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 60 of 64.
“His failure to derive satisfaction from the proceedings was due to his own inability to produce evidence that there was executive interference in the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo. Despite repeated goading by Mr Barker and the Chairman to ask three specific questions of the Prime Minister, Mr Jeyaretnam failed to do so. There is no doubt that when the Committee closed on 12th September 1986 the Chairman had ruled that that part of the proceedings was concluded which meant that the cross-examination of the Prime Minister had ended. The Committee, in its Second Report, had already expressed the view that false reporting of proceedings of Parliament and its Committees will be regarded as contempt of Parliament. The principles laid down in that report are equally applicable in this instance. While any reports of the proceedings of the Committee or of Parliament may not be verbatim reports, any published accounts of the Committee's proceedings must not be false, perverted or biased. The Committee found that the article did not present a fair, truthful and balanced reporting of the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges. The article in question also contained serious omissions and distortions calculated to give readers a false impression of what really took place. It is irresponsible reporting and without regard for the dignity and decorum of the Committee of Privileges. Parliament cannot allow unjustified and inaccurate accounts of its proceedings or of its Committees. The Committee therefore found the Editor, Mr Jeyaretnam, and the Publisher, the Workers' Party Executive Council, and the Printer guilty of contempt of Parliament. This is the second time that Mr Jeyaretnam had written articles in contempt of Parliament and of its Committees.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That this Parliament doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Fifth Report contained in Paper Parl. 9 of 1987 and resolves - (1) that Parliament impose on the Editor of "The Hammer", Mr J B Jeyaretnam, a fine of $10,000; (2) that Parliament impose on the Publisher of "The Hammer", the Workers' Party Executive Council, a fine of $5,000; and (3) that the Printer of "The Hammer", Mr Teo Sing Lim, be reprimanded and warned by the Speaker in writing. Sir, this House was informed by Mr Speaker on 18th March 1987 that he had received a letter from Mr Dhanabalan complaining about an article appearing in "The Hammer" of January/February 1987 with the heading "Committee of Privilege Hearing/Jeya denied fair hearing". Having been satisfied that the complaint prima facie affected the privileges of Parliament, the matter was referred to the Committee of Privileges. The Committee have now submitted their report to this House. The article in question was written by Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam who is also the Editor of "The Hammer". The Publisher of "The Hammer" is the Central Executive Council of the Workers' Party and the publication is printed by G.T. Printing and Trading (Pte) Ltd whose managing director is Mr Teo Sing Lim. The Committee found that the article and its headline is a gross distortion of the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges. The headline of the article, "Jeya denied fair hearing", clearly conveyed a biased and perverted impression of the Committee's proceedings. There is no question that Mr Jeyaretnam had been given more than ample opportunity to question the witnesses.”
“Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir has a curious way of arguing his case.”
“--- it is only an assumption. Do not be too presumptuous. A lawyer MP can take up court cases, and if the cases were subsequently lost, thereafter bring up the same cases in Parliament, the same issues. If he does that, then he is, in fact, finding another avenue for bringing up cases that he could not find recourse or could not get satisfaction in the court. So this Parliament cannot be the last forum for such Members who have in their professional capacity acted for their clients' interests or individuals' interests. Surely, this is direct pecuniary interest if the Member does so. If Mr Jeyaretnam had forgotten the case, like what the Member for Potong Pasir has said, then he would not have raised the question in 1986. So obviously the Member for Potong Pasir does not know Mr Jeyaretnam very well. And even if he does, he cannot read Mr Jeyaretnam's mind. Nobody can. Tell me that you can read my mind.”
“Sir, the Member for Geylang Serai has adequately and aptly answered the point made by the Member for Potong Pasir regarding the interpretation of direct pecuniary interest. In fact, it is the same point that was made by the previous Committee of Privileges. But assuming that what Mr Chiam said is correct ---”
“After considering Mr Jeyaretnam's arguments, the Committee found Mr Jeyaretnam guilty of the offence of breach of privileges and accordingly recommended that Parliament impose upon him a fine of $1,000 which was the maximum fine under the Act prior to its amendment. Sir, I move that this House accepts the recommendation of the Committee. Questions proposed.”
