do not think there is a fear about people with extremist views coming here and fanning emotions and starting riots. I think in today's Singapore people are more sophisticated and better educated. We can find ways of controlling such a situation. So I would not have such a fear right now. Of course, I cannot predict the future. I do not know what may happen. But in the Special Select Committee, we will do our job in trying to screen out such people with Members' help. Dr Tan said he voted against this the last time. Actually the last time he voted against it was when I moved the motion to have NMPs in this Parliament. When we had the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, Second and Third Readings in 1989 and 1990, to provide for NMPs, Dr Tan was on record as voting for it. At that time the Whip was not lifted, neither would the Whip be lifted this time. So what he said today could not be consistent with what he did the last time.”
“It is an exercise in collaboration with and encompassing as many people as possible to help us in this political process. I think that is one of the good outcomes that we have in this exercise. Why do we increase the number? The last time I mentioned in passing that we have lost two Opposition Members. I was not lamenting the loss. I was just saying that we have lost them. The Government was already decided. We know that on Nomination Day, the PAP was returned to power. So it is not an exercise to elect the Government. The people have chosen not to have enough Members of the Opposition. That is their choice and we respect their choice. This exercise of increasing the number of NMPs is to involve more people in the political process of this Parliament. So I think it is a good way of inviting such people to Parliament so that such views can be aired. I do not want to go into the details of whether individual functional groups or individual organisations would start to put pressure or not. I think we will learn how to operate the scheme. This is the first time we are forming these panels. So we have got to find out how to operate this more smoothly. I already know that at least one oganisation that is not named as a member of the panels did write to the Speaker and ask, "Can we be included in this?". We can consider it. There is no reason why we should exclude people if they can make a contribution in finding suitable candidates. So we can look at how we can operate this and eventually improve the process. Whether extremists and people with ultra views would be allowed to come in or not, I think I mentioned the last time that, we have to be vigilant and careful, and the Special Select Committee will be on the look-out for such people.”
“Yes, I understand his definition of grouping, but the criteria as stated in the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution did cover the types of people whom we think should come into Parliament as NMPs. In fact, it says: "People to be nominated shall be persons who have rendered distinguished public service, or who have brought honour to the Republic, or who have distinguished themselves in the field of arts and letters, culture, the sciences, business, industry, the professions, social or community service or the labour movement;". We think that people will turn up just by chance and say, "I represent so and so" and therefore they put in their applications. Having gained the experience in the last six years, I know that it just does not happen by chance. Therefore, this time round, we feel that maybe it is good to involve a wider group of people in finding suitable persons to come into this Parliament as NMPs and that is the reason why three panels are formed. From what I am told by somebody who is involved in the panel, he said that being involved in the panel and looking for candidates to recommend to the Special Select Committee, he now understands why it is so difficult even for the PAP to find good people. That is indeed a good lesson for us, that even among themselves it is not easy for them to find ideal and suitable individuals who are prepared to come into the House, not because there are no such persons but because of the public exposure. As NMPs, they have to speak up in Parliament. They are a public figure and they would be recognised and sometimes they are even not liked as a result of what they say in Parliament. So one benefit that we see in forming such groups is that now more people are involved in searching for candidates as NMPs.”
“Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken in support of the Bill. I also hear Dr Tan Cheng Bock again giving the reasons why he is not happy with this amendment. Having listened to him very carefully, I think he has now found a new reason why he is objecting to this amendment and it is that we are formalising the formation of functional groups. This is a shift in ---”
“Sir, let me assure the general public that they will not be left out of the NMP Scheme. They can still submit their nominations to the Special Select Committee which can then choose suitable persons from among the public nominees for appointment as NMPs. Sir, we have evolved our parliamentary system to suit our needs. We have instituted the Group Representation Constituency Scheme to ensure that Parliament will always have minority representation, regardless of which political party's candidates are elected. We have established the NMP Scheme to bring into Parliament prominent citizens who can express views of certain sections of our community, views which may not be expressed or adequately expressed by the ruling Party or the Opposition. We have improved the nomination process, and formally invited key organisations to recommend suitable individuals for consideration. We are now proposing to increase the number of NMPs so that a wider cross-section of such views can be canvassed and expressed. Sir, I commend Members to support this amendment to the Constitution. Question proposed.”
