EXEMPTED BUSINESS MOTION

With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the proceedings on the Ministerial Statement today by the Deputy Prime Minister be continued beyond 1.30 pm. [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Mr Chng Hee Kok: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the DPM for clarifying that the note was taken after he intervened in this matter.

Sir, just for the record, as I mentioned earlier, the discussion was awry and the question of my daughter was put in a hypothetical manner. My daughter did not go on a Government scholarship. He challenged me, "Would you ask your daughter to resign?" At that stage, the meeting was bad. Certainly, anyone in my shoes, with three very senior civil servants challenging me, would say things that one may not respond otherwise. But I take the DPM's point that I may not have given the best answers at that meeting. I admit it. But I just want to give the context of the atmosphere I was in, and why the reply was given.

Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say I found all this very interesting. But what emerges from all this exchange, and it seems to me, is that the Chairman of the EDB was telling Mr Chng Hee Kok and making it clear that it was Government policy to hold these bond holders and that if he felt very strongly about this, then perhaps he should resign. I do not see what is wrong with that. Will Mr Chng Hee Kok now consider resigning from the Party?

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, just to respond to Mr Leong Horn Kee on what we do to discourage bond-breakers. He is right that if you just toss a young man into an alien environment and leave him there for three, four years, after quite a short while, his views will be influenced and you will find you have a different person on your hands. Many parents have found that when they send their children overseas. So we take a lot of trouble to make sure that, firstly, we choose the right people. Secondly, we explain to them the nature of their obligation which they are entering into. Thirdly, to keep in touch with them while they are overseas. And finally, if they have particular problems or needs, to address these, and do our utmost to accommodate them so that there is a fit for them and a fit for the organisation.

We do not just take scholarship applicants off the streets. PSC organises a scholarship seminar every year in January or February for JC 2 students and their parents, because parents are a critical part of this. And at the seminar, PSC scholars who have started work, we will brief them about their careers and the different PSC scholarships. In other words, the older generation of scholars will come and explain to the younger generation what they can expect. And the larger Ministries are also invited to set up information booths at the seminar. So you get a sense before you apply, what it is about.

Normally before a scholar accepts a PSC scholarship, PSC staff will meet him or her to answer any queries he or she has about the public sector career. And where it is appropriate, PSC will ask some officers from the relevant Ministry to meet the scholar, normally to provide further information. And students are advised to think very carefully before accepting a scholarship offer.

Finally, PSC runs a mid-course scholarship programme for scholars in their second or third year. The programme includes a two-week attachment with the potential Ministry. In the case of Mr Hector Yee, you will see from the chronology, he was awarded the scholarship in 1995, 2.5 years ago. In 1996, he was attached for a summer attachment to NCB and it was in November 1997 when the idea of continuing on to graduate school arose. So we do make the utmost effort in order to manage the scholars on a constructive and proper path, but unfortunately it does not always work.

As for the lighter touch, we are looking for a softer touch in our hands, not gone soft in our heads.

Mr Simon S C Tay (Nominated Member): May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister for clarification on more general points. I think this has wider implications. The first clarification relates to the third line, third paragraph of Hector Yee's e-mail. If I may, Mr Speaker, read out the line:

`With the departure of ITI and the restructuring of NCB from "builder" to "architect", I realized that my goal of doing research can no longer be properly fulfilled.'

I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to clarify whether this is true that the organisational mission of the NCB has changed from the time of scholarship to the time of the bond breaking and, if so, the more general point is that the Government agency's mission has changed. Does he see this as a legitimate ground for the scholar to change his mind? I ask this particularly because the Deputy Prime Minister earlier on had said there were legitimate and not legitimate reasons to break a bond, which is why not all scholars are named.

The second general point I wish to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to clarify is how far this condemnation of morality and integrity runs. Naming the bond-breakers is one thing. May I ask the Government to clarify if, beyond naming, there is in fact a black list that people who are viewed in this way should forget the prospects of joining Government agencies in future or seek Government jobs?

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, first, on the ITI and the mission change. I am not a lawyer, but it is a principle of law that you never answer hypothetical questions. In this case, it does not apply because NCB has always had its role as the "architect" with ITI as a separate arm under NCB, responsible for "building". ITI was just one of the places where Mr Hector Yee could have been deployed. It had not been discussed but it was possible, or he could have gone to ISS, a separate research institute which is not in NCB, or he could have gone to university, for which there are also precedents. So the fact that ITI has been moved out of NCB and merged with ISS in no way constrains the universe of possibilities which were open to Mr Hector Yee when he returns to Singapore.

If you go on a scholarship to learn to become a doctor and serve the Ministry of Health, and you find that when you come home, it has turned into the Ministry of Community Development, that is another matter. When it comes, we will have another debate.

As for what we do with scholars who have broken their bonds, the answer is: in general, we will not re-employ them within the bond period, unless there are exceptional or extenuating circumstances. Because the non-fulfilment of obligatory service suggests a lack of responsibility, but we will study each case carefully on its own merits.

As for scholars from statutory boards and other organisations, including those from the private sector, the civil service will not recruit candidates under a bond without the agreement of the organisation to transfer the bond to the civil service. For example, there was one case where Singapore Technologies agreed to transfer the bond to the Administrative Service. In another case, DBS Bank refused to allow the transfer for one of its scholars.

Mr Simon Tay: Sir, I think the examples the Deputy Prime Minister brought up, DBS Bank and Singapore Technologies, both related to scholars who were presently under bond to the Government agencies. Perhaps I was not clear the first time. My question relates more to those who actually break their bonds in ways the Government agencies do not accept or illegitimate bond breakers. Earlier, the Deputy Prime Minister said that there may be good reasons for people to break bonds. Would these people find an impasse in seeking re-employment with Government or Government agencies?

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would not go for fine talmudic distinctions. Singapore Inc is a broad family of many organisations, and we work very closely together, and I hope we share notes together. If somebody has broken a bond there and he is coming here and looking for a job from me here, I will take some trouble to find out from the other HR what happened and whether it is wise for me to accept such a person.

Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed (Cheng San): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in this discussion.

While Mr Jeyaretnam found it interesting, I find it reassuring. I notice that Mr Jeyaretnam has taken the opportunity to cocok a bit. I think Mr Jeyaretnam understands the meaning of cocok, which is to try and take advantage of the situation.

Mr Speaker: Mr Zainul, could you make your point, please? We are running short of time.

Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed: I am sorry. As regards asking my colleague to resign, I thought it was unnecessary because we have seen precedents where Members disagreed with Government policy and the issue of resignation did not arise. On the question

Mr Speaker: What is your question for the Deputy Prime Minister?

Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed: I want to make a comment, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Could you please ask your question? We are running out of time.

Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed: The question I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister is on the breaking of bonds. Just now, I gather that he was saying that each case would be considered on its own merits. In view of that possibility, in future, when such cases arise in Government, GLCs and statutory boards, should they first be referred to the DPM or a higher authority before the naming of bond breakers is carried out?

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, that is not how the Government works. There are procedures. There are people who are properly authorised and apprised of the facts and competent to make these decisions.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I just would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister a very broad question. These bond breakers are scholars. They are the cream of the population, and they have undergone perhaps 12 years of our education system. I wonder whether something has gone wrong somewhere in our education system, bringing up end products such as students who blatantly break their bonds. One would imagine that they would have some values, to think the matter over seriously before breaking their bonds. Despite many meetings and warnings, they still break the bonds. It shows clearly that there is something basically wrong with our education system. The right values are not inculcated in our students.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Chiam has a valid point, but he overstates it. We have to work harder at national education, moral education, inculcating in our young people, not just facts but values, so that they know what is right and wrong. We have tried hard to do this, especially in recent years. We do not always succeed. There is always a range of responses, and even in the most ideal system, not everybody responds to enlightened precepts, because they just do not sink in. Also, it is the mood of the times. If you are facing a great upheaval and tumult, and your stomach is hungry, as is the case in some countries in this region now, you will not be thinking of doing computer graphics or something like that. You will be thinking of the family back home and how to fend for them, not just family but friends, relatives, your country. We are no longer in that position, but we have to keep these values, the sense of service and moral obligation, so that we can hold together as one nation.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I was a school teacher for over 10 years. What I learned was that the best way to teach the right values to the students is by example. I think the teachers themselves have to set the example and the tone. I wonder whether our Ministers are setting the right examples and the right tone.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, if Mr Chiam thinks that he can produce a better team of Ministers either in Singapore or anywhere else in the region or in the world, it is up to him to try to do it and convince the population. Anybody whom we bring into the leadership team is somebody whom we believe can make more than that, many times over, outside. We have to bring them in and they have to be willing to serve. And if they were not willing to serve, you could pay them a million dollars and they would not be here today.

I think Mr Chiam should stick to his original point. He has been a teacher. He knows that not all his students pass his examinations. But this is a very serious matter and one on which, not just the political leadership, but the administration, the civil service, the teachers and the young people must understand where they stand, and what is right and wrong.