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 56 of 64.
“There is also a new provision to provide for a fine not exceeding $3,000 or imprisonment term not exceeding two years for disorderly behaviour in the welfare home. The Act will also empower the Minister to appoint a Review Committee comprising community leaders and responsible citizens to review the care of every resident in our welfare home and to recommend his discharge from the home. No one needs to stay in our welfare home longer than is necessary. Another significant new feature in this Act is the finger printing and photographing of destitute persons admitted into a welfare home. This is necessary for identification purposes as some residents are psychiatrically disordered or intellectually disabled and some have been known to throw away their identity cards to avoid identification. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 1.45 pm”
“But we should not tolerate habitual beggars or encourage them in any way by continuing to be lenient. Such persons are more in need of discipline than care. A fine or a prison term is more effective in discouraging such beggars. This new Act will empower the Director of Social Welfare to prefer charges against habitual beggars. A habitual beggar who is found begging will, under this Act, be guilty of an offence and, when convicted, may be fined a sum not exceeding $3,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. A habitual beggar is one who at least on two previous occasions was found begging and sent to a welfare home. Government welfare homes are also not a penal institution. Life there, although not luxurious, is decent. Residents are well treated. They have three meals a day, clean beds and recreational facilities. There are work programmes for those who can work and such persons receive an allowance. Hence, there is no reason for a person in a welfare home to abscond. Yet over the past three years, an average of 159 residents absconded annually. It is a sheer waste of time and manpower and public funds to round up a person time and again to have him abscond again. During the last three years, of the 660 persons picked up, 220 were abscondees and 168 were ex-residents of welfare homes. The ex-residents were discharged to their care-person but they refused to settle down and reverted to begging as it was easy. The penalty for abscondence will therefore be increased from a term not exceeding three months imprisonment to a term not exceeding six months imprisonment, so as to discourage abscondence.”
“A person with absolutely no resources to rely on and who is unable to fend for himself will be given assistance and, where necessary, accommodation in government welfare homes. But despite the good economic growth and the much improved housing and social conditions, there are still some beggars and vagrants. There are, in our population, able-bodied layabouts who do not care to work for a living. They live off the sympathy and generosity of others. For them, begging is an easy and lucrative way to make a living. Some of them are by no means poor. In 1987, my staff picked up a male beggar who had bank accounts totalling $132,000. Another beggar had $29,000 in his bank. Last year, a beggar who was picked up had about $13,000 in his possession. These beggars are, of course, the exceptions. But there is no reason for them to beg. A stay in a welfare home does nothing to transform such able-bodied or financially self-sufficient and habitual beggars into economically useful citizens. Not only do they occupy scarce bed space, they have also come to regard their stay in the welfare homes as a comfortable sojourn in their life. Government welfare homes are not meant for them. Government welfare homes are meant for those who are unable to care for themselves or who after a short-term rehabilitation can be settled back into a self-supporting lifestyle. They are ineffective and inappropriate for the able-bodied but chronically indequate person who prefers begging to working and who is resistant to change in lifestyle. It is therefore necessary to differentiate the able-bodied person, who finds begging an easy option to working for his living, from the truly destitute who is in need of compassion, care and concern. The latter will be given shelter in our welfare homes.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." Sir, this Bill seeks to repeal and re-enact, with amendments, the Destitute Persons Act to provide for new provisions to enable the Director Social Welfare to prefer charges against habitual offenders, to increase the penalty for abscondence from custody, to impose a penalty for disorderly behaviour in a welfare home, to enable the Minister to appoint a Review Committee to review the period of stay in a welfare home, and to enable the Director Social Welfare to take fingerprint impressions for identification purposes. The Destitute Persons Act was introduced in 1965 to replace the Vagrancy Ordinance. The Vagrancy Ordinance had treated any beggar or vagrant as a criminal. It failed to distinguish between the destitute individual and the petty criminal. The destitute was given a prison sentence upon conviction as though he was a criminal. The Destitute Persons Act removed begging in public from the list of minor offences and treated begging as a social problem instead. Beggars and vagrants found in public places were provided with care and shelter in Government welfare homes. It has been 23 years since the Destitute Persons Act was introduced. Much water has gone under the bridge. For one, the economic problems of the 1960s against which the Destitute Persons Act was introduced are no longer with us. In the early 1960s, there were widespread poverty, squatter housing, high unemployment, resulting in many vagrants and beggars. Child beggars were also a common sight. Today, no one needs to beg for a living. The economic progress which we have achieved has provided job opportunities for all.”