“The three Panels are: (a) Business and Industry, comprising the President of the Singapore National Employers' Federation, the Presidents or Chairmen of the Chinese, Malay, Indian and International Chambers of Commerce and Industry and the President of the Singapore Confederation of Industries. (b) The Professions, comprising the President of the Singapore Medical Association, the Master of the Academy of Medicine and the Presidents of the Institutes of Certified Public Accountants, Engineers, Architects and the Academy of Law. (c) Labour Movement, with Panel Members to be appointed by the Central Committee of the National Trades Union Congress. I believe, Sir, you have met the leaders of these organisations about three weeks ago and they are supportive of this move. They are now deliberating among themselves and will be submitting their recommendations to the Special Select Committee soon. As this is the first time that we are undertaking this exercise of inviting nominations from Proposal Panels, the list of members making up the Proposal Panels is not exhaustive. With experience, other members can be added to the list later. As we learn how to operate this new nomination process, we can, in future, further improve on it and increase the number of Proposal Panels. For example, functional groups which can represent those who are active in social or community service, and those who can eminently represent the arts, culture, sciences and academia may also be invited to form Proposal Panels. In other words, we can, in future, increase the number of Proposal Panels to, say, five, so that the Special Select Committee can have direct inputs from these Panels and a wider field of people can then be systematically considered for appointment as NMPs.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, I do not propose to go into the merits of the Nominated MP (NMP) Scheme this afternoon, as these have been extensively debated when the Scheme was first introduced in Parliament in 1989, and at the beginning of every Parliament session when we voted to continue with the Scheme. Our last debate on this was on 5th June this year when Parliament resolved to have NMPs in this Ninth Parliament. At that Parliament sitting, I have intimated that the Constitution would be amended to increase the number of NMPs from six to nine. Sir, the NMP Scheme is now well accepted by practically all the Members, as it has proven its usefulness and worth. This is not by chance because we have deliberately chosen those individuals who can make a useful contribution. Under our current political system, good men and women either join the PAP, the ruling party, or they stay out of party politics altogether. Hence, the NMP Scheme has provided us a way to get some of them into Parliament and to make a contribution. We should therefore expand the Scheme so that more NMPs can be in Parliament to air views which may not be canvassed by the PAP or by the Opposition. After operating the Scheme for six years, we should also fine-tune the selection process by inviting nominations from certain functional groups for the consideration of the Special Select Committee. For a start, the Special Select Committee has agreed that three Proposal Panels be set up to recommend candidates for consideration by the Special Select Committee.”
“Furthermore, as many organisations, not just Government organisations, not just self-help groups, not just voluntary organisations, but also universities, are competing for the same resources, ie, the same charity pool or charitable dollar, the Government has recently decided to increase the financing for the building, extension and upgrading of our CCs to 90% of the total cost. In other words, we have a standard uniform rate of subsidy. It has increased the grant ceiling to $6.38 million for a new community centre or club and the extension and full or partial reconstruction of an existing club. The ceiling for upgrading a community club will be raised to $2.435 million from $1.77 million. All these ceilings are subject to a maximum floor area of 3,800 square metres and the grant will be adjusted to take into account cost inflation in future. These new financing formulae will apply to all approved ongoing and new projects for building, extension, upgrading and reconstruction of CCs as on 19th June this year. These new formulae will lessen the burden of the grassroots leaders and the Advisors in having to raise funds and allow them more time to do more community work and bond with the people. 5.15 pm Sir, the Government will continue to provide resources to the PA and the GROs to carry out their mission, but the grassroots leaders, the volunteers and the residents themselves must also play an active role and make full use of the scarce resources given to them.”
“The PA has adopted a population catchment approach in the building of community clubs in new towns. Previously, that is, before this recent change, a community club was built on the basis of population catchment to serve about 10,000 units or about 40,000 people. The Government financed 80% of the total cost of building a new community club or extending a community club or centre, subject to a maximum of $5.3 million. If the CC were to be upgraded, then the Government will give 70% of the upgrading cost, subject to a ceiling of $1.77 million. And if the community club were to be reconstructed, that means we pull it down and rebuild, and if it includes a compatible user, the Government gives 90% of the building cost, subject to a ceiling of $6.325 million. But with the reduction in the household size and the increase in housing density in HDB estates in the new towns, we need to have a new approach to the planning norm and also because of the Government's intention to have more citizens living in private housing estates, we also need to review the planning norm. This planning norm was revised, and on 19th June, the PA got the Government's approval to increase the serving ratio of one big CC for 50,000 people so as to maximise the use of land and scarce resources that we have. Under the new planning norm, not every division or constituency will have a big community club or centre. Two divisions may share one big community club, such as in the case of Bishan East and Bishan North. We now only have one big centre and it is called the Bishan Community Club to serve the residents of both Bishan East and North. Some divisions may only have one void deck community centre, such as the Aljunied Division of Aljunied GRC and in Nee Soon South Division of Ang Mo Kio GRC.”