“The House must know whether a Member, in taking up a matter, has any connection with the case in his personal or professional capacity which involves a pecuniary interest. The House will then be in a position to assess the intentions of the Member and to decide the extent to which the Member might have had his position influenced by his involvement in the case. 13. If a Member did not declare his interest, this could result in abuses of the proceedings of the House. The House will then be used for ventilation of dissatisfaction over failure to obtain redress in the Courts or other forums. Such failure to disclose interest can also lay open to abuse of a Member's position for profit and mischief.' The Committee also rejected Mr Jeyaretnam's argument that a Member need not disclose his pecuniary interest in questions raised in Parliament because this is the practice of the UK House of Commons. It is quite clear from Section 31 of our Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act that a Member must disclose his pecuniary interest. Sir, this is not the first time that the former Member for Anson breached this rule on disclosure of pecuniary interest. He did it on two occasions, first on 17th and the next on 19th March 1982. On both occasions, he was let off lightly. He was allowed to apologize for the first occasion and he was reprimanded for dishonourable conduct and contempt of Parliament for the second breach of Parliamentary Privileges. Non-declaration of pecuniary interest is a serious breach of Parliamentary Privileges. It is much more serious when the person is a repeat offender.”
“Under section 31 of the Act: 'A Member shall not in or before Parliament or any committee take part in the discussion of any matter in which he has a direct personal pecuniary interest without disclosing the extent of that interest and shall not in any circumstances vote upon any such matter.' In a written reply to the complaint and on subsequent examination by the Committee of Privileges, Mr Jeyaretnam did not deny taking up the case of Cik Norlizah, the CISCO constable who was asked to work on a rest day. Mr Jeyaretnam also admitted to receiving payment from her. His argument was that the matter was concluded in March 1985, and since he raised the question in March 1986, the question of declaring his pecuniary interest did not arise. Mr Jeyaretnam also claimed that in the UK House of Commons, a matter raised in a notice or supplementary question did not require a Member raising it to declare his pecuniary interest in it. The Committee of Privileges rejected Mr Jeyaretnam's arguments. The Committee are not denying that Mr Jeyaretnam had a right to raise the question even though he had represented a CISCO constable previously in his professional capacity. The Committee are of the view that Mr Jeyaretnam was wrong in failing to declare his pecuniary interest. He had taken up a CISCO constable's case with the authorities and was paid for his services. The Committee ruled that there were good reasons why a Member should, as a minimum, declare his pecuniary interest. In the words of the Committee, in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Report: '12. There are very good reasons why a Member should, as a minimum, declare his interest in such cases.”
“Sir, I rise again and I beg to move, That this Parliament doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Fourth Report contained in Paper Parl. 7 of 1987 and resolves - (1) that Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam is guilty of breach of privilege of Parliament; and (2) that a fine of $1,000 be imposed upon him. At the Parliamentary sitting on 26th March 1986, the former Member for Anson, Mr Jeyaretnam, raised a question for oral answer whether constables from the Commercial and Industrial Security Corporation (CISCO) could be compelled to work on their rest days. In reply, Prof. Jayakumar, the Minister for Home Affairs, said that a CISCO constable is not compelled to work on his rest day unless exigencies of the service so required. In the course of further supplementary questions and answers, it was revealed that Mr Jeyaretnam failed to declare his pecuniary interest when raising the question concerning CISCO constables working on rest days. He also denied that he had any pecuniary interest in the question when he was asked by the Speaker. He then challenged Prof. Jayakumar to file a complaint against him. Thereupon, Prof. Jayakumar filed a complaint against Mr Jeyaretnam for failing to disclose the fact that the issue raised in question was the same issue which Mr Jeyaretnam had raised in a case taken up by him in early 1985 in his capacity as an advocate and solicitor. That case concerned the dismissal of a CISCO constable named Cik Norlizah binte Long. Cik Norlizah appealed against the dismissal and Mr Jeyaretnam acted for her in his professional capacity. Mr Jeyaretnam should have declared his pecuniary interest in the matter as required of him under Section 31 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.”
“Yes. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Third Report contained in Paper Parl. 6 of 1987 and resolves - (1) that Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam is guilty of abuse of the privileges of Parliament; and (2) that a fine of $1,000 be imposed upon him. COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES (FOURTH REPORT) (Paper Parl. 7 of 1987)”
“He is a lawyer. Yes, of course. If you were to look at section 24 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, it is quite clear that: 'Parliament may order any person guilty of an offence to attend before Parliament to be informed of or to receive any punishment which Parliament has decided [has decided] to inflict upon him.' Is it not clear? [Interruptions]. Yes. But Parliament may do that, which means Parliament has the discretion to do that. Now, Parliament need not do that.”
“I am not a lawyer and I do not feel sorry for it. But let me help the Member for Potong Pasir. An hon. Member: He is a lawyer.”
“Of course. Because the particular person, Mr Jeyaretnam, has already been given the opportunity to be heard, then Parliament or the Committee must make a decision. After having made a decision, then he will be informed accordingly. It is definitely proper. Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, but the sentence has not been passed yet. Until this House approves the recommendations of the Committee, then the sum of $1,000 cannot be obtained from him. Do you not agree with me on that?”