“Mr Chiam can speak during the Committee stage. Mr Speaker: All right.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall be very brief. I beg to move, 'That this Parliament, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order 95, appoints the following as members of the Committee of Selection:- 1. Mr S. Chandra Das 2. Dr Lee Boon Yang 3. Mr Lee Yiok Seng 4. Encik Sidek bin Saniff 5. Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam 6. Mr Wong Kan Seng 7. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo. Sir, we need to appoint this Committee in order that the other Sessional Committees of Parliament can be appointed. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, 'That this Parliament, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order 95, appoints the following as members of the Committee of Selection:- 1. Mr S. Chandra Das 2. Dr Lee Boon Yang 3. Mr Lee Yiok Seng 4. Encik Sidek bin Saniff 5. Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam 6. Mr Wong Kan Seng 7. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo.' ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to Wednesday, 25th January 1989." [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen Minutes past Five o'clock pm to Wednesday, 25th January, 1989. SINGAPORE'S RELATIVE UNIT LABOUR COST AGAINST THE OTHER NICS IN MANUFACTURING, SHARE OF OPERATING SURPLUS IN VALUE ADDED IN MANUFACTURING SECTOR (Cols. 455 - 458)”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as the First Deputy Prime Minister is making a very important speech, outlining and expanding his thoughts, may I have your consent and the general assent of the House to exempt Standing Order 44(8)(a) to enable him to finish his speech. With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the First Deputy Prime Minister be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 44(8)(a). [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS Debate on the Address Debate resumed.”
“Is Mr Chiam aware that Dr Lee comes in strictly under a constitutional arrangement as provided for in the Constitution as well as in the Parliamentary Elections Act?”
“Sir, may I ask Mr Chiam whether he is aware that 49% of the residents of Eunos GRC voted for the Workers' Party, and that is about 35,000 voters in all, and that is many more than those in Potong Pasir? And, therefore, Dr Lee represents 35,000 people?”
“Sir, many centres have been set up over the last four years. If it is meagre, as he has mentioned, then there will not be that number of child care centres being set up. OFFICE OF CHIEF JUSTICE 6. Dr Lee Siew-Choh asked the Prime Minister whether there is any reason why the office of the Chief Justice has been left vacant after the last Chief Justice reached his retirement age on the 28 September 1982.”
“Sir, we do make regular checks but I am not aware that the infection rate of children in child care centre is higher. But sometimes it may be possible that because children get together in groups and when one child gets infected it is easy to transmit their infection or whatever problems they have to the other children. But we pay very close attention to such problems. If we know that such a problem exists, immediate action will be taken to isolate the child or bring the child home.”
“Sir, the Government has decided to give a subsidy of $100 for each child. That is the level of subsidy that we think we should give to the child. Child care centres may run a higher cost in providing places for children who are under two years old. Parents may have many alternatives of putting a child in a child care centre. They can leave the child at home to be looked after by a maid, or get a parent or other relatives to look after the child. And there are other forms of care arrangement. The options are there for the parents. If they decide to put the child in a child care centre and if the cost is $350, the parents will have to decide whether this is a viable option.”
“Sir, child care centres are established where there is a demand and we do not discriminate between old and new estates. If the Member feels that there is a need for a child care centre in Kampong Glam, please by all means set it up.”
“Sir, we know that there are not many child care centres taking children under 2 years old. This is because of the higher cost of operation. I know for a fact that the NTUC has operated a number of these centres and they have decided to slowly wind down some of them because of the high cost. As to what we can do about that, we again have to leave it to the free enterprise. We have to leave it to the individual parent to decide whether to place the child there. As far as the Government is concerned, there is no discrimination in regard to whether a child is above 2 or below 2 years old. The subsidy is still $100.”
