HEAD U - PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE

Column: 1097

Head U - Prime Minister's Office

Role of Public Sector in Economic Growth

Mrs Lim Hwee Hua (Marine Parade): Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head U of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100.

It is heartening to hear the Deputy Prime Minister reiterate yesterday the importance of having a pro-enterprise civil service. Sir, this importance cannot be overstated, given our need to grow beyond the domestic economy, and amidst intensifying competition.

Sir, our civil service has come a long way and is renowned for its integrity and efficiency. The Government has taken pains over the years to ensure that there is sufficient talent within the public sector as effective policy formulation and execution will help ensure our economic survival.

The current push is for an enterprising Singapore with local companies that can be engines of growth along with the MNCs. But we all know that the push for globalisation is not solely a private sector issue. The public sector bears a heavy responsibility in providing the essential hardware and even software. The demands of growing beyond Singapore are very different from those relating to satisfying a domestic market.

Talent may no longer be defined in the same way it was in the 60s and 70s. If the public sector is to support enterprise, then its employees have to know what enterprise is.

Column: 1098

Sir, it has become increasingly common for criticism to be directed by the business sector, especially the entrepreneurs and SMEs, at the bureaucrats, that they are a breed of scholars not tuned into the realities of life. They are variously described as "young punks, big shots but clueless about real life business", or sometimes as "impatient young people wanting to act according to their textbooks", or worse still, as "people not interested to think beyond their Ministries, let alone beyond Singapore."

Many scholars are periodically channelled into the different Ministries upon graduation from prestigious universities abroad. They have no working experience whatsoever, apart from the limited internships they might have done abroad.

Sir, some of these comments are perhaps unjustified but the challenge remains very real - that of having compatible or complementary skills and talent within the public sector, to facilitate the growth of local enterprise beyond Singapore.

I would, therefore, like to ask the Prime Minister two questions:

(a) what long term plans are in place to ensure that the quality of human resources for the public sector keeps pace with the changing requirements; specifically, will the infusion of scholars continue; and

(b) what steps are taken to ensure that sufficient commercial experience is brought to bear on policy formulation and execution?

Service Quality

Dr Tan Boon Wan (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, I would like to ask for an update of the state of our public services. The Government now intends to further

Column: 1099

improve public services with increased use of the Internet and the web. But many of the public still use the telephone to interact with the Government. Furthermore, the telephone services, especially those provided with automated systems, have caused much anguish. Many people find them most unfriendly and difficult to use. Does the Government still consider the telephone as an important mode of public access **** to Government services? If so, does it intend to improve the services, and how?

Morale of Civil Servants

Mr Chew Heng Ching (East Coast): Sir, the general economy drive in the civil service, the 2% budget cut of Ministries, and the close check on Government expenses, if not properly managed, would create a morale problem amongst civil servants. This, if not addressed, would impact on the level of public services and hinder the drive towards effective Government.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister if the Government is ready to face this challenge and whether its personnel policies are geared to address these concerns. What measures are in place to boost the morale of civil servants?

Medical Benefits

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong (Tampines): Sir, I know the DPM said yesterday that the issue would be discussed at the Working Committee for Procreation, but I thought it would be timely to list down the reasons why we should change the MSO scheme for civil servants. As we know, under the MSO scheme, a male civil servant is entitled to a subsidy of 60% for his dependants for outpatient treatment but a female civil servant is not accorded the same outpatient benefits for her dependants, unless she is divorced, widowed, legally separated and has custody of her children.

Column: 1100

We have raised it in the House several times, many years and, last year, the Government said this difference was effectively removed in 2001 when the Government decided to transfer any unused balance in the annual cap of $350 to the officer's Medisave account at the end of each year. The Government said then that the difference is effectively removed because both male and female officers can then use their Medisave for themselves and for their dependants. But an objective review of the matter would show that the difference still exists and that it is not effectively removed, although it is narrowed.

Sir, I would like to list five reasons why the change is now timely and, hopefully the answer will be more positive by August. First, it does make a material difference to female civil servants, especially given the rising trend of medical care at the outpatient level and the fact that currently Medisave cannot be used for the majority of outpatient expenses. Second, of course, given the call to be family-friendly, the Government should send a strong signal of support for both men and women in shouldering their family responsibilities. But, on a more fundamental level, this is the third reason, the unequal treatment contradicts the basic principle of equal pay for equal work. It also contravenes the Women's Charter, which states that the husband and wife have equal rights and duties to the family. Fourth, being a signatory to the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Government is also obliged to remove any policy or practice that discriminates against women. Fifth, Singapore has also recently ratified the International Labour Organisation Convention 100 on Equal Pay for Equal Work, which seeks to promote and ensure the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women for work of equal value. Sir, this is an international convention we have signed and having

Column: 1101

ratified it, it is all the more necessary and all the more timely and relevant to review and withdraw such a policy which will draw adverse international attention to an otherwise impressive record of progress made by our women in an otherwise outstanding meritocratic system.

Mdm Halimah Yacob (Jurong): First, let me thank the Deputy Prime Minister for announcing yesterday that the Government will look into the possibility of giving equal medical benefits to women in the civil service. This is a very important signal. If the Government wants private sector employers to be pro-family, it has to show the way. And, it can do so by changing its stand on medical benefits for women, which everyone agrees is discriminatory as this policy has nothing to do with the performance of our women, but everything to do with their gender. It is good that the Government has agreed to review this policy, otherwise it cannot project itself as a model employer.

I will not repeat everything that my parliamentary colleague, Ms Irene Ng, had said, but I want to say that the Government, if it does not review this policy, will also be in violation of ILO Convention 100, which she has also alluded to. When the Government discriminates and withholds certain pro-family benefits from their own female civil servants, it has less moral authority to tell private sector employers not to do so. And I agree entirely with Ms Irene Ng that there is scope for us not to just wait for the Committee's work, but to start looking into the MSO scheme.

As we all know, all civil servants under the MSO scheme are given $350 to pay for their

Column: 1102

outpatient medical expenses. However, while male employees are allowed to use this subsidy for the outpatient medical expenses of their spouse and children, female employees are not allowed to do so. This is a gross anomaly and does not really make sense because, at the end of the year, if there is any unused portion, this will be transferred to the female civil servant's Medisave account. This change, Sir, will not result in any cost to the Government and can be easily implemented. So I hope that the Government will seriously consider it.