“The Member brought the same point up at the last sitting when we were debating the First and Second Reports. He was asked to produce precedents. Well, what did we have? We had not a shred of evidence or a single case that could support his contention. So section 12 does not require Parliament to compel him to come here to say anymore. What Mr Jeyaretnam wants to say has already been said by him at the Committee of Privileges.”
“What does the Member propose that we call Mr Jeyaretnam here for? What does he propose us to do? Tell us.”
“The Member for Potong Pasir certainly has got his section wrong.”
“So the Committee actually summoned him and he appeared, and he said all that he wanted to say and still Parliament found him guilty. Parliament also gave the opportunity to Lim Poh Huat to appear, and he said what he wanted to say.”
“You quoted section 12. Section 12 says this.”
“And I would also say that the less he speaks, the less he would reveal his ignorance of parliamentary practices, rules and laws. Perhaps he wants an induction course on what MPs can and cannot do. I am sure that the remaining 76 or 77 Members here do not need that. But I do not know who can provide him with that kind of induction course. Earlier on he quoted section 12 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. He said that Parliament has the power to call upon or compel a person to attend Parliament. Let me just read to him section 12 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. It says: 'Parliament and any committee which is duly authorised by the Standing Orders or by a resolution of Parliament to send for persons, papers and records may order any person to attend before Parliament or before the committee, and to produce any paper, book, record or document in the possession or under the control of that person.' This clearly says that Parliament or the Committee can call for the person. If we were to look at the Report, the Third Report, we would have seen that Mr Jeyaretnam was indeed called by the Committee and was examined in detail and he was given every opportunity to present his case.”
“Sir, I must certainly congratulate the Member for Potong Pasir for his courage which, he said, that the Member for Khe Bong does not have. But I have no doubt at all that the Member for Khe Bong has the courage of his own conviction. But I am also bemused by the Member for Potong Pasir's sense of self-importance when he said he is the only surviving Opposition Member in Singapore.”
“The Committee considered Mr Jeyaretnam had acted irresponsibly in raising a serious and grave accusation without substantiation and in not informing the House of the fabrication of the complaint when he learnt of it. Mr Jeyaretnam also refused to apologize to the House when offered many opportunities to do so. Sir, may I urge this House to accept the findings and the recommendations of the Committee and that Parliament impose on Mr Jeyaretnam a fine of $1,000. Question proposed.”
“On the first issue, the Committee of Privileges found that Mr Jeyaretnam failed to check the facts with Mr Lim Poh Huat, though he had every opportunity to do so, and that he had made serious charges in Parliament based entirely on what a third party, Mr Seneviratne, told him. This is reckless and irresponsible behaviour. Mr Jeyaretnam failed to take even the minimal step to contact or speak to Mr Lim Poh Huat to ascertain directly from him his account of the facts. Instead he proceeded to raise the specific allegation of wrongdoing entirely on the hearsay of Mr Seneviratne. Mr Jeyaretnam's defence was that he had no duty to investigate and he maintained that he was entitled to raise any matter that came to his notice. The Committee rejected this contention. This privilege and immunity enjoyed by Members carries with it a responsibility and duty to the House to refrain from making grave and serious allegations or accusations against persons or bodies based entirely on hearsay or third party reports without first taking steps to verify the accuracy of the accusations, especially when the so-called aggrieved party can easily be contacted. The Committee felt that Mr Jeyaretnam should have taken the minimal step to check with Mr Lim Poh Huat. The Committee did not expect Mr Jeyaretnam to make his own investigation. On the second issue, the Committee found that Mr Jeyaretnam had suppressed important information from the House, when he rose on 30th July 1986 on his own volition to offer Mr Lim Poh Huat's address. He failed to inform the House that Mr Lim Poh Huat had given a signed statement that he had made up the story of his arrest and the detention was fabricated. This is a further abuse of privilege and the Committee accordingly found him guilty.”
“No person by the name of Lim Poh Huat was arrested or detained at any police station on the date and time as alleged by Mr Jeyaretnam. Between 27th March and 29th July 1986 when the matter was again brought up in Parliament, there was a series of eight letters between Mr Jeyaretnam and Dr Lee Boon Yang. Up till 23rd July 1986, Mr Jeyaretnam refused to cooperate with the Ministry of Home Affairs by giving them information on Lim Poh Huat or producing Lim Poh Huat. Furthermore, at the Parliament sitting on 27th March 1986, Mr Jeyaretnam also claimed that he had made a report on the matter at the Joo Chiat Police Station. But in a subsequent letter and on examination by the Committee of Privileges he denied that he had made a report to the Joo Chiat Police Station. He claimed that his statement on 27th March was a mistake. Subsequently at a Parliament sitting on 29th July 1986, after a lengthy debate it became clear that Mr Jeyaretnam's allegation had no basis and that he had misled the House. He was given several opportunities to apologize but he refused. Whereupon Prof. Jayakumar had no choice but to complain to the Committee of Privileges. The deliberations of the Committee are in this Third Report of the Committee. Several witnesses including Mr Lim Poh Huat and Mr Jeyaretnam were called before the Committee. The Committee considered two issues arising from the Lim Poh Huat saga, namely, (1) whether Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam took any steps to verify the bona fide of the complaint; and (2) the failure of Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam to inform the House of the fabricated report.”
“Sir, it is my most unpleasant duty as well as a necessary one to bring before this House three Motions reporting on the Committee of Privileges' Reports for the consideration of the House. Sir, I beg to move, That this Parliament doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Third Report contained in Paper Parl. 6 of 1987 and resolves - (1) that Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam is guilty of abuse of the privileges of Parliament; and (2) that a fine of $1,000 be imposed upon him. Never in the history of this House that in less than a year the Committee of Privileges have been summoned five times to consider complaints against a Member. I will recapitulate the event, Sir. On 18th March 1986, in the course of a supplementary question the former Member for Anson, Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam, asked the Minister for Home Affairs, Prof. Jayakumar, whether he knew that someone was arrested by the Police in the early hours of 1st March 1986 and was not released until 3.00 pm that afternoon. He also alleged that the detention was unlawful and unjustified. Then on 27th March 1986 at the Committee of Supply debate, Mr Jeyaretnam raised the same subject of the alleged detention of that person. On both occasions, Mr Jeyaretnam was asked by the Minister and his Minister of State, Dr Lee Boon Yang, to furnish the details. Whereupon on 22nd April 1986, Mr Jeyaretnam repeated the allegation in a letter to Prof. Jayakumar and gave the name of the person as one Lim Poh Huat. Being concerned about the seriousness of the allegation and having assumed that Mr Jeyaretnam would not have made the allegation without first satisfying himself that there was credence to the claim, Prof. Jayakumar ordered a thorough investigation into the allegation but found that there was no truth whatsoever in it.”
“Only when we can strengthen our unity and total defence, will we then be able to seek progress and stability and ensure that our security will not be threatened by foreign challenge and instigation and that our task towards inter-racial cohesion and unity may not be thwarted or ruined. In the past few years in this House, we all know that there was one lone voice which was persistently against national defence, against a build-up of armed forces, against purchase of military hardware, defence or mobilization exercise, and so on. This voice has disappeared. But strangely enough, recently another voice has appeared to replace it. This voice even raised its tune in the same breath and in consonance with the tune of some foreigners who tried to incite dissension among us, accusing us of discriminating against our Malay countrymen and demanding to reduce defence expenditure and accusing our national defence as being an over-reaction.”
“If the same incidents were to happen more than 20 years ago, possibly there would be racial bloodshed and conflict. But today, facts have proved that we have certain degree of internal cohesiveness and we can withstand the test. But there are small groups of people who show some wavering and uncertainty when confronted with such test. When faced with external challenge of instigation and divisive forces, we have been able to keep our rational mind and our unity and to stand firm. This shows that our society is more mature now. However, we must also realize that ours is not yet a society where all the races are completely integrated and cohesive. Therefore, there are loopholes for foreign politicians with ulterior motives to await the opportunity to fan the fire with their divisive forces and create trouble so that they may from the other shore watch us in hot fire and deep waters, and fish in the troubled waters of Singapore. This reminds us that we should not forget that we must not relax but strive harder to unite our various races in Singapore. Perhaps it will take a long time. I remember the Minister for Community Development mentioning that to make our society to be a cohesive one with all the races integrated, it might take one or two more generations. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, other than continuing with our effort in uniting all the races, we must on the other hand also strengthen our total defence because racial issues affect national security. When you talk about national security or safety, then you must talk about national defence or total defence in the same breath.”