“The various grassroots organisations under the PA, such as the CCC, CCMC, RC and other Committees like the Senior Citizens' Executive Committee (SCEC), the Women's Executive Committee, the Youth Executive Committee, were established at different times. For example, the PA was established in 1960, the CCMCs in 1964. In 1965, we established the CCCs and, in 1978, because our population expanded and moved on to HDB flats, we decided to set up the RCs. And this year, we are going to have another "C", that is, the CDC. So we see a lot of grassroots organisations, not to mention the Civil Defence Coordinating Committees or the Constituency Sports Clubs. So there are indeed many committees and grassroots organisations in the constituencies. And many of these grassroots organisations have overlapping membership. We tax them a lot. They have served us well. But I think we need to do a review of these various grassroots organisations because every time, we find a new activity and new role, we add on a new committee. So I think we need to do some review here so that the grassroots organisations will continue to work effectively and efficiently. And I have asked the PA to do this review, not just for grassroots organisations but also within the PA HQ itself. There again, every time, we need to do a new job, we create a new division. We cannot keep on doing that. The organisation must respond and reorganise in order to meet today's challenges. Dr Teo also asked for more funding for building, extending or renovating our community clubs. I am pleased to tell him that in parallel with this organisational review, the PA has recently completed a review of the planning norms and funding principles for the development of our community clubs.”
“I do not think there is a need to pay them any special "loyalty allowances" because the PA already has schemes to reward long service officers. For example, we give them Long Service Awards. Of course, some may say what is a piece of paper. But in addition to the Long Service Award certificates, we also give them cash awards which range from $150 to $1,200. In addition to that, they also get free use of PA holiday facilities plus paid vacation leave. I think that is pretty good. Those with long service continue to get annual increments until they reach the maximum of their salary scale. So officers are paid loyalty allowances in the sense that they get salary increments. If they can perform a higher level of duties, we will promote them. We also award scholarships for part-time postgraduate courses and undergraduate programmes. There are also generous grants for scholarships or bursaries for the children of these staff members. The PA is embarking on a job evaluation exercise to determine the relative value of jobs within the PA and review the salaries accordingly and, if there is a need, we will adjust them. In addition, the PA Staff Club is also very generous to all PA staff who are automatically members of the staff club. Nevertheless, we will consider new approaches to recruit, retain and deploy the scarce manpower more effectively. For example, the PA will have to consider how to respond to the shrinking pool of `O' level school leavers and `A' level students because, now, 60% of our school leavers will go to the university or polytechnic. So if the PA wants to recruit these people, then the jobs must change and be enlarged, and the rewards must be given accordingly.”
“Dr Teo has suggested that PA recruit people who are specially trained or talented in the arts, sports, culture, recreation and who are good public communicators or good in PR to help our community centres or clubs do their work. May I say that there are actually not many such people around in Singapore who are specially trained in the arts, culture, sports, recreation, PR or communications. People with such experiences and training are also wanted by other organisations, such as the National Arts Council, Singapore Sports Council, other Government agencies and even private sector companies. So we have to compete with all these organisations to recruit these talented people. Meanwhile, some of the staff are trained in PR, communications and other areas of specialisation which are required in a specific area of work. Apart from that, the PA has also employed about 600 part-time staff who are specially good at certain things, such as teaching music, dances, other cultural activities and who are good at certain educational activities, such as sports or recreational courses, choral singing, language, and so on. We will continue to do more of that. Regarding Dr Teo's suggestion on revising the salary structure, let me say that PA's salaries are comparable to those in the civil service because we peg our salary scheme to those in the civil service. So when the civil service changes its salary scheme, we will change along with it. Apart from that, the PA also provides other incentives to recruit, retain and reward good officers. These include regular promotion exercises for all PA officers and special monthly allowances ranging from $450, $350 and $250 for Division I, II and III field officers respectively, and that is quite a significant percentage of their take-home pay.”
“Sir, three of my Parliamentary colleagues brought up questions concerning the PA and I, as Deputy Chairman, will answer Dr Teo Ho Pin, and Mr Chan Soo Sen will deal with the questions by Dr Yaacob and Dr Tan Boon Wan. Dr Teo raised four questions concerning PA and he also praised the PA staff for the hard work that they have put in and their dedication and commitment. I would like to thank Dr Teo for the appreciation that he has shown to PA staff for their dedication and also his concern for their welfare. I want to assure Dr Teo that the PA takes good care of its staff. On the question of more manpower for the CCs, PA has community clubs of various sizes. There are community centres and community clubs. There are void deck community centres and big modern community centres and clubs. Altogether, we have 112 of these, of which 85 are modern CCs. The rest are the void deck type or the shop unit type. So the staffing norms for these CCs will vary from three to five staff members in each CC. So far, we find that the staffing norms are adequate for the big community clubs. The duties of the staff are rostered such that more staff are deployed during the peak hours and, taking into account normal vacation leave, sick leave and training times, and so on, there are at least three staff on duty during the peak hours. But the PA will review the staffing norms from time to time for all the community centres and clubs, especially the new generation of community clubs which are co-located with other compatible users. The PA may deploy more staff to such bigger community clubs.”
“And for Ecstasy traffickers, we are going to make it as part of the presumption law, that if they carry a certain amount, we will determine what it is, we will presume that they are trafficking in Ecstasy, and we also do that for Ice. So be warned! Please do not trifle with the law. CNB is very serious in making sure that our place is safe and crime-free and drug-free for our children. On the question of privatisation of services, let me again assure Mr Chng that with the review of our Police functions, some of the non-essential, actually non-Police functions, will not be carried out by the Police. So catching snakes, clearing dead animals, for example, that would not be done by the Police. I think there are proper agencies to do that. They will concentrate on the core Police functions: crime prevention, crime control, investigation and generally helping to maintain law and order. For functions that we are now doing which can be privatised, we will continue to do so. For example, Traffic Police has already done away with towing of vehicles, that is being left to the private sector. Similarly, driving centres, test centres, that is now also being done by the private sector. The last centre that we have, Kampong Ubi, we have already privatised it. Now somebody else is running it, not the Police. 2.30 pm”
“On the two questions of drug enforcement raised by Mr Kenneth Chen, let me assure him that we will do everything possible to try to keep the drug situation under control, which, in fact, it is. Over the last two years since the comprehensive measures that we have undertaken, the drug situation has improved somewhat. But we know that there are certain people who cannot get away from drugs. They will go into DRC time and again, despite the help, rehabilitation and the counselling that we have given them. So for these people, we have decided that they will be in for a long haul. The next time we amend the law, we are going to make it mandatory, caning plus jail sentence, and not in a DRC. DRC's life is too good for them. It is like home-coming, back to meeting their own community. They will be in prison if they are caught the third time for an opiate drug offence. Five to seven years, three to six strokes of the cane, or seven to 13 years, six to 12 strokes of the cane if they re-offend, ie, after they had been charged the first time for committing a hardcore offence and re-offend after serving the sentence. Although the drug situation has improved a bit, we are concerned about the increase in the number of Ecstasy abuses. You have seen the CNB has gone all out to deal with this problem. We have urged managements of nightclub operations, lounges, etc, to be careful - do not allow the clients to rave around after taking Ecstasy; do not sell them plain water. They know there is a problem, they better fix it! Help us to fix it. And if they do not, then their licence will be taken away.”
“Just to supplement what my Minister of State has said in reply to Mr Jeyaretnam. He does not seem to be interested in the answers we want to give him. After raising the question, he disappears. That means either he raises it perfunctorily, or he does not believe in what he is asking, or he is simply not interested in the answer. Whether it is an independent group of people who visit the prisons, whether it is an independent election commission, whether it is an independent Police investigation unit, the question does not lie in an independent commission or board, or whatever it is. The question lies in whether the people who run the system are honest and have integrity. I think Singapore has a good reputation, and that reputation must be jealously guarded, and that reputation is that we have an efficient, honest and transparent system. Nobody can get away with murder. If Mr Jeyaretnam has any case that he thinks that we ought to investigate, I think he should surface it. Raise it, and we will look into it, but do not cast a smear on our system. That would do Singapore an injustice. That would do all Singaporeans an injustice, because our investors will then say, "What sort of place is this?". Fortunately, investors do not have that kind of impression. They come, they see, they know what is going on and they always give Singapore high marks for the system that we have. So stop talking nonsense - that is my advice to him. Be today's man! Be relevant, not be like an old gramophone record, playing the same old tune with a hole in the groove, which keeps repeating itself. Be the compact disc! Be a digital audio tape player! This is a new technology. So be relevant! I urge him.”
“They can form Neighbourhood Watch Groups. But I assure him that, in the review of the redeployment, we will see how we can take out NPPs from some of the older estates where the population is declining and shift some of them to the newer housing estates. But again, let me caution that they should not expect one NPP in every new housing estate. I give an example. In Bishan, we have Bishan East and Bishan North and the current NPP is situated in Block 196. There is a new Bishan North and the residents also want to have an NPP. I say that this is just not possible. We could have officers from the Bishan East NPP patrolling the areas in Bishan North. So the same will happen to Woodlands, Sembawang, and other areas too. I will leave it to my Minister of State to answer the other questions raised by Members.”
“Another survey commissioned by the Police last year and covered 1,300 persons showed that 98% of the respondents thought that security of Singapore was either good, very good or excellent, while 86% of them felt that they are safer now than they were five years ago. There are measures other than the NPPs that would help to fight crime and these include the formation of Neighbourhood Watch Zones in public and private housing estates, and the organisation of crime prevention exhibitions and talks for residents in the neighbourhood. The local community should take greater responsibility for their own safety and security of their precincts. The success of the NPP system depends as much on the Police as on the willingness of the grassroots leaders to lead the level of community involvement, bonding spirit as well as the involvement of the residents in crime prevention in their own neighbourhood. Police must also find, and be open to, new and better ways of fighting crimes. I agree with Prof. Chin that technology is one thing we can use to help to keep a place safe. As reported in yesterday's papers and also in other articles, Britain, for example, has installed surveillance cameras to help reduce crimes. I understand Prof. Chin's concern too that in new housing estates, the residents request for NPPs. As part of this review and redesign of the NPC system, the Police will look at the redeployment of some of these NPPs. But let me say that the Police cannot set up an NPP in every new housing estate. It is just not possible. We only have that many people, that much resources and these are all we can spare. We will have to maximise the use of these resources. We cannot afford to have an NPP in every housing estate. Residents themselves really have to help out in this.”
“The closer involvement of community organisations will ensure that the Police resources will be best tailored to meet the local needs. The implementation of the NPP system will begin with the one-year pilot programme beginning in October with the first NPC being set up in the present Queentstown Driving Test Centre. After the pilot phase, the Police will extend this concept to the whole of Singapore by the year 2000. Prof. Chin is concerned about reduced police presence in the neighbourhood and asked whether there will be fewer foot patrols. I think it is understandable that such concerns are expressed, but let me assure him that they are unfounded. Firstly, the traditional roles of NPPs in providing the counter services, proactive patrolling and door-to-door visits, will continue. Secondly, the additional task of fast response and investigation undertaken by the officers at the NPCs will not be at the expense of community policing. NPC officers would be specially tasked also to go on patrols or house visits during a shift or part of a shift. In fact, with the greater autonomy that they enjoy, the NPCs will be better able to deploy the resources according to the crime situation and demand for police services in their area of jurisdiction. This will in fact enhance overall police presence and create a safer and more secure neighbourhood. We all know that Singapore is one of the safest countries in the world to live in. We did not say this ourselves. Singaporeans feel it. Recently, the World Economic Forum and the International Institute for Management Development rank Singapore first in the area of security. Respondents to the two surveys are confident that persons and properties would be protected in Singapore.”
“Whereas when we have six regional HQs, 32 NPCs and 66 NPPs, we will have 104 service points. In other words, we have more centres available for the public to access Police services. In the current system of the NPPs, the officers actually perform quite routine tasks. For example, when somebody makes a police report, that report will be filed and referred to the division HQ for investigation. The NPP officer does not do investigation. As a result, it does take some time for matters to be investigated. But with the redesign, the cases will be dealt more quickly because the NPCs will have enough officers, about 110 or 120 officers, to actually do the investigation. In other words, they need not refer the report to the HQ. The NPC patrol officers will also do the investigation and if there are serious cases, for example, serial crime, they will refer to the CID where CID will have specialist officers to deal with them. So let me assure Members that the NPCs and the NPPs will provide adequate services for our public and they will work as an integrated and an integral whole. It is not another layer of bureaucracy in the Police organisation. 1.30 pm The redesign will benefit the community in many ways. Firstly, the NPCs will be able to serve the crime victims better and faster. Instead of having to be passed from one NPP officer to the investigator and the scene of crime officer, from the HQ, the crime victims will now be served by front line officers handling the entire process. They will be able to process the case faster as they would have greater autonomy. Secondly, with the resources that the NPCs have, it will be able to better mobilise the community to work out the solutions to common and community problems.”
“So there is a need for Police to make better use of the limited manpower resources available. The second reason that drives us to do this review is that as we have increasingly better qualified officers, then the job scope and challenges must also expand. In other words, you just cannot have a polytechnic diploma holder becoming a Police Officer and sitting at the counter doing the same mundane work of changing identity card addresses. We have to widen his job's scope to make it more challenging. Third, we also need to involve the community more in the area of crime prevention, so that they have a greater ownership over the security of their own neighbourhood. I believe that the security of our neighbourhood should not just be the job of the Police Officers. I think it is also in the interest of the residents living in the neighbourhood to ensure that the place is safe. As a result, the NPP system has been redesigned. This redesign of the NPP system will see the creation of six regional headquarters, instead of the current seven division headquarters. Together with the six regional HQs, we will have 32 Neighbourhood Police Centres (NPCs), and the NPCs will be spread island-wide in accordance with the Development Guide Plan. Each NPC will manage between one and four NPPs and they will work as an integrated unit. With the redesign, the NPPs will continue to serve as a contact point for the public and if they need assistance from the Police, they can still go to the NPPs. If you add up the new arrangement and compare with the current arrangement, you will find that indeed the new arrangement regional HQs, NPCs and NPPs will have more service points for the public. Under the present arrangement, we have seven division HQs plus 91 NPPs. There are 98 service points.”
“But they must meet the same recruitment criteria as for Singaporeans. We do not have one set of rules for foreigners and another set for locals. So far, we have recruited a few and we will continue to recruit them if they apply to us and if they meet the job requirements. Concerns were expressed about the redesigning or restructuring of the Neighbourhood Police Posts. Mr Chng put it as if we are downsizing the Police Force. We are not downsizing the Police Force. Let me assure him that the Police Force manpower strength will remain the same, if not increase, if there are new job requirements that will need more Police Officers. Prof. Chin also wants assurances that our redesigning or restructuring of the NPP will continue to provide the same level of service to the public. Again, let me, at the outset, say, yes, that will continue to be so. He has asked for the details of this new NPC (Neighbourhood Police Centre) system. Let me try to give a bit more details on that. Our current NPP system was implemented in 1983. No system can remain cast in concrete or in iron, and last us forever even when circumstances change. Indeed, circumstances have changed. That is why I have asked the Police to do a review of the NPP system, bearing in mind that the profile of new entrants into the labour force has changed and also bearing in mind that the public expectations of the service level of the Police have also changed, and that we are competing with many other organisations for the same scarce pool of manpower. The review was driven by three key considerations. Firstly, it was a growing difficulty that the Police faces in recruiting junior Police Officers, especially given the tight labour market and the improving educational profile.”
“The preliminary findings show that the low entry, ranks and salaries, as well as the lower progression rates, have indeed worked against us in attracting and retaining especially the junior officers. We need better progression prospects and more competitive pay structures to attract people, and I think that would be the outcome of the review. We are also looking at managing our uniformed groups' salaries autonomously, that means, within the Ministry, so that we can react to changes more effectively and promptly. The study should be completed by September. Pay and benefits are not the only things that the MHA would be improving. In parallel, we are also introducing schemes to provide officers with ample opportunities to upgrade themselves. We would also restructure their jobs to make them more interesting and challenging and thus make their career more fulfilling and meaningful. I agree with Mr Kenneth Chen that non-core Police functions - the functions are crime prevention, investigation, maintenance of law and order - should not be done by a fully trained Police Officer. I agree with him that the job, say, of issuing summonses for parking offences actually does not need a Police Officer to do. We need somebody to do the job. As you see in the HDB, the parking wardens are not Police Officers, yet they are able, when they are empowered, to issue summonses for parking offences. So we will do more of that. Mr Chng also asked us to consider recruiting foreigners into the Police Force. We do not have a special programme just to target foreigners but if there are suitable foreigners who understand our culture and society, who are interested in serving here and have the same commitment and willingness to settle down in Singapore, we will certainly consider them.”
“Sir, I thank the MPs who have spoken about the efficiency and professionalism of our Police Force and praised them that they have done a good job. I am sure this will spur them further and motivate them to do better. And I also welcome any justified criticism of their deficiency because I am sure they know that they are deficient in some areas, and if there are ways for them to do better, they will welcome suggestions to perform better. But criticism about their performance, whether it is about brutality or the way they go about their job, which is unjustified and unwarranted or there is no evidence to support it, I am sure, would not help them in their work. It may just de-motivate them. But, of course, I know my officers will always work hard, they try hard, and they will do their best in whatever that is given to them. We are concerned also, like Mr Chng and some of my colleagues, about the competitiveness of the Police Force, whether or not we are able to recruit the right kind of people, and enough people into the Force. As we know, Singapore faces a manpower shortage and we have hundreds of thousands of foreign workers. The private and public sectors are competing for the same pool of school leavers. So we have to always continually look for ways and means of making our scheme more attractive. We have recently set up with the Prime Minister's Office an MHA Joint Committee to review the terms and conditions of service for all the uniformed services under the Ministry of Home Affairs, not just for the Police Officers. This will ensure that the officers are fairly compensated for their sacrifices and their responsibilities and it will help us to maintain the competitiveness of the uniformed services in MHA.”
“There was no fear among the 30,000, 40,000 or 50,000 people who turned up at the eve of poll rally in Cheng San to listen to him. The Chairman: Order. It is 1.15 pm, "guillotine" time. Mr Sinnakaruppan, would you like to withdraw your amendment?”
“Where can you find such a democracy in other countries? Here, we have a system that allows the losers to be in Parliament to make speeches and attack the government, a system that he himself rejected in 1984 and 1988, and rejected again in 1997. Of course, he says that he represents 45% of the Cheng San voters and therefore he should be here to speak on their behalf. Sir, why do we not have an elections commission? Why do we have the Elections Department under the Prime Minister's Office? It is not where the department or the commission is sited. It is the integrity of the people running the system that counts. In our system, we know it is transparent. The people are honest. They are trustworthy. And unless Mr Jeyaretnam is suggesting that the elections held so far have been dishonest and there has been vote rigging, I think he should withdraw his comments that we do not have a free and fair system. When he was re-elected in 1984 and he spoke in Parliament in 1985, he quoted the views of some foreign commentators. He said, "Singapore has come of age. The people had matured and they were politically able to take charge of the country's affairs." Why? He said, "The ballot box is the most democratic method of selecting the government." Why? Because he was elected through the ballot box. When he lost, what did he say in 1997? He said, "People were gripped with fear. People were gripped with fear in Cheng San because the Prime Minister went to campaign there." If people were gripped with fear, why would people in Hougang and in Potong Pasir, and in 1991 people in Bukit Gombak and Nee Soon Central, elect the opposition? There was no fear among them.”
“Yes, I knew his question because I read about this in the 1983 Hansard. I read about this in the 1985 Hansard, and so it is not a new subject that Mr Jeyaretnam has raised. And I know the answer too. I think he also knows the answer. He has not brought up any new points, other than to say that if we do not have an independent elections commission, then we are not going to have free and fair elections. I think that is an absurd point. What he has said so far therefore is not new. Our democratic system, I think, cannot be far more democratic than now. We even allow a loser to be in Parliament to make speeches. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!”
“Sir, I know Mr Jeyaretnam wanted 10 minutes, but I do not think I need to hear 10 minutes of his speech to know what he is going to say.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I know many Members have filed amendments to be moved in the Committee of Supply and we may not have enough time to end our business at 4.30 pm. So I beg to move, That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the proceedings on the Estimates for FY 1997/98 on 23rd, 24th, 25th, 28th, 29th, 30th and 31st July, 1997, be continued beyond 4.30 pm, and be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 until 6.00 pm each day. Resolved, That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the proceedings on the Estimates for FY 1997/98 on 23rd, 24th, 25th, 28th, 29th, 30th and 31st July, 1997, be continued beyond 4.30 pm, and be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 until 6.00 pm each day. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. SUPPLY AND FINAL SUPPLY BILLS (Business Motion) Resolved, That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the second and third readings of the Supply Bill for FY 97/98 and the Final Supply Bill for FY 96/97 may be proceeded with immediately after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Main and Development Estimates for FY 97/98. - [Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau]. ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1997 TO 31ST MARCH, 1998 (Paper Cmd. 2 of 1997) Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [1st Allotted Day]. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 12.52 pm”
“Sir, these were not my words. They were his words in 1984.”
“The caring of the needs of the constituents in Cheng San Constituency, whether they voted for the PAP or for the other party, is the job of the elected MP, and that is our system. In our first-past-the-post system, the winner comes into Parliament. Mr Jeyaretnam himself in 1984, when the Bill to amend the Constitution was made to allow for the NCMP scheme, said that NCMP should not come in here, otherwise it was just by the grace of the Government. He is here by the grace of the Government, and here he is making all these hypocritical claims to take responsibility for 45,000 voters.”
“Elected MPs have to attend to a lot of constituency issues. They have also to attend to many parliamentary matters. They sit in many Committees which the NCMP does not. And that is why they need more help than the NMP and the NCMP. Mr Jeyaretnam claims to represent 48,000 voters in Cheng San. I think that is absurd. He himself said in 1985, and Mr Chiam also held the same view, that an NCMP does not represent any elector. So how could he claim to represent anybody at all? It is an absurdity!”
“If my recollection serves me right, the review was done at the end of January. And the reason is, as I have explained, the Government looked at all this from time to time and decided that the NMPs' and NCMPs' workload is not as heavy and onerous, and so we changed.”
“Sir, this Parliament is different from many other parliaments. We set our own rules, and we have our own procedures, and from time to time we change and amend them. We also copy from others if they suit our purposes and if they are in line with what we think would make good procedures for debate. The Prime Minister himself has asked me to answer this question and there is no reason why the Prime Minister cannot delegate any responsibility to his Ministers. So it is perfectly in order for me to answer the question as Leader of the House. The regulations sent out by Parliament on LAs on 3rd January was sent out before the Government did the review. Government did a review after that. In fact, I said that the Government does review this from time to time. So when Government did a review and decided that LAs are no longer to be employed by NMPs and NCMPs, the rules were subsequently changed. Parliament sent out the rules before consulting the Government. That is the reason.”
“As it is nearing 4.30 pm, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn." Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That Parliament do now adjourn. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng.] Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes Past Four o'clock pm. Committee of Supply - ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL 1997 T0 31ST MARCH 1998 (Cols. 683 - 686)”
“Sir, just in case the Minister for Finance may go beyond 4.30 pm, I beg to move, That the proceedings on the item of business under discussion be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings on the item of business under discussion be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng] ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we have made good progress with 15 MPs who have spoken this afternoon. In case we may have to interrupt the next Member who wants to speak, may I seek your consent and the general assent of hon. Members present to move that the debate be now adjourned.”
“The only thing he cannot do are the two conditions which are aimed at preventing him from re-involving himself in activities that would be detrimental to our interest. These two conditions will still be necessary because it will enable the ISD to ensure that Chia Thye Poh does not work with individuals or any organisations which may have the propensity to be involved in or be made use of for subversive activities. The Government would rely on the advice of the professionals' assessment, ie, the ISD officers, on whether or not he continues to pose a security threat to Singapore if these restrictions are lifted. But, Sir, ultimately, the lifting of these restrictions would depend on Chia Thye Poh himself. If he renounces communism and disavows the use of force and behaves himself, it is likely that the ISD will favourably consider recommending the lifting of restrictions. Not because he is a political threat to the Government. Chia Thye Poh seems to say that these restrictions were enforced because he is a threat to the Government. He is a political risk. No, not at all. Even the opposition has said that he is politically irrelevant. So as far as politics is concerned, he is irrelevant and he is not a threat. But the Restriction Orders are necessary to prevent him from reverting to his former subversive activities.”