As at December last year, Sir, out of 34,221 female civil servants, 20,274 women are on the MSO scheme. Hence, any change to this would be significant to the women. Sir, we have tried to slaughter many sacred cows. I would like to urge the Government to slaughter this sacred cow which has become not only diseased, but so diseased that it is even worse than the mad cow disease.

Ms Braema Mathiaparanam (Nominated Member): Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to make my presentation on this cut too.

Since 1976, this issue has cropped up from various Members of Parliament and various Presidents of women's groups too. In a 1994 parliamentary speech, the then Finance Minister said, "It is the husband's responsibility to look after the needs, including the medical needs. This is how our society is structured. It would be unwise to tamper with this structure." Today, it is 2004. The social climate is changing and we have to make amendments and slaughter, not a sacred cow, but perhaps a sacred bull - that man is the head of the household! As long as this fundamental is in place, the civil service will be led by that. The civil service needs to lead by example, and such archaic policies, such as the 1994 Medisave-cum-Subsidised outpatient scheme policy which favours the male civil service officer over the female needs to be revamped. The reality is here -

Column: 1103

33,000 or 54% of our civil service officers are women. So just by having this policy, we are actually discriminating against the majority.

Admittedly, 28 years later now, the space for discrimination against female civil service officers is getting smaller. However, I still get the impression that we are maintaining a status quo on this and the civil service cannot afford to lag behind the private sector. A check with some private companies already shows that they are far ahead in this field. DBS Bank, for example, has got no such discriminatory policy on medical benefits.

What is beyond my understanding here, and I need some clarification, is why are we tenuously clinging on to this policy and have to wait for August for a review through the procreation committee. Why can we not do it now, because it is staring in our face whether we should still be having this policy that so obviously discriminates against female civil service officers?

11.15 am

Lastly, I would just like to say a big thank you to Dr Maliki for being one parliamentarian who has stood up for women.

Child Sick Leave

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: Sir, presently, civil servants are entitled to five days of child sick leave per child. Originally, this was extended to only women, and I spoke on this before to ask that it be extended to men as well. I understand that, recently, this was extended to male civil servants as well, and I would commend the civil service for this step forward.

In making the change, it signals that both men and women have an equal

Column: 1104

responsibility in caring for their children. But there seems to be this bungee jumping, home brewery syndrome, because there is an old mindset that still prevails. Because under the current policy, if both husband and wife work for the civil service, they will have to split the child sick leave among themselves. They are not each entitled to the five days of child sick leave for each child.

This policy should be changed for two reasons. First, as a matter of principle, equal pay for equal work would also apply for the men. This benefit is like medical leave or other benefits that come with the employment contract and it comes with the employee. It is not industry practice that it is out of place to say if both husband and wife work for the civil service, then they have to split the benefits among themselves. We are also moving towards more portable benefits, ie, the benefits that an employee gets are carried like a backpack on the employee. The benefits go with the employee and are not tied to who that employee is married to.

Second, is the practical aspects of it. It places a disproportionate burden on the woman and does not encourage the man to share the responsibility of caring for their sick child. We have to be realistic. Given our patriarchal system, there are no prizes for guessing that if the husband and wife were asked, "OK, between the two of you, one of you has to choose who is going to take child sick leave." No doubt, it will be the woman who says, "I'll be the one." And the wife cannot say to the husband, "Look, you are entitled to your own share of child sick leave. So, it's your turn now." If we want to encourage women to have more children, such policies should be changed. And we should see the husband and wife as playing an equal role, as separate individuals with equal responsibilities to the family.

Column: 1105

Family Leave

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan (Hong Kah): Sir , Singapore 's population will age rapidly over the next 30 years. In 1999, about 1 in 15 of the resident population were aged 65 and above. This is projected to increase to 1 in 5 by year 2030. The dependency ratio for the 65 years and above will triple, from 1:10 to 3:10 over the same period.

I am pleased that the Government has always adopted a pro-family stance. PM Goh, in his recent Chinese New Year speech, lamented the erosion of family values, and noted that strong and stable families make for a strong and cohesive society. DPM Lee has also reinforced this in his Budget speech.

With an increasingly aging population, more and more of our workforce will be buckling under the strain of caring for both the young and old. While we hope that the procreation measures to be announced in August will reverse this, our singles population is also set to increase. An emerging trend is that the singles tend to end up being the ones to look after their aged parents, since most of them would be living with their parents.

I would thus like to ask the Prime Minister to consider repositioning the child sick leave to family leave, and extending this leave to civil servants who need to look after their elderly parents and young children when they fall sick, regardless of the marital status.

Ex gratia Payment

Mdm Halimah Yacob: Sir, my concern is over the issue of ex gratia payment to staff of statutory boards or the Government when a corporatisation takes place. PSA corporatised in February 1996. The staff were split into two

Column: 1106

groups. One group was transferred to the PSA Corporation and the other group to the Maritime Port Authority.

At the time these employees were transferred, there was a Ministry of Finance circular which provides for ex gratia payment. It states that when a statutory board or Government entity is corporatised, the employees will be paid an ex gratia payment. This payment will be made both to the employees who move to the privatised company as well as those required to remain in the board to regulate the privatised company. The Government said that this payment will incentivise employees to remain in their respective organisations and is a reward for the contribution to the development of the statutory board. On time of payment, the circular said that it can be made at any time after the corporatisation of the statutory board or Government agency and before the IPO of the privatised company.

Sir, it has been more than eight years now since the employees were transferred. Many had since left service. For instance, as at 2001, out of 347 employees who were transferred, 67 had left service due to death, retirement, medical boarding out or other reasons. Many more would have left by now in both MPA and PSA Corporation.

If the promise of an ex gratia payment were to have meaning at all, the payment cannot be delayed for too long, as otherwise there will be no one else left to pay. This may be unfair to those staff who have put in long years of service and for whom this benefit was intended.

So, my question to the Prime Minister is whether he could give some indication as to when the employees who were transferred to MPA and PSA Corporation will be paid this ex gratia payment. After

Column: 1107

all, the Finance circular had clearly stated that payment can be made at any time before the IPO listing. Staff had also pointed out that there was a precedent in the case of the PUB when payment was made even before Singapore Power was listed.

The Chairman: Mr Chandra Mohan is not here. Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon is also not here. Ms Braema.

Civil Society

Ms Braema Mathiaparanam: Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to speak on this subject.