“That shows their patriotism to our country and they know the truism that the survival of the country is the duty of everybody. They are courageous enough to take up the duty of protecting their country. Second, when our Singapore citizens go abroad, usually they will introduce themselves as, "we are Singaporeans", and they do not say they belong to certain race. This also goes to show that we have a kind of pride and sense of identity as Singaporeans. The third instance is also very important. In facing external provocation and interference, Singaporeans of different races are able to show solidarity with common front in confronting the outsiders, upholding our national dignity, sovereignty and integrity. These few points could be said to be the important results that we have achieved, and the process of mental build-up and nation building over the past two decades can also show that our policy and measures in integrating the different races step by step have been correct. Recently certain foreign politicians have tried to make use of racial issues to incite dissension and sow discord among our people. The reaction by the people of the various races in Singapore demonstrates very well that we have a common national consciousness. Our reaction was almost unanimous. In the recent issues I referred to - the Israeli President's visit to Singapore and the Second Defence Minister's talk on Malay participation in our armed forces - the response of our people on the whole to the challenges demonstrates our achievement in social defence and psychological defence has been very encouraging. It shows that they are able to withstand the test. More than 20 years ago if the same incidents were to happen, I am afraid our various races at that time would not be able to stand the test.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. 3.01 pm NATION BUILDING AND TOTAL DEFENCE Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights)( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to begin my speech with this one sentence, namely, ours is a country, a state but we are still not a nation yet. In other words, we are not yet a complete nation but a state. More than 20 years ago when we achieved independence, our society was made up of the various races of different cultures, different religions and different languages. These people did not have national consciousness or a common culture. In such a society, internal unity was very weak. Therefore, after our country came into being, one of our prime tasks was to gradually integrate all the races and to develop a common national consciousness and a common identity; otherwise, if our different races were suspicious of one another, then the society and the country would not be stable and in peace and could not develop and because of that there would be conflicts and even bloodshed. For instance, Lebanon in the past had been called the Swiss of the Arab world, but today it has become a rubble. This is a case in point. After over 20 years of effort, we have gradually evolved from a society of disparate self-serving races into a society where the people have a common sense of identity as Singaporeans. The Singaporeans today have a deep national consciousness and feel proud as Singaporeans with a sense of patriotism. I think we could see this from the following instances. First, all our youth of the right age for national service at the age of 18, irrespective of their races, are willing to accept national service and are taking national service and military training seriously.”
“Resolved, That this Parliament, pursuant to section 3 of the Departmental Titles (Alteration) Act (Chapter 53), resolves that the Schedule to the said Act be amended by the addition under the headings of "Old Title or Name of Office" and "New Title or Name of Office" respectively of the following: Old Title or Name of Office New Title or Name of Office --------------------------- --------------------------- Principal Assistant Director Welfare Officer Grade V or Social Welfare VI Assistant Director of Welfare Officer Grade VII or Social Welfare VIII. ADJOURNMENT TO A DATE TO BE FIXED (Motion) Resolved, "That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. ADJOURNMENT MOTION”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Parliament, pursuant to section 3 of the Departmental Titles (Alteration) Act (Chapter 53), resolves that the Schedule to the said Act be amended by the addition under the headings of "Old Title or Name of Office" and "New Title or Name of Office" respectively of the following: Old Title or Name of Office New Title or Name of Office --------------------------- --------------------------- Principal Assistant Director Welfare Officer Grade V or Social Welfare VI Assistant Director of Welfare Officer Grade VII or Social Welfare VIII. Sir, the Children and Young Persons Act, Adoption of Children Act and Women's Charter make reference to the positions of Principal Assistant Director of Social Welfare and Assistant Director of Social Welfare. These positions are titles of appointment in the former Social Welfare Officers scheme of service. Since January 1981, this scheme of service has been replaced by a new scheme of service called the Welfare Officers Service. The titles of Principal Assistant Director of Social Welfare and Assistant Director of Social Welfare were changed to Welfare Officer, ranging from Grades V to VIII. A change of titles to Welfare Officer, Grades V to VIII, reflects equivalent grades of the old titles. The old titles of Principal Assistant Director of Social Welfare and Assistant Director of Social Welfare are no longer in use. Hence, the need for this motion. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That Mr S. Dhanabalan be discharged from the Committee of Selection and that Mr Wong Kan Seng be added to the Committee. Sir, in view of the additional duties of the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Ministry of National Development, Mr Dhanabalan has asked to be discharged from the Committee of Selection and, with the permission of this House, I should be pleased to be included in this Committee. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That Mr S. Dhanabalan be discharged from the Committee of Selection and that Mr Wong Kan Seng be added to the Committee. DEPARTMENTAL TITLES”
“Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. A NEW LAND UTILIZATION POLICY 5.24 pm.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1987/88, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.”
“If Members have other ideas on how we could extract information from the Archives and Oral History Department, I would be pleased to receive their suggestions and I would pass them to my staff.”
“Sir, I must thank the Member for complimenting the Archives and Oral History Unit and I would urge him also at the next Committee of Supply debate to ask the Finance Minister to consider increasing the grant to the Archives and Oral History Department. But, Sir, the primary role of the Archives and Oral History Department really is to document and preserve historical records and to interview people and keep records of their experiences in the Oral History Unit. But of course keeping and storing such records would be of no purpose unless the information can also be distilled and can be disseminated to the people for their information, for their education and for increasing their understanding of our national heritage. Towards this end, Sir, the Archives and Oral History Department therefore has organized a number of exhibitions to show our cultural heritage and I am pleased that the Member for Radin Mas has been invited to officiate at one of these functions. We will definitely do more of this. For the information of Members, in the year 1985-86, 10 such exhibitions were held. At the same time, the department also provided supporting catalogues for these exhibitions on the appreciation of our history and culture, especially among our young. There were also mobile exhibitions on the life and times of local communities and these exhibitions were held in our community centres. The Oral History Department has also produced two audio-visual shows and three audio-packages on aspects of our recent history. With more funds from the Finance Ministry and with more manpower, we will certainly be able to do more of these things. All these activities were in fact intensively publicized in our local media.”
“Our library service is actually staffed by a large number of female staff and many of them do have families. Of course, it is easy for us to say why not change the rest day from a Sunday to a week day but then they feel that they need the Sunday to be with the family and, as a result, it is not easy to convince a large number of female employees to work on Sunday. In addition to that, of course, is the Finance Ministry's review of the library services and they have also cut the number of people available for the library. With the reduced manpower and a large number of womanpower, it is very difficult to ask the library to open on Sundays.”
“Sir, it is because of the repeated requests of the Member for Yio Chu Kang that we conducted an experiment to try and find out whether there is a large number of people using the library on Sundays or not. And we decided to choose one library because the other libraries were either under renovation or were not suitable or they were too new. We chose the Marine Parade Library to conduct this experiment. During the six-month trial period, we found that there were actually fewer books loaned compared to the time when we did not open on a Sunday. But that alone (maybe the Member is right) is not adequate to say that we should not open on a Sunday. But we also asked the people who came to the library on Sunday, whether they would prefer the library to be opened on a Saturday evening or to be opened on a Sunday. The answer is a wash, like the Americans say. 49% of them stated they preferred Saturday evenings and 51% said that they preferred Sunday afternoons. So the result again is not very conclusive. We also asked them a further question, and 44% of them said that they used the library infrequently or not at all on a Sunday. That means we do have a large number of members who are not interested at all in using the library even on a Sunday. Of the 63% of them who said they would use the library on a Sunday, said they would use it in addition to the other times that they visit the library. Sir, all these statistics, of course, may not sound convincing to the Member, but this is the problem. We do have members who are either not interested or who feel that coming to the library on a Sunday is just one of the additional activities. But a more important constraint is really the manpower, or the womanpower constraint, in the library.”
“But, sad to say, Sir, from our experience in last year's Festival of Arts, the overseas shows, the foreign shows, happened to be more popular than the local shows. We would like, of course, to find ways of improving the attendance of local shows. But if our people do not want to attend the shows, even though the price is very low and very affordable, there is very little that we can do about it.”
“Sir, the expenditure on the promotion of cultural activities is not the only yardstick to measure the level of cultural activities in Singapore. I think, as Members would be aware, the level of cultural activities over the last two, three years, has actually increased substantially. And if we just look at last year's Festival of Arts, we spent almost $3(r) million on the Festival of Arts and we had a record number of performances as well as a record number of attendance by our people. Of course, we would like to have as many local items as possible and as many Asian cultural performances as possible, but it is not as easy as the Member thinks to get these items put up by our local groups, or even to get some of the Asian cultural items from the surrounding region. It is easier to get a foreign item because many of the foreign groups have got touring plans and when they are touring to other parts of Asia we manage to get on to them and say, "Please come to Singapore on your way to Tokyo or on your way to Hong Kong or to Australia." In this sense we are able to get more of the western cultural groups. Be that as it may, Sir, in 1986, last year, out of the 197 cultural shows that were performed in Singapore, 68% of them were by our own cultural groups. So you see, Sir, most of the shows that we put up last year were Asian shows. As regards improving the Festival of Arts and plans to improve the Festival of Arts, my Ministry has already set up a Committee last year, immediately after the 1986 Festival of Arts, to look into new shows and new performances for our people in 1988. But I will certainly take the Member's suggestion that we should try to encourage as many local groups as possible, provided of course our audience will also support their shows.”
“Sir, the criteria we use is the means test, and the means test was established sometime ago. I do not have the actual formula that I can quote for the Member. But if the Member were to submit a question, I will definitely give that to him. As regards the amount of money paid out, again I do not have the actual dollars and cents. I do not carry all these figures in my head and I do not have a data bank in me. But I will be pleased to give the answer to the Member if he were to submit a question.”
“So we see that there are adequate avenues where additional funds can be provided to these people who are in receipt of public assistance and if there is a need to do more, definitely my Ministry will consider them favourably. As regards rates, a review of the rate was made in early 1985 based on the minimum household expenditure survey of November/December 1984. We found that between the time when we revised the rate in 1983 or 1982 there was not a lot of changes in the minimum household expenditure. We found that the minimum household expenditure only increased by about 1.6% between 1982 and 1984. As a result, we found it very difficult to justify a revision of the 1984 rate. But let me assure the Member, Sir, that in early 1988 we will do another review and when the need arises we will revise the rate.”
“Sir, the Member made two points, one is that the public assistance rate is low and, secondly, the public assistance rate should be reviewed periodically. The Member showed a good understanding of the reasons why we need to have a low rate of public assistance. Public assistance really is not a substitute for unemployment or disability or retirement income. It is meant to help people if they are able bodied to get on their feet again, to go out and get a job. And for those who really cannot get a job and those who are really disabled, those who are really old and unable to work, then the public assistance is meant to help them pass through the day with some assistance from the Government. There are many other schemes in addition to the public assistance that the Government gives and these schemes are also managed by the Ministry. Whenever the need arises, whenever it is necessary, we will be generous in considering requests for additional assistance. Perhaps, let me just give a few examples of the kind of assistance that the PA recipients receive in addition to the public assistance from the Government. Of the 3,000-odd cases of public assistance recipients we have last year, about 1,200 of them received additional help from the Ministry or from the voluntary welfare funds managed by the Ministry, and that is about 39%. About 33% of the others, about 1,018 of them, are living in welfare or community homes. In other words, they are also supported by voluntary welfare organizations, in addition to receiving the $90 from the Government. The remaining 28% of PA recipients have odd jobs or have part-time work or are receiving assistance from their family members, or relatives or friends.”
“We have identified a place which is near an industrial area and we hope that when this place is set up, it will provide sheltered employment for about 50 disabled people. But we are still negotiating the terms with the Ministry of Law. We hope to get this matter sorted out before the middle of this year. There is no need to worry about seed money, Sir, because there is a charity foundation which has given us a significant amount of money which we have used for providing workshops and hostel homes for the disabled run by the Council and by the Red Cross Society. And we have enough money to set up one or two more of these sheltered workshops. The question is finding adequate manpower, adequate volunteers, to manage these places. And once we get these people, let me assure the Member that we will set up the homes with the money that we have.”
“Sir, the three matters mentioned by the Member as a measure of the Government's sincerity and interest in doing its best, providing moral support, helping to get facilities and providing seed money, indeed are the things that we are doing. But let me caution the Member that we should not assume that all disabled people are employable. Many of them, because of their severe disabilities, are just unemployable and that is the sad part of it. There is really nothing very much we can do for these people. What we could do perhaps would be to help them to be able to take care of their daily living needs rather than provide them with employment opportunities. For those who can find jobs outside in the open market, in the factories, in the offices and so on, I think they should be encouraged to do so. It is better that they work in the factories, in the office environ- ment and to be with the other people that they will get a sense of dignity and sense of self-worth. And I think we should encourage all disabled people who can find open employment to get jobs in the offices and the factories. But not all of them are suitable for open employment even if they want to work. For these people, Sir, I know that there are now five voluntary organizations providing sheltered employment for about 440 disabled people. We conducted a survey recently and we found that among the 4,385 disabled people within the age group of 16-55, about 480 of them are suitable for sheltered employment. We are trying to find ways of providing them with the opportunity for sheltered employment and we are working closely with the Singapore Council of Social Services to do this.”
“But let me assure him that we are progressing and we are paying full attention to implementation of the recommendations of the Howe Yoon Chong Report.”
“There are a number of day care centres also. These day care centres provide domiciliary services to frail elderly persons at centralized locations. The services provided are basic nursing and simple physiotherapy for senior citizens who require follow-up after rehabilitative care. There are now eight day care centres of which five have rehabilitative programmes while the remaining three focus on social activities. I also mentioned earlier on that there are seven community organizations' welfare homes providing respite care services to families who may want to put their aged or aged sick into the homes for short periods so that they can take a break elsewhere. As regards the home-help service, this again is another service recommended in the Howe Yoon Chong Report. There are now 68 home-help users and 18 matches have been made. And the Ministry is promoting this home help service again this year. I mentioned one service which I said was not quite successful, and that is, the meal delivery service. From the surveys that we conducted in 1985 and 1986, we found that very few senior citizens want to make use of this service for a number of reasons. They prefer to take their meals at their own time. They prefer to cook on their own and they prefer to go to hawker centres and so on. So we found that for this particular service, there was not enough of a demand to justify our continuation of this service. Sir, on the recommendations of the Howe Yoon Chong Report, I have made two progress reports to this House during the last one or two years and I will be pleased to give an update on the progress of this Report if the Member asks for it.”
“So you see, Sir, in all these areas, Government has provided adequate opportunities for education, for vocational training to help these people find employment in the appropriate jobs or skills which they are able to cope. As regards the Member for Telok Blangah's point about the aged sick, let me assure him, Sir, the schemes that I mentioned earlier on were not failures. In fact, we were quite successful in a number of schemes. Maybe I will just elaborate on a few of them to give the Member an idea as to where we are in these various schemes. The Befriender Service, for example, Sir, there are now 821 senior citizens on this programme and these 821 senior citizens are helped by 250 volunteers in 18 constituencies. As I said earlier on, this service will be extended to all constituencies where there is a felt need by the year 1990. We hope to increase the Befriender Service to 12 to 13 constituencies each year. In the area of domiciliary nursing service run by the Home Nursing Foundation, this scheme is to provide nursing care to both the non-ambulant aged sick as well as the disabled in their own homes. I believe that this scheme is quite successfully carried out in a number of constituencies. But in addition to this domiciliary nursing scheme, the Home Nursing Foundation has already set up two senior citizens health care centres to provide rehabilitative care for people who are discharged from hospital or people who require attention or treatment after they received a stroke. These centres will conduct programmes on health education, health promotion and training of volunteers and the two centres are now in Kuo Chuan and in Kampong Ubi. And the Home Nursing Foundation intends to set up eight more such centres before the end of this decade.”
“In other words, the Government will treat disabled children no differently from the normal school child who is studying in a primary school. At the same time, the Government will renovate and provide buildings to these voluntary welfare organizations to run the schools for the disabled, and the rental charge will be very nominal. There are about seven such organizations running special education schools for the disabled children. In the area of vocational training, Sir, the Government is already providing instructors to the Singapore Association for the Deaf and the Society For Aid To The Paralysed to set up vocational training centres to help the disabled people to acquire a skill. For example, in the Society For Aid To The Paralysed, a training centre was set up to provide training courses in pre-press offset printing, bookbinding and pottery. And gradually the Society will move towards introducing accredited training courses by the VITB. The Government has also helped the Handicaps Welfare Association to provide BEST training for the disabled children. In the area of employment, in 1986, 182 disabled people were placed in employment and the Ministry of Labour has also helped 42 disabled people and six voluntary welfare organizations found employment for the remaining 140 people. In October last year the Ministry worked together with the Environment Ministry to consider giving hawker licences to some disabled people. Presently, there are two schemes to help to place disabled people in the job market, one is run by the Labour Ministry called the Disabled Resettlement Scheme and the other is managed by the Ministry with funds from the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce.”
“First of all, the Member for Siglap was talking about the assistance given to disabled people. Let me assure him, Sir, that like all the other services that we provide, we do our best in giving them the services that they need, together with the voluntary organizations, the community and their family members. Maybe I will just elaborate on some of the things that we do. I believe we can and we should do more for the disabled people to help them to be as economically and socially independent as possible, that means, this philosophy of self-reliance should also be inculcated among the disabled. So where assistance is needed, we will provide. But we must also recognize that there are limitations to what we can do. The limitations are, first of all, constrained by the disabilities of the disabled themselves and, secondly, by the resources that we can muster. As to the limitations, firstly, some of the disabled, because of the severity of their disability may not be able to take full advantage of theopportunities that we provide. Secondly, the general prejudice of employers and society is also an obstacle to the disabled people being employed. So I would also like the Member to urge the employers and the society to remove these prejudices. The main areas of concern of the Government in helping the disabled are in special education, vocational training, employment and accessibility. In the area of special education, there was a question on this the other day. Let me just reiterate the assistance that we give. The Government has decided to grant voluntary organizations providing special education to disabled children the per capita cost of educating a primary school student.”
“As regards the aged sick which the Member mentioned, there are already a number of schemes or services which the Ministry is promoting to help the aged sick even to remain in their homes and remain with the community rather than to be institutionalized. Let me just name a few. The Home Nursing Foundation has got the home nursing service. My Ministry has started a home-help service, a meal delivery service although from surveys we found that this meal delivery service is not very popular. We have also started a Befriender Service for the last few years and by the end of this decade we would have a Befriender Service in practically all the constituencies if there is a need for it. The Member also mentioned that for the aged sick who may be a problem to their children who may want to take time-off for holidays and so on but were unable to do so because of the need to look after the aged sick. There are already seven welfare organizations providing respite care service. In other words, they can put the aged in the home for a short period of two to three months or a maximum of maybe six months so that they can take time-off to do something which they would like to do. In this regard, Sir, maybe we would publicize more about this respite care service so that the users know about them and are able to make full use of them. The Member's suggestion that we should get the senior citizens involved in the activities would be taken note of and we will definitely try to encourage them to do so in the senior citizens' clubs.”