“Sir, the Member may have got the impression that we are only looking for young girls in my answer. In the advertisement or in the recruitment of staff, I do not think it is stated clearly that only young girls are preferred. Anyone who is interested in working at a child care centre will be considered.”
“Sir, all questions raised in this House are always considered. And even if I give an answer, I keep thinking about whether the right answer has been given. So be assured that when Members raise a question and when they receive an answer from me and even when I consider that adequate, it still occupies my mind. And at the right time and if it is necessary, we will consider all the suggestions that they put up. Dr Dixie Tan (Ulu Pandan): Sir, would the Minister agree that, especially in the instance of staffing of child care centres, mature women might actually have an advantage over the young ladies that he claims to have been seeking and not finding? Would he not agree that this would be a good outlet, one of the few available to mature women seeking jobs after they have laid off work to look after their own families?”
“Sir, it is not my job to find out how many of them have Filipino accents.”
“Sir, I am a parent too and therefore I am aware that sometimes when I go to work my children may still be sleeping. While that may be the case, it is really up to the parents themselves to make sure that the foreign maids do not dominate the household. As far as I know, children know who to look up to. They do not look up to the foreign maids for guidance. They look up to the parents for guidance.”
“That could be true also, Mr Speaker, Sir, except that in the home environment, the employer, who is the parent of the child, will have a more direct influence on the child. Therefore, there is direct supervision between the employer and the foreign maid to ensure that such foreign values do not get transmitted to the child. And if there is, immediate corrective action can be taken. That is a very different situation from that of foreign maids working in child care centres.”
“Sir, I think this question should really be directed at the Minister for Labour. I think we must be careful about introducing foreign maids into child care centres. We want our children to grow up as Singaporeans, identified with Singaporean values and things that we would like to do best and we want to propagate and to inculcate these in our children. I do not think that it is appropriate to have foreign maids running our child care centres.”
“Sir, presently, there are adequate subsidies and adequate capital grants for private operators and even the NTUC, the PA and other operators who want to build child care centres. I believe the current level of subsidies is adequate.”
“Since 1985, more than 800 persons have received training at the Basic and Intermediate levels in child care. Currently, another 400 are undergoing training at the various levels and another 300 will be trained before the end of the year. We are also encouraging private entrepreneurs and voluntary organizations to provide family day care services to meet the needs of parents who prefer such services so as to make family day care more widely available to parents. While we do all we can to increase the number of child care places, the setting up of a large number of child care centres cannot take place overnight. Several factors dictate the pace of increase of child care centres. Firstly, there is a temporary problem of time lag between the movement of people into a new town and the opening of a child care centre. I know many MPs have brought up this problem to me regarding the lack of child care places in HDB new towns. This temporary problem has arisen because child care operators are reluctant to open new centres until residents have moved in and there is an indication of demand. Secondly, a more serious problem is the shortage of manpower. Many advertisements for child care personnel have gone unanswered because our young girls are not attracted to work in child care centres. Competition is keen for girls with GCE 'O' level qualifications. The answer may have to lie in more attractive salaries and better schemes of service. My Ministry will discuss with child care operators about how to make this scheme of service more attractive.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry has been stepping up its child care programme since 1984. At the end of FY 84, there were 61 child care centres providing 3,841 places. Over the period FY 85 to FY 87, the number of centres and places more than doubled to 127 and 7,887 places respectively. In FY 88 up to now, a total of 46 more child care centres were set up. Another six child care centres are likely to be operational within the next two months. In FY 88, therefore, there will be an increase of 52 child care centres and 2,534 places over the period of FY 87. This is more than double the number of centres that my Ministry had previously targetted for development annually, ie, 15-20 centres a year. Sir, it is not possible to determine exactly the extent of the increased demand for child care places resulting from the recent increase in the foreign maids levy. However, my Ministry is taking action to encourage the development of even more child care centres and other child care facilities. My Ministry is working with the Ministry of National Development to develop a scheme to enable private ntrepreneurs to use HDB premises for the development of child care centres. Currently, the development of child care centres in HDB estates is only by voluntary organizations. If more centres are to be built within HDB estates, private operators will have to be attracted to set up centres there. Training for child care centre personnel has also been stepped up. Besides increasing the intake for child care courses conducted by the Institute of Education, the Ministry has also accredited two other organizations as training agencies. The two organizations are the NTUC and the Kinderland Learning Centre.”
“They have Koreans. They have Chinese. They have Vietnamese. But they do not believe in the melting pot. Even if you had been there, living for a long time, for generations, and if you are not born a Japanese, you are not a Japanese. So the Japanese play and work as a group, as a tribe. And they prosper because they also believe that they have the group's interest above self interest. There is a recent Time article which says that the Japanese are going to outstrip the Americans in many fields of technology that used to be the supremacy of the Americans, whether it is in micro-electronics or superconductors, biotechnology or video imaging and so on. The Japanese have a different system. They prospered and they thrive. The point I want to make is that we must not be deluded into believing that having fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, having a parliamentary democracy alone will bring prosperity to the people. Basically, it is the people running the system that can produce the results. Can we imagine in 1963, had the PAP lost and the Barisan Sosialis won, would we be sitting here talking about this?”
“They do not have a melting pot concept. Japan has only one race.”
“Yes, I concede that there is an affirmative action law to require companies to employ a proportionate number of different races in the companies, in the different departments, in jobs and so on. But how has this particular law alleviated the plight and the positions of these people? Just look at Harlem. In fact, you do not have to look at Harlem. Just read the article yesterday in the Straits Times, 17th January. The headline is: "Surge in brutal, drug-linked killings shocks New York". The sub-headline is: "Rise in racial tension in big cities a big factor." That is your melting pot country. In fact, for Singaporeans, I just want to quote an episode. In America, if you want to have a meeting with a Congressman or want to meet the Speaker of the House, there are opportunities to do so, not in the way that we do like Ministerial walkabouts which Dr Lee Siew-Choh so derided. Let me also tell him that these Ministerial walkabouts are not just side-shows. We do not just shut off a debate or questions just because of lack of time. We give ample opportunities for people to come forward. I do not know whether he himself has been to any of these Ministerial walkabouts to see how it is done. But in America, if you want to meet a government leader, you will have to pay for your dinner. You read the book by Tip O'Neil, the former Speaker of the House of Representatives. His constituent has to pay $1,500 to have dinner with him so that the constituent can scold the Speaker about his remarks on the President. That is an example. As regards Japan, of course, you say, "How's that in Japan they have democracy and they do not have a system like the Americans and yet they are able to thrive and prosper?" But Japan is a very different country from America.”
“It is the drive, the energy of the people, motivated by the profit objective to make sure that they have a good living, to make sure that they prosper, that caused America to thrive. It is not the melting pot concept that brought about prosperity in America, as some would naively believe. In fact, if Mr Chiam, who believes that we should follow the system of a melting pot, has been to America, he would know that while the people may live together but they still live in separate enclaves. Go to New York, walk through Harlem and he will see for himself that there are enclaves. Where is the melting pot? But American politicians are not willing to tackle the difficulties of the minority races. They prefer to just leave matters as they are.”
“And through many years of Marcos' rule, now that they have got a new President for almost 2 or 2(r) years, the economy has picked up no doubt, but have the results produced by that particular system clearly been meaningful to the thousands of Filipino workers who are working overseas? I think all we need to do is to look very carefully at these countries so that we do not delude ourselves into believing that democracy and fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution alone will guarantee results. Of course, there are Members who also say that there are countries like Britain and America. Japan also has adopted a parliamentary system after it was destroyed by the Americans. They have prospered. But if you look very carefully at these countries, they have very different systems of parliamentary democracy. In Britain, there is no written constitution. There is no written constitution for Britain. There is only a set of practices, a set of beliefs, a set of common laws that guide the conduct of the people. With a long tradition, with a Monarchy, they are able to hold the people together. But there is no constitution, there is no fundamental rights enshrined. If you look at Britain before Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who won the elections in 1977 or 1976, the previous party at that time did not produce the results that they wanted. Only in the last 12 years with Conservative government, with the policy that encourages private initiative, that the people were able to rise again and enjoy the benefits of economic growth. In America, they have their fundamental liberties enshrined in the constitution and that constitution is so sacrosanct that nobody can change it. But it is not the constitution that brought prosperity to the people.”
“But why are we so lucky that we are able to produce the results for our people? It is because there are people who make the system work. It is not because the system itself that produces the result. All you need to do is to look at a couple of examples. And I do not mean to demean those countries, I do not mean to berate them, I do not mean to chastise them for not succeeding in producing results for their own people. But I think it would be instructive for me just to give a few examples as an illustration. India is the largest democracy in the world. 700 million people are reported to be practising it. But if you look at India today, after 43 years of independence, it is a power, of course, in its own right, but there are millions of people still homeless, millions of people sleeping in the streets, uncared for even when they are sick. The Indian Constitution, which is the first constitution produced by the British after they gave independence to the Indians, guarantees fundamental rights to the Indian people. But how have these fundamental rights benefitted the people? Where are they today? Has their standard of human dignity been raised, as a result of these fundamental rights being enshrined in the Constitution? Another example is Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka gained independence in 1955 and we all know where Sri Lanka is today. Despite the fact that it had a successful election, it is still torn with religious and racial strife. Has parliamentary democracy in Sri Lanka produced the desired results for the people? It has not. Not too far away is the Philippines. It has a system patterned very much along the American system.”
“The National Ideology is something that the Government has come out with to make sure that the people understand where their roots are, make sure that they understand that there is community interest above self interest, make sure that they know that the family is the building block of society, and so on. It has nothing to do with just gaining support for the PAP. If he had been listening to the speeches made last week by the Minister for Trade and Industry, he would have realized that. So just check the point. Anyway, I was saying that there were also among some Members this belief that democracy alone will produce results for the country and make people prosper, make them wealthy and ensure that they have a peaceful life. Sir, I do not think that I can quarrel with the concept of democracy as such, but what I would hope is for Members to realize that the system itself, the system alone, is not enough to produce the desired results that we all say we want for our people. If it is just the system itself, the parliamentary democratic system itself, that can produce wealth, prosperity for the people, then I would say that many countries in the world today would have been very prosperous and very wealthy. But the sad fact is that it is not the case. If you just look at history after 1945, after World War II, whether they be countries in the Commonwealth, countries in the French-dominated colonies, or any other country after having gained independence, after 1945, you would have noticed that not many of them have succeeded in making parliamentary democracy work. And even for those countries that have parliamentary democracy and still have such a system, there is no guarantee. The fact is that not many of them prosper like we do.”
“Any political party has the right to come out with policies to gain mass support.”
“I think if the Member were to check the Hansard through, he will find that he has heard wrongly.”
“I did not say that having these four principles in our National Ideology is to support the PAP. It is for the country.”
“He believes that there is really an erosion of traditional values as a result of western education, and we need to find our roots, and we need to imbue in our people strong traditional values so that they know where they are heading. So there is a difference between the two of them. He also said that in the last few years the PAP had gone all out to seek mass support as a result of a drop of a few percentage points in the General Election results. But what is wrong with any political party seeking mass support? There is nothing wrong with it. If a party finds that its policies need updating, its policies need improvement, and it finds that that is the way to do it to win mass support, it would be foolish for the party not to do so. Because not to do so would just be suicidal. Just as it had happened to the Barisan Sosialis - it has not changed, eventually folded up, and joined the Workers' Party because it did not live up to the times and come out with policies that are relevant to the people's needs. Sir, there is also a belief among him and some other Members ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I also rise to support my fellow parliamentarian, Mr Chandra Das, to urge this House to reject this amendment moved by Dr Lee Siew-Choh, the NCMP. Sir, the NCMP who was in this House 25 years ago probably was asleep during the last 25 years when he was out of this House. He said that Singaporeans have been deluded by the PAP because the PAP's visions and policies did not bring health, wealth, prosperity to the people and that even the President's Address last week and the Addenda are only a pipe-dream, only a rainbow which the people are chasing after. Sir, I just happened to have a set of figures here concerning the household income of families for the years 1977 to 1988. I did not go as far back as 1963 or 1959. All I need do is to just look back about 12 years. In 1977, the percentage of people earning less than $600 is about 50%; 1988 it is about 12%. Just over a short period of 12 years we have made a very significant improvement in the household income of our people. If you were to compare that to 1963 data, I think the improvement would have been much more significant. So while we are very glad that under our democratic system we have allowed Dr Lee Siew-Choh to be in this House, despite the fact that he did not gain 50% of the votes, he has not kept pace with the development of Singapore and came out with the same broad sweeping rhetoric that we used to hear from the Barisan Sosialis 25 years ago. That is rather unfortunate. He brought up the four principles mentioned in the President's Address concerning the National Ideology and started to tear it down, point after point. He has, I detect, a slightly different view from the Member for Potong Pasir concerning the influence of western education.”
“Point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. I do not think the Standing Order provides for the Member to raise points like this. If he wants to make a point, he should wait till his turn comes when he can say anything he wants.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 44(1), the Speaker may require Members seated on the back benches to speak from the rostrum nearest their seat. Sir, we have feedback from Backbench Members that, unlike those Members in the Frontbench, they have nowhere to place their notes when they speak. So when Parliament House was undergoing renovation, we took advantage of the opportunity and provided the rostrums as can be seen now in the House. Also, speaking from the rostrum will allow for a better presentation of the Members over television. This motion will allow you, Sir, to rule that, when necessary, Members may be required to speak from the rostrum nearest their seat. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 44(1), the Speaker may require Members seated on the back benches to speak from the rostrum nearest their seat. TIME AND MANNER OF SPEAKING, FORM OF ADDRESS (Announcement by Mr Speaker)”
“19(3) ) 21(2) ) 12 noon 1.30 p.m. 86(2) ) 1(4)(a) 1.00 p.m. 2.15 p.m. 1(4)(a) 2.00 p.m. 2.45 p.m. 22(3) 2.30 p.m. 3.00 p.m. 4(1) ) 3.00 p.m. 3.30 p.m. 86(2) ) 4(1) ) 3.30 p.m. 4.00 p.m. 86(2) ) 87(12) 3.45 p.m. 4.15 p.m. 1(5)(a)) 86(2) ) 4.00 p.m. 4.30 p.m. 89(4) ) ROSTRUMS FOR BACKBENCHERS (Business Motion)”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, with effect from this day's sitting, - (a) every sitting of Parliament shall begin at 12.30 p.m. and the moment of interruption at each sitting shall be 4.30 p.m.; and (b) the existing times in the Standing Orders referred to below shall be revised as follows: Standing Order Existing Time Revised Time 1(3) 11.00 a.m. 12.30 p.m. 19(3) ) 21(2) ) 12 noon 1.30 p.m. 86(2) ) 1(4)(a) 1.00 p.m. 2.15 p.m. 1(4)(a) 2.00 p.m. 2.45 p.m. 22(3) 2.30 p.m. 3.00 p.m. 4(1) ) 3.00 p.m. 3.30 p.m. 86(2) ) 4(1) ) 3.30 p.m. 4.00 p.m. 86(2) ) 87(12) 3.45 p.m. 4.15 p.m. 1(5)(a)) 86(2) ) 4.00 p.m. 4.30 p.m. 89(4) ) Sir, since the last session of Parliament, Parliament has been sitting from 11.00 am to 4.00 pm with a one-hour lunch break. You will recall, Sir, when we introduced television into Parliament we wanted to give SBC enough time also to come out with a programme in the evening. Hence we advanced the time of sitting to 11.00 am. Arising from feedback from Members who wish to have a little more time in the morning to attend to their work or to their profession, we now propose that the sitting time be changed from 12.30 pm to 4.30 pm without a break and still allowing the SBC enough time to put out a programme in the evening. The other changes are consequential to the change from 11.00 am to 12.30 pm, Sir. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, with effect from this day's sitting, - (a) every sitting of Parliament shall begin at 12.30 p.m. and the moment of interruption at each sitting shall be 4.30 p.m.; and (b) the existing times in the Standing Orders referred to below shall be revised as follows: Standing Order Existing Time Revised Time 1(3) 11.00 a.m. 12.30 p.m.”
“I hope that there will be no need for the Committee of Privileges to meet in this Seventh Parliament.”
“Although he is not present this afternoon, we would like to record our appreciation and gratitude for his distinguished service as Speaker of this House. [Applause.] Sir, you will be presiding over an enlarged House of 81 elected Members. Eighteen of them are new. May I welcome them. For the first time in this Parliament, there will be one Non-Constituency Member (NCMP). He was in this Chamber 25 years ago. I am sure he is glad to be back. The presence of this honourable gentleman belies the myth in some quarters, some in his own Workers' Party that he represents, that the Non-Constituency MP is a second-class MP. We are glad that the Workers' Party has now accepted the NCMP scheme. We do welcome this honourable gentleman to this House and I hope that he will play a constructive role in this House. [Applause.] The advice of Mr Barker, the once Leader of this House, still rings true. He said, "No Member will stray from the straight and narrow path if he always lets conscience be his guide." This shall be the same advice I give to my colleagues. I would therefore urge all Members to make the best use of their time in Parliament, to speak their minds on issues which are of importance and concern to the nation and to the people. Parliamentary debate is serious business. With television coverage, there is a danger that Members may play to the gallery. Members should resist from this temptation. Under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, Members are free to speak and debate in the proceedings of this House. But let me remind Members that they shall have to take responsibility for what they say. There have been occasions in the Sixth Parliament when a Member was taken before the Committee of Privileges.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I, on behalf of all Members of this House, extend to you our congratulations on the occasion of your election as Speaker. The office of Speaker carries with it certain functions and rituals which have a judicial flavour. You are the second Speaker in this Parliament who has no legal training. But as the experience of our former Speaker has shown, this lack of legal training should not hinder the Speaker in the exercise of his duties. Nor has it handicapped you in your responsibilities as Deputy Speaker. Your election to this high office today signifies the confidence we have in you in the last four years as Deputy Speaker. As Deputy Speaker since 1st March 1985, you have applied the Standing Orders fairly but firmly on all Members. You have shown that you are an impartial, decisive Deputy Speaker who brooks no nonsense from any Member of this House. I am sure all Members will give you our full support and cooperation in the exercise of your responsibility as Speaker of this august Chamber. Sir, let me also pay tribute to your distinguished predecessor, Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng. Dr Yeoh presided over proceedings in this House for 18 years, beginning on 27th January 1970. He was elected and re-elected five times as Speaker of this Parliament. Although he did not intend to set a record when he first became Speaker, his tenure as Speaker will be a record that will be hard to be broken. He had been tolerant of Members who sometimes tested his patience. But he always ensured that order, decorum and fairness were observed in this House. During his tenure, he brought dignity and esteem to this high position of Speaker. All of us will remember Dr Yeoh for his long years of contribution.”
“stood up, and addressing himself to the Clerk of Parliament said: Mr Lopez, I propose, That Mr Tan Soo Khoon do take the Chair of this Parliament as Speaker. Mr S. Chandra Das (Cheng San GRC): stood up, and addressing himself to the Clerk of Parliament said: Mr Lopez, I support the proposal. There being only one proposal, the Clerk then declared Mr Tan Soo Khoon to have been duly elected as Speaker of this Parliament. [Applause] Mr Speaker, standing at the Table, made an Affirmation of Allegiance. Mr Speaker went to the Chair and sat down. Then the Mace (which before lay below the Table) was placed on the Table. ADMINISTRATION OF OATHS”
“Sir, I beg to move, That this Debate be now adjourned. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Debate be now adjourned.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the next item, which is a motion to be moved by the Member for Kebun Baru, relates to the White Paper which was presented at the last Parliament sitting. This White Paper which proposes some Constitutional Amendments to Safeguard Financial Assets and the Integrity of the Public Services is an important subject, and I therefore would like to seek your consent, Sir, and the general assent of this House to move, That the proceedings on item 6 be exempted from the Time limits for speeches laid down in paragraph (8)(a) of Standing Order No. 44.”
“Sir, this is not provided for in the Standing Orders and let this evolve in practice. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament resolves that the amendments set out in Appendix I to the Second Report of the Standing Orders Committee as contained in Paper Parl. 4 of 1988 be and are hereby made to the Standing Orders of Parliament. TIME LIMIT FOR SPEECHES (Motion for Exemption)”
“Sir, I do not have much to add other than to thank Members for their contribution. And to allay the fears of the hon. Member for Potong Pasir, I think if he would like to continue, if he has the opportunity, to be called "the hon. Member for Potong Pasir", he still could, because under the amendment for a single constituency Member he could, still be called by the name of the Constituency to which he was returned. Of course, if other Members would like to be addressed by their names, it could also be done. I have said in my speech that it is only polite to prefix it with "Mr" or "Honourable Minister" or "Honourable Mr" depending on the choice of Members individually.”
“And to be consistent, it is also proposed that Members from single-member constituencies also be allowed to be addressed by name. Sir, we know that the present Standing Order of not allowing Members to be referred to by name is to guard against personal references or any appearance of personality in a debate. I submit that while this is a good tradition originating from Westminster, we need not rigidly follow it as we need to change Standing Orders according to changing circumstances. Standing Orders are meant to serve the needs of the House and not meant to restrict our actions unnecessarily. Therefore, it is proposed that Members who are returned to Parliament after the next general elections be allowed to refer to other Members by name. Of course, Sir, when this liberty is given, all Members are expected to observe proper decorum and not abuse this practice by making fun of a Member's name. If the situation gets out of hand and the debate becomes personal, Sir, I am sure you will most likely restrain the Member concerned. Here, if I may also suggest that when referring to a Member by name, it will be indeed polite to prefix it with the word "Mr" or "hon Mr" before the name. For example, when referring to the Member for Toa Payoh, we could refer to him as "Mr Eric Cheong" or "the hon. Mr Eric Cheong".”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I beg to move, That this Parliament resolves that the amendments set out in Appendix I to the Second Report of the Standing Orders Committee as contained in Paper Parl. 4 of 1988 be and are hereby made to the Standing Orders of Parliament. Sir, three amendments are proposed to the Standing Orders. The first amendment refers to Standing Order No. 1, paragraph (3), where it is proposed that the Speaker be given flexibility and discretion to appoint a time other than 11.00 am for the commencement of a sitting. There may be occasions when Parliament wishes to sit at a time other than 11.00 am. But the current Standing Order does not permit a change of time unless a resolution is moved in the House during a parliamentary sitting. But when Parliament does not sit and it wishes to convene at a time other than 11.00 am, there is no discretion for you, Mr Speaker, Sir, to fix a time other than 11.00 am. Hence this amendment. The second amendment is needed because of the recent amendment to the Constitution which provides for two Deputy Speakers. So consequential amendments are therefore required to the relevant paragraphs of Standing Order Nos. 8, 16, 51 and 95, arising from the provision of two Deputy Speakers in the Constitution. Sir, the third amendment is on Standing Order No. 47, paragraph (5), which presently states in the first line that: 'No Member shall refer by name to any other Member.' This Standing Order will pose difficulty to Members from GRCs which will be formed after the next general elections. The GRC will have three Members of Parliament. But if the Standing Order remains, it will be difficult for Members to distinguish one Member of the GRC from another. Hence it is proposed that Members of GRC be allowed to be called by name.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL AGENDA 12.35 pm”