I would like to make some observations on what constitutes civil society today, and ask for greater openness and trust among the three main stakeholders - the Government, the private sector and the people, which include societies, voluntary welfare organisations and civil society groups. If one were to look at our short history, we were never short of examples of the people taking ownership to improve things around them - the clan associations that were set up to help each dialect community among the Chinese; the Malays who were very organised along the principles of gotong royong , the spirit of mutual self help. The Indians too formed associations along ethnic lines or language-based discussion groups.

Then we had a blend across cultures as societies and voluntary welfare organisations were formed to help the less fortunate among us. In politics too, the then women's movement under Mdm Chan Choy Siong helped the PAP to get rid of polygamy and also won some women's votes for the party in the early days.

With globalisation, the private sector too is now becoming more accountable and is looking to corporate social

Column: 1108

responsibility as its own selling sector. Companies like Shell, Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, Singapore Press Holdings, MediaCorp are all trying to contribute to the good of society.

The third sector - people. Many of us want ownership too to make a better society. Often, due to the lack of experience or the fear as perceived, it does curtail some of these aspirations. If we really want to create a vibrant society, we need to engage our people more in the decision-making process or as enablers towards the decision. Our people must step out of the so-called fear zone. And in this discussion, I will just cite a few examples where I feel sometimes mixed signals are sent to the people that sometimes they do not know which way to go or they step out of this process altogether.

Role of the CDCs. This organ is great for community bonding and for funding. But, at times, it subsumes quite a number of initiatives that come from the ground in its ever expanding umbrella. In fact, I fear sometimes that the ownership can transfer from the citizens straight into the CDC fold. I recently heard of one case of a CDC now giving out all-rounder awards to school children with certificates and money awards. I wonder what is happening to the schools' ownership in this instance.

The Chairman: You are running out of time, Ms Braema. Please wrap up.

Ms Braema Mathiaparanam: When does Sintercom become political and when does it remain a civil society? Lastly, I would like to ask for clearer and more consistent signals so that we can get more ownership from the citizenry.

The Chairman: Mr Chiam See Tong is not here. Dr Jennifer Lee is also not here. Mr Ahmad Khalis.

Column: 1109

Immigration

Mr Ahmad Khalis Bin Abdul Ghani (Hong Kah): Sir, I think that not many Singaporeans are fully aware of the implications if our TFR remains as it is. Recently, a friend of mine, a professional, wondered whether the ex-Minister for Health did not handle SARS well enough, such that he has to be relegated to handle a much simpler and smaller portfolio. I spent about 15 minutes, much more time than I have in this cut, to explain to him about the dire consequences of low TFR coupled with an aging population.

The anecdote brought up by my hon. Friend, Mr Ong Kian Min, on Monday is worth repeating. He recounted how the one-child policy in China had affected a young couple. They have to support eight aged grandparents in addition to their one child. I hope the Government would do more to educate the public on the dire consequences of low TFR coupled with an aging population. For instance, can we not disseminate information on the experiences faced by other countries, past and present, in this regard?

Sir, getting more people to have more children and getting Singaporeans to accept immigration as a plausible solution is not a simple task. However, if the rationale for it is constantly borne in mind and if the consequences of not taking the necessary action is fully appreciated, I believe Singaporeans would be more amenable to making mindset and even lifestyle changes.

In this connection, I also urge the Government to be careful of the signals that get transmitted to the people, for example, as regards welcoming foreigners. Ms Ong Ling Lee gave some examples. She wrote to the Straits Times that currently, the 2-month maternity leave does not apply to the third child onwards; higher accouchement fee to the hospital for the delivery of the fourth child

Column: 1110

onwards; Medisave cannot be used to offset medical cost for delivery of fifth child onwards, and so on. The Government may say that these are to reward families with three children or less. But in the light of our current TFR, and in the light of the Government being willing to consider even inviting immigrants, the above policies need to be reviewed. I believe the number of families with more than three children - mine is one of them - is not that large. I believe that allowing the fourth and subsequent children to have the same benefits as the first three would not upset the Government's policy on TFR growth so much. On the other hand, it will pass a more correct signal that all Singaporeans receive the same special welcome and that we care for what we have. A Malay saying goes, kejar kera di hutan, bayi mati di gendong keciciran, which means chase the monkey in the forest, lose the baby in the arms. We should avoid this, Sir.

The Chairman: Mdm Ho Geok Choo is not here. Mr Gan Kim Yong.

Citizenship

Mr Gan Kim Yong (Holland-Bukit Panjang): Sir, I agree that we must make a strong distinction between the privileges of permanent residents and those of our citizens. We must create value for our citizenship. I hope the Prime Minister's Office will look into the benefits to be reserved for Singaporeans only. But I think we need to go beyond just financial benefits.

I visited a company in India earlier this month and I had a chance to meet some of its young employees. I asked them what motivated them to join this company. They told me that the main motivation was not the pay but because they were proud to be part of the company. They explained that the company was not just a commercial entity. It provides housing, healthcare,

Column: 1111

education and even provides utilities for the employees and also for the community around the company. The employees have developed a strong sense of loyalty to the company.

Sir, genuine loyalty does not depend on financial benefits alone. We must continue to make Singapore a land of opportunities, not just financially, but also for arts, sports, fun and also a good place for bringing up our family. At the same time, we must also review the process of conversion from permanent residence into citizenship to make it easier. In particular, the requirement for younger males to serve national service may be a deterrent. Of course, national service is an integral part of a citizen's duty. However, the idea of national service may be quite alien to these foreigners. For them, to overcome the apprehension may not be easy. It may help if we can consider relaxing some of the requirements somewhat for the first generation PRs.

Sir, PRs should also be given a definitive timeframe, say, five years, to decide whether they want to become a Singaporean. If not, their PR should be revoked and they can still continue to work under the Employment Pass and contribute to the economy.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, at last year's Budget Statement debate, I said, "Singaporeans must have greater privilege than non-citizens so much so that highly talented foreigners will queue to sign up for citizenship, and that membership in Singapore must have its privileges. There must be strong economic and social reasons for Singaporeans

to be proud to want to remain as a Singapore citizen."

11.30 am

I thank the Government for listening to this plea - to recognise the importance of treating PRs and citizens differently. This

Column: 1112

will only mean extending greater benefits and privileges to citizens, while reducing the current benefits accorded to PRs. I would like to ask the Government: what are some of the greater incentives to be introduced to make PRs more willing to commit towards citizenship? At the same time, what are some of the disincentives for them to stay on as PRs perpetually? Does the Government realise that many PRs want the best of both worlds, and are not willing to commit towards Singapore citizenship?

Permanent residency cannot go on forever. There must be a time limit whereby the PR must be forced to make a hard choice of whether to continue as a citizen or to revert to employment pass. If we do not force the PRs to make a decision, there will never be a decision and they will take it for granted to enjoy the best of both worlds. When a national crisis comes, we will see them take flight in large numbers, and this will actually worsen our national crisis further.

I therefore propose that the Government limit the PR term to five years, after which the PR will have to make a considered choice of whether he or she wants to continue to work and enjoy life in Singapore as a citizen, or to revert as an employment pass holder. They cannot have the privilege of enjoying the best of both worlds when our citizens have only one world to live in.

I would also like to ask the Government if there are also any plans to reduce the push factors, pushing our citizens to consider emigration, or plans to increase our pull factors to attract our citizens back.

If one of the key privileges of citizenship is the right to exercise our vote at an election, does the Prime Minister hope to allow more citizens to exercise that vote by encouraging greater political competition by making sure that more

Column: 1113

than 50% of the contested seats at a general election are allocated to single member constituencies? In this way, the special voting privilege of citizenship becomes real, and not just in name only.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Lee Hsien Loong): Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken. Let me deal with the issues they have raised one by one.

First, Mrs Lim Hwee Hua talked about a pro-enterprise civil service. I absolutely agree with her that it is very important that the public sector also understands what enterprises are about and is able to formulate and create a framework which fosters enterprise in the private sector. We need very able people who understand not just business but also policy. It is not easy to find such people. If we ask the public sector what is the problem, they will say the private sector does not understand policy. But, of course, if you ask the private sector what is the problem, they say the civil servants do not understand the business. And we need to find people who have some appreciation of both, or we need some private sector people within our organisation.

First of all, I think we need able people in the public sector, that means, good quality people - talented, committed, imaginative, have drive, ideas, willing to take risk, willing to make decisions. It has to be a high quality public service where people are well-treated, they see career opportunities and personal fulfilment, and they want to go and do something for themselves and also for their country. That is what we have been trying to build in the public sector.

Secondly, we have to make sure that it is a competitive career. Whether you are in the public sector or in the private

Column: 1114

sector, if you do well, the monetary rewards should not be too different, and that is why we have had a policy of competitive wages in the public sector and we will continue to maintain that policy, even though in the last two years, because of the downturn and the special circumstances, we have had to freeze and, in some cases, cut salaries.

Thirdly, we need people with commercial experience in the public sector. Mrs Lim is right that when officers come in, they are new, they do not have experience. But this experience can be acquired. One of the things we have done is to have a gap year for the people who are on the Management Associates Programme, who are on the track to join the Administrative Service. That means, when they graduate, before they start work, they are given six months or a year to spend either with an MNC or with a supernational corporation, like the IMF or the World Bank, or to be in an emerging economy like China or India, and gain some real experience to see how things are done, before they come in. I think it will change their mindset. It would not make them all into bankers and businessmen, but at least they will know how things are done and what it is like to be the receiving end of instructions and directives. That is a new programme, but I think it is going to help.

Fourthly, we have schemes to second our civil servants out to the private sector and spend a year with a company, work there, and then come back to the public sector. We have officers who went to SIA and to Shell. MAS has officers gone out even to the financial institutions, some of them to the Wall Street investment banks. I think that also helps.

Fifthly, we want to recruit people into the public sector from the private sector - mid-career, people who have spent time, who have established themselves, who have some feel for how things are done in

Column: 1115

the private sector, who can come in and will be able to contribute a different perspective. We do not hope to make them into bureaucrats. But we hope that by being different from the rest of the civil servants, they will contribute something valuable. We have been trying to do this for several years now. We have a few officers come in. The successes have not been many, because it is quite a difficult hurdle to cross. The officers who come in do not feel comfortable as they are in a different environment, they are used to a bottomline environment, chasing projects, closing deals, and getting things done. Here, you have to deal with policy papers and intangibles. You need a change of mindset, and yet you do not want them to change so much that they become just like all the other civil servants, and then their uniqueness is lost. So, it is a challenge. We will continue to do this, and when we bring people in, we make a special effort to look after them so that we foster their adjustment and integration into the civil service.

The British also have the same preoccupation. Prime Minister Tony Blair recently addressed their civil service and set out all the things which they need to do to change. One of them is the need to have greater interchange and flow with the private sector. In their case, about one-quarter of the Director-Generals had come in from the private sector. So they seem to have had more success than we have had so far, but we will continue to learn and improve.

I understand the difficulties which the private sector has in understanding the public sector's imperatives. I sympathise with them. I also thank Mrs Lim for being very polite in expressing them. I should say that it is both ways. The private sector sometimes feels that it would like this done and why can it not be done. And, often, there are good reasons. But, often, there are also good reasons why the public sector wants something done

Column: 1116

even though the private sector does not want it. It is necessary to have some meeting of minds. One of the ways which we can make this meeting of minds takes place is to have people who have worked in the public sector, go out, and then eventually go into the private sector. And, hopefully, while they are there, they will retain some of their old perspectives and values, but now understand issues from a different position, and have a clearer idea how policies have to be modified or maybe give us valuable feedback. I know Mrs Lim herself is one such person. She used to be in the Administrative Service, and now she is with Temasek, which is in the private sector. And I am sure there are many others too who are out there, and this gives us valuable links.

Dr Tan Boon Wan asked about service quality. He asked for an update on the state of public services, eg, interface with the general public, promptness in answering phone calls, quality of counter service, and so on. He specifically raised the question of the automated answering system being unfriendly, and he asked what we are doing to improve the service. We are quite committed to improve the service quality all the time - it is an unending task. We have what is called the Service Improvement Unit Political Supervisory Committee, which monitors the service quality very closely. One of the things they track is the feedback - brickbats and bouquets. For FY 2002, which is the latest data we have, we found that the ratio of compliments to complaints, ie, bouquets to brickbats, was 13:1. That means 13 bouquets for every brickbat. This shows that the quality of service is good, but I know there is always room for improvement. When we meet people at the meet-the-people session, they will often explain to us how they have had to see many departments and have to run around and maybe finally may not even get the problems solved. Sometimes we can help them solve the problem. But what we need to do is to

Column: 1117

solve the problem through direct interface with the civil servants. So that they can solve it and they do not want to depend on the MPs' intervention or even the Ministers' intervention to fix things.

One of our initiatives to improve the service quality is to establish guidelines on the desired level of customer service for all public servants. Last year, we started and conducted what we call a "mystery customer" audit on all the Ministries and statutory boards to ensure that the guidelines are observed. Telephone service standards have been included in the audit and the results are currently being compiled.

Another way is to make use of technology. Dr Tan complained about the automated system being unfriendly, but it is a fact of life that if you want a 24/7 service and you want to provide it on a mass basis, an automated phone system is of some help. And if the phone system cannot deal with your problem, then some person will deal with it. The Government, of course, has a jargon for this. We call this "interactive voice response (IVR)", or sometimes we use the Internet. There have been complaints, like Dr Tan's, but, overall, I think that they serve a good purpose and we will try to make the system more user-friendly. I read recently that there is some research going on in America where the computer system can recognise the tone of your voice. And if it hears that you are getting angry, then it will transfer you to a real human being. So the problem now is people may pretend to get angry just to get the real human being! But we will explore all these technologies.

I would also say that the web interface on the Internet is important and all the Ministries have web pages. We have the e-Government websites, and a lot of business can be done on the

Column: 1118

Internet. Students can apply for universities, examinations, and so on from the Internet. Many of the transactions with HDB and CPF may take place on the Internet. So, it is very important to have a good Internet interface. As one of the "mystery customer" auditors for the Internet interface, once in a while when I have time, I visit it, and it is not always completely convenient. Because from the point of view of the agency doing it, they know where they want to go. So they know that you click down there, there, there, and then after five clicks, you arrive at where you want. But for the person going in for the first time, it may not be so easy to navigate. So when I find something not quite right, I give them some feedback and try and fix it. But I hope that other people who use the interfaces also do that. Then it will be easier for them to improve.

Of course, the basic thing in a good customer service is there must be that motivation to serve and to look after the person, to solve his problem and to smile at him. And this is an on-going exercise and it will be continued to be a key area of focus under PS21.

The next subject pertains to medical benefits for female civil servants. I stated our position yesterday which, I think, was after the cuts were filed. But the three lady MPs (Ms Irene Ng, Mdm Halimah and Ms Braema) have given further cogent reasons why this matter should be studied, and I am quite sure that Mr Lim Hng Kiang's committee will take them into consideration and reach a sensible conclusion. I hope that August is not too long for Ms Braema to wait.

11.45 am

Ms Irene Ng asked about child sick leave and she said that there should not be a cap of five days for both parents per child, because the cap should apply to individual employees. But I would say that

Column: 1119

the Government recognises that parenting is a joint responsibility of both parents and that is why we have extended the child sick leave provision to fathers. It used to be that only the mothers were allowed to take child sick leave and look after the children. But we said, no, let fathers and mothers be equal. And the fathers, if they are working in the civil service, are also entitled to five days. But if both parents are working in the civil service, actually our principle is to grant child sick leave not based on per parent but per child. So whether you have one parent who is a civil servant working or two parents who are civil servants working, the child probably would fall sick for about the same number of days. And so our principle is five days per child and if you have two parents, they have to decide among themselves which way to split it. I think that is logical.

I would say that the unrecorded child sick leave, of course, has contradiction in terms - unrecorded, but five days. So there must be some record somewhere. But it is called that because it is over and above the normal vacation leave provision. And, on average, civil servants have been taking 3.3 days of child sick leave per year. So, generally speaking, five days are adequate and a joint cap does not seem to have affected people. In fact, I should say that, as a general backdrop to this request for more leave, the civil service has been very generous in its leave provision. We want to be pro-family, we want to cater to parents who have to look after children, or look after aged parents. We cannot just add more and more days of different kinds of leave. The basic principle which the civil service tries to adhere to is that the civil service salary and benefits should keep in line with, but should not lead, the private sector. So we have to study private sector practices and look at how the private sector manage their leave, to see whether we need to review the leave provisions, so that we can meet these

Column: 1120

new needs and, at the same time, not just balloon the leave entitlements.

So that is the answer also to Ms Braema. I am sympathetic to her concern. I know many officers have aged parents at home and it is a considerable burden financially, of course, but also physically, because they got to look after the parents. If he or she is ill, you got to bring him or her to the polyclinic or hospital, or you got to visit her at the old folk's home, and some emergency pops up, you got to run down. These are exigencies which we all know. And I think that we have to make these adjustments. But how do we do this without having more and more days of leave and less and less days of work? So it is something which we have to consider.

Mdm Halimah raised a question of whether the staff of Maritime and Port Authority (MPA) will be paid ex-gratia payment. This was paid to the staff who were retrenched from PSA. PSD has discussed this issue with the PSA, and PSA's position, which we agree with, is that the PSA ex-staff who are now in the MPA will receive the ex-gratia payment at the same time that PSA Corporation pays its own staff. Because it is not tenable for the MPA staff to be paid before the PSA staff are paid. The people who were paid so far were retrenched. So we had to settle with them because they did not leave voluntarily, and PSA had to make a special arrangement for them. But the majority of the PSA staff who are working in the PSA have not been paid. And the basic reason, I think, goes back to how this payment got conceived in the first place. Our original arrangements were no payment. But when a statutory board got corporatised and when the shares were floated, employees were given shares at an employee price. And in some cases, there were big windfalls. So in order to reduce the windfall and control it, we introduce this scheme so that it is a finite

Column: 1121

amount. We pay you this, you can use it to buy shares at market rate, just like everybody else. So it is really linked to the privatisation and flotation of the company. If the company does not privatise and has not floated yet, then the question of the payment really, in principle, should not arise. In PSA's case, unfortunately, we were planning to privatise and then force majeure supervened and we were not able to follow through. So we postponed the privatisation for the time being. But the plans are still there. I am afraid Mdm Halimah may not be fully satisfied with this answer. But it is one of those disappointments which we have to live with and to manage and to explain. And I think that over time, this problem will be cleared.

Ms Braema talked about opening more space for civic society. There have been mixed signals and she asked for clearer signals. I think our signals are getting clearer and clearer. An evolution is a gradual process and it is something where we have to feel our way forward, as Deng Xiao Ping said, "crossing the river one stone at a time and you feel for each stone as you cross the river."

I have stated my position in a speech at the Harvard Club in January. I think the other Ministers have also stated their position in their own ways. We had the Remaking Singapore Committee which I think Dr Vivian will give an update on later. The position today is quite different from what it was five or ten years ago. It is continuing to evolve and we have to find our balance and progressively adjust.

The role of the CDCs is one issue which we have to consider. The purpose of having the CDCs of course is to expand the space for civic society because we would like to bring in professionals who are not already in the grassroots

Column: 1122

organisations at the constituency level, and who are not part of the Government, in order to contribute at this intermediate level. They can organize activities and whether it is welfare programmes, scholarship programmes, or community work, the CDCs is another avenue where they can participate. But there is a balance, because a lot of things happen at the constituencies and the CDCs have to work together with the constituencies and if everything is put under the CDC's umbrella, then where does that leave the grassroots organisations, the CCCs, RCs and their advisors? So a balance has to be struck. This is something which the Government, the Mayors and the grassroots organizations are working on.

The CDCs have certain advantage because they have scale, they have some resources, they have the PA's support. So it is easier in some ways for them to launch some activities. If you want to organise a big activity and you want many constituencies to help you, then it is better to do it at the CDC level and you involve a dozen constituencies at one time. But if it is only done at the CDCs, then there is a certain distancing of the relationship. Why? Because at the grassroots level, you are looking after your own little group of people. The warmth and rapport are easily developed at that level. It is not so easy when you are talking about a dozen constituencies.

Sintercom, whether it is political or not, I do not think that is a big issue. We are not preventing the website from operating. We just say, register yourself as a political website so you take responsibility for what you are saying. The organisers decided not to, it is their prerogative. I think this is a game which will continue to be played, if I may be quite candid about it. Because we want civic society, we want public discourse, but we also need accountability and responsibility. And one of the games is: how do I participate in this and be able to

Column: 1123

have the maximum freedom to operate while exposing myself to the minimum extent to counter points, rejoinders and rebuttals? And the tactic is: I claim that I am not political, I am participating, please do not treat me as political. I have no intention to challenge you. But of course once in a while I will stick a pin when you are not looking. I think it is a process which we will manage, as I have explained. We are not going out narrowing the ground. We are prepared to allow some greyness at the edge. But it cannot be a complete free-for-all and some rules have to be established. And Sintercom, we asked them to register as a political site, they said, "No." It is up to them. But the signals will get clearer over time.

Next, on pro-family measures. Mr Ahmad Khalis proposed that we educate the population on the consequences of lower TFR. We are trying to do that. It is not easy because it is not just a matter of understanding the big picture. It is a matter of persuading people that their own personal priorities and their own personal well-being are related to how they make their family arrangements. It is very hard because these are things which people want to decide for themselves. We had a long discussion over the last three days. So I do not want to belabour this point. We will continue to try to educate people. But it is not the full solution.

On the issue of fourth child and above having the same benefits as the first three - this is an issue which we will have to study very carefully. It is a legitimate point to raise in this debate. But it is a change which will have quite far-reaching consequences and we have to consider very carefully.

Mr Gan Kim Yong and Mr Steve Chia asked about PRs and citizenship. Mr Gan Kim Yong said that pride and loyalty are important. It is not just financial

Column: 1124

incentives. And he described how the young Indian people he met were proud of themselves and were out to do great things. I agree with him, and I have the same experience in January in India when I visited them. They are young, they are confident, they are ambitious, they have seen how their own lives have started changing and they are quite determined to press on and conquer the world. And some of them will come up with world beaters. Our people need some of that confidence too. The clouds may be greyer and we may hear the thunderstorm outside, but we have confidence to cope with that and the sun will shine again. And we will make the sun come out again.

As for setting a time limit on people being PR, it is not a practical idea. There are many reasons why people become PRs and why we might be happy to have people remain PRs. Some of them we would like to have taken up citizenship. Some of them we are happy to have them stay as PRs. They may be businessmen in other countries in the region, but they want to be PRs because maybe one day they need to come here. So why should we say after five years, you must take up Singa­pore citizenship? It does not mean that the PR is somebody who is about to flee Singapore. It may be somebody who wants to come to this place when there is a tight moment. And I think that we should be a haven for people of talent, of ability. He may be in Hong Kong, he may be in South East Asia, he may be in Asia, or he may even be somewhere further afield. But he wants to be associated with Singapore. That is fine. We have had PRs who have been PRs all their lives. Mr Dennis Bloodworth is a PR. He has lived here, I think, probably for about half a century. Do I want to force him to become a citizen? What for?

We have to have an inclusive approach towards the Singapore family. The core are the Singapore citizens, we

Column: 1125

have the PRs, then we have the employment pass holders and others who are friends of Singapore. There must be gradations. The citizens should be treated better than the PRs, and we will make the distinction clearer. We will study how to do this without disincentivising people from becoming PRs. Because if you send the signal that you do not want people to be PRs at all, then they will just go away and, far from becoming citizens, they will not come to Singapore at all, which is counter-productive. So, we will have to study how to do this, such as in healthcare, education, housing privileges and other areas, and make sure that we encourage them to come in, we welcome them to be PRs and, having made them PRs for some time, we ask them to consider becoming citizens. I do not think the financial incentives alone will ever be enough to make them become citizens. But it will help them to think about the matter and, if they become citizens, then we expect them to be equal, proud, committed and loyal, just like all the other citizens in Singapore.

12.00 noon

Mr Chew Heng Ching: Sir, DPM has not touched on the morale of civil servants.

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: I apologise I missed that. Mr Chew Heng Ching asked about morale of the civil service, because the civil service has been on an economy drive and we are watching the headcounts, and we have had to restructure.

This is something which we monitor very carefully. Overall, there is no problem. The morale is good, because our people have a mission. They know that we are looking after them and, under

Column: 1126

pressure, we see them performing. We have had SARS. A lot of civil servants were under great pressure, eg, in the Ministries of Health, Home Affairs, Environment, and HDB, across-the-board, but they delivered. We have had the economic downturn. The economic agencies have been under great pressure, but they still delivered investments to create new jobs. But our missions have also been evolving. Our public housing programme has been at a low-key rate over the last few years. We have had to restructure the HDB, and these are changes which are not easy for people to accept. But we have tried very hard to explain to them to make sure that they are properly looked after and to hold people's hands through a difficult transition period.

Overall, the civil service has done well, and I would not say that their morale is low. In the organisations which have been directly affected by change or which are concerned that there may be changes, we have had to pay particular attention because if we do not explain what we are going to do, and we do not have good communications with the staff early, then rumours spread and fears grow. HDB restructuring was a big exercise involving a few thousand people. PSA, of course, is outside the Government. But I think, in a broad sense, Mr Chew would think of them as Government too. There are other adjustments which we have had to do. IRAS has to make some restructuring and there may be retrenchments and job losses next year. It is a long time to work for one year and have this thing to worry about. There are a few other organisations which have to make adjustments, smaller ones. And each time there is one, we have to communicate very early with the staff, to explain to them and to make sure that they know what is happening, because if we do not tell them, and they hear of it or if a newspaper report comes out and it is not

Column: 1127

quite right, or even if it is right and they do not hear from us first, it is very bad.

Restructuring is a difficult thing to do even for the private sector. For the public sector, it is harder, because we have had less experience and less practice doing it. But it is a reality of life that we have to restructure, reorganise, recruit, lose people, etc. We will try and place people in other jobs where they can still make a contribution. It is only in extremis , when we really have no alternative, then we say, "Well, it cannot be helped. We have to part. You have to go, but you have to go on fair terms, and the fair terms follow what the tripartite recommendations are." We will continue to manage this in the public sector.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, on a point of clarification.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: DPM has not answered my question about having more political openness by increasing the number of single-seat constituencies to let citizens have the benefit of exercising the privilege of citizenship, ie, to vote.

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, I think it is not the Government's job to help the Opposition put up more candidates. The reason for the GRCs is not to disincentivise people from fielding teams. It is to achieve a very important objective, which is to ensure minority representation in Parliament. So, the solution to this does not really lie with the Government. It is desirable to have many more GRCs contested. The last time it was less than half. But I am surprised that the Opposition should be asking the Government to help to make this happen.

Remaking Singapore

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: Sir, in the year 2002, the Prime Minister set up the

Column: 1128

Remaking Singapore Committee to remake Singapore in the social, cultural and political dimensions to ensure that Singaporeans will lead full and fulfilling lives in a Singapore that they are proud to call home. Last year, in June, the Remaking Singapore Committee had submitted its final report to the Prime Minister and, in coming out with the recommendations, it has consulted more than 10,000 Singaporeans over more than one year for their ideas. Many Singaporeans have expended much time and effort to put up the report. So, it means much to Singaporeans whether their effort is in vain or worth their while at the end of the day. Sir, I just want to make two points.

First, there was a parallel committee, the Economic Review Committee, which also looked at the ways to remake Singapore in the economic realm, and the Government has moved very quickly on the Economic Review Committee. In fact, it was debated in Parliament, it was given a very high signature in the sense that DPM also pushed through the recommendations. But if we look at the Remaking Singapore Committee in terms of the social, cultural and political dimensions, the pace seems to be slower and the urgency does not seem to be there. That is the perception. But, to be fair, I am happy to note that the Government has implemented some measures, such as relaxing rules for busking to allow artistes to perform without donating all their proceeds to charity, and also modifying the school ranking system to go beyond just academic performance and, yesterday, the decision to harmonise citizenship privileges. These are some moves, and it is a plus for the Remaking Singapore Committee's report although, when we made these changes, we do not refer to the report.

I also want to make a second point, which is their other recommendations. I

Column: 1129

thought it is useful to point out that among the recommendations in the Remaking Singapore Committee is one that says, please harmonise the medical benefits of female and male civil servants and also the 5-day work week. These are also part of the Remaking Singapore Committee's report, and it seems a bit ironic that after a committee sat on it for more than one year and put up a nice report, we gave it to another committee called the Working Committee for Procreation to look at the recommendations which had already been put up by another committee.

Sir, I hope that this is not the way that we will be looking at recommendations put up by Singaporeans in a holistic report, and would ask for a progress report on the implementation of the Remaking Singapore Committee's recommendations. I also hope that the fate of all the other recommendations will not be similar to the ones on the 5-day work week and female civil servants' benefits in being passed over to another committee, although it is more hopeful than a straight no.

The Minister of State for National Development and Trade and Industry (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Sir, I would like to thank the Member for raising her questions.

First, let me state categorically that there has actually been very much progress made in accepting and implementing the recommendations put up by the Remaking Singapore Committee. We presented the report to the Prime Minister in July last year. So far, about 50 of the recommendations have been accepted, either in whole or in part. Let me just cite a few examples. Ms Irene Ng has given some herself. Yesterday, DPM announced that the Goverment intends to amend the

Column: 1130

Constitution so that children born overseas to Singaporean women will be citizens by descent. The PMO and MITA have also accepted recommendations on relaxing guidelines for the use of national symbols like the flag and the National Anthem. The Ministry of Education has made several changes which have been announced over the last few weeks and months, including making changes so that the institutes of higher learning will have greater flexibility in admitting students. In October last year, MOE also announced that it would review the ranking system, and those of you who have seen the "O" and "A" level results will know that there is a significant change in the ranking system. In addition, the CCA points system has also been expanded to include activities outside the schools.

Another cluster of recommendations relates to enlarging space for expression, experimentation and also encouraging greater participation in public life. The National Arts Council has accepted the recommendation to consider performance art and forum theatre for funding. Such performances will still be subject to requirements, but the $10,000 bond will no longer be mandatory. MITA has also set up two advisory committees for arts entertainment: one to help them evaluate the arts entertainment project itself and its suitability for public performance, and the second committee to advise the Minister in cases of appeal. In addition, MITA will no longer pre-vet play scripts, except where the content is about sensitive issues like race, religion, or could undermine core values or national interests. The MDA is also working out the guidelines for scripts that need to be pre-vetted. MITA has also accepted that the rules on busking will be relaxed, as Ms Irene Ng has herself mentioned.

Another key Remaking Singapore Committee recommendation was to promote greater citizen participation, and one of those things we suggested was

Column: 1131

that there should be a code for consultation. DPM Lee himself, in his recent speech to the Harvard Club, elaborated on a set of guidelines which the Government will try to uphold in its consultation process. We also asked that the Government introduce philanthropy awards, and this is being implemented by the National Volunteers and Philanthropy Centre.

There are many other recommendations which I do not have time to go into. Even as we discuss during the next few days in the Committee of Supply, let me assure Members that the Ministries will be making announcements, and some of those will relate to the recommendations which we made last year. I will give a fuller report after the COS debate in April, so that, as Ms Irene Ng mentioned, we will be fair to all those thousands of Singaporeans who had participated in this exercise. I want to emphasise that, yes, it may be a lower profile that we have adopted. But the direction in which we are moving, the importance of the recommendations and the implications on Singapore society downstream are no less profound. I also want to emphasise that it is not just a matter of the Government saying yes to these recommendations. In fact, the fact that such an overwhelming majority of recommendations had been accepted proves the point that we need Singaporeans to remake our own society, Singaporeans to create a more self-reliant, vibrant, cohesive and confident society, and a home that we and our children will cherish. So, I am very, very optimistic, and I would encourage all of you to continue the good work which has been put in.

Overseas and Electronic Voting

Mr R Ravindran (Marine Parade): Sir, we have in place legislation to provide for overseas and electronic voting. In fact, in the last parliamentary elections, we were

Column: 1132

supposed to have overseas voting in five cities. But because of September 11, it had to be cancelled. I am quite sure the Minister will agree that even more Singaporeans are studying, working and living overseas, and many of them want to exercise their right for voting overseas. I would like to ask the Minister what are the steps that the Elections Department has taken, with a lead time to the Presidential election and the next general elections, to provide for overseas voting. I would also like to ask for an update from the Minister as to what steps the Elections Department has taken to ensure that we can have electronic voting for the next Presidential and general elections.

The Chairman: Mr Chandra Mohan is not here. Mr Steve Chia, you have two cuts. You can take them together.

Elections Department

12.15 pm

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Thank you, Sir.

Last year, Mr Wong Kan Seng, Minister for Home Affairs, argued persistently that there is no need for an elections commission or

for the Elections Department not to be under the Prime Minister's Office. He said that nobody can guarantee that there will be no fraud, no vote rigging or that the system will be free and fair even with an elections committee.

Yes, Sir, I agree that we cannot guarantee that there will be no fraud, no rigging, no excesses, etc, even with an independent elections commission. Yes, we may have an Elections Department run by civil servants with high integrity, which is fair and balanced and who may carry out their work objectively and fairly in a transparent manner. But the fact remains that their immediate boss is the Prime Minister who is the leader of the

Column: 1133

governing political party and their career ladder and rice-bowl are deemed to be at stake if they show signs of great independence or fairness that may disadvantage the bosses' political party. This is unnecessary stress or coercion on the civil servants at the Elections Department.

But by having an independent Elections Department, every Singaporean can at least be 100% certain that any accusation about the governing party manipulating or gerrymandering at the electrol process is nonsense and invalid. The person spouting such accusation is talking rubbish. That is more important than saying that nobody can guarantee anything and then refusing to make it an independent entity.

As often said, "Justice must not only be done, but seen to be done." I want to add that "Elections must not only be fair, but seen to be fair." Therefore, I will urge the Government to set up an independent Elections Department or commission away from the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister's Office.

On another matter, I would like an update on the training to be given to the 15,000 election officers. How has the training been? And how many have been trained so far? Will parliamentarians be invited to better understand the training process and the new systems to be involved?

Electoral Boundary Review Committee

I understand from the Hansard that the electoral boundaries are reviewed from time to time, following population shifts arising from housing developments. And that it is a practice of every Electoral Boundary Review Committee to release its report in the form of a White Paper as soon as it is ready.

Column: 1134

I would like to ask the Prime Minister the following questions:

(i) Has the Electoral Boundary Review Committee been constituted?

(ii) If not, when does the Prime Minister intend to constitute it?

(iii) Will Parliament and the public be informed when the Committee is to be constituted?

(iv) Who will be the Committee members? Will any independent persons other than civil servants from the Elections Department be appointed to the Committee?

(v) What will be the instructions and mandate to be given to the Committee in carrying out their work?

(vi) How long will it take for the Report to be out?

(vii) Will the Prime Minister undertake an assurance that the Report will be out for at least four months before he decides to call for the dissolution of Parliament?

With these seven questions, I thank the Prime Minister for his answers in advance.

The Chairman: Mr Chiam, you can take both cuts together.

Election Rules

**__ Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir) ** : The election laws after the 1984 elections were changed to introduce Group Representation Constitutencies (GRCs). The purpose was to ensure that there shall always be minority representation in Parliament. But I am asking why the need to have a GRC comprising six candidates when two or three should be enough. In fact, two or three were first mooted. Then they found that it was advantageous and

Column: 1135

the Government increased the number from three to four, to five and then to six.

In a truly democratic system, there is a one-man-one-vote system. The one-man-one-vote system envisages the vote is to be cast for one candidate. This is the essence of democracy. A citizen is given the right to choose the person to represent him in Parliament. In Singapore, the ruling party preaches multi-racialism. All races are asked to unite. We are supposed to be all Singaporeans, regardless of our race. But in practice, the ruling party says that eventually, we shall remain loyal only to our own race. We shall vote a candidate of our own race. The minority races on their own shall never get elected. A Malay or Indian candidate can never get elected to Parliament on his own merit. That is the reason for the GRCs which I myself do not believe. I have pointed out in previous debates on the formation of GRCs that our first Chief Minister, Mr David Marshall, was not a Chinese but a Jew. I do not believe that Singaporeans are racialists. Singaporeans shall still vote for a fellow Singaporean regardless of his race if that person is credible and a qualified candidate.

If I still cannot persuade the hon. Prime Minister that Singaporeans are not racialists and that they want only to vote candidates of their own race, there may be a twinning of candidates or, at least, three candidates should be enough. I hope that the GRCs could be made smaller in number and not made bigger in time to come.

Opposition MPs

Sir, I would like to speak on the unfairness of treatment to Opposition MPs. Once, at a function on the grounds of Istana, a PAP MP asked me, "Hey, Chiam, why did you not bring your grassroots along today?" That PAP MP

Column: 1136

thought that I did not have any grassroots members to bring along to that function. I did not want to embarrass him by telling him that, in fact, my grassroots members were not invited to that function although PAP MPs' grassroots were invited.

Yes, Opposition MPs are treated differently from the PAP MPs. I think it is appropriate that I speak out on this matter to educate PAP MPs on the matter. I have already complained that I do not get a proper room to hold my MPS. I have to see my constituents in the open at the void deck. I do not mind doing so, but the only problem is that sometimes, I do not have the privacy to discuss some sensitive matters with the people who come to see me with a personal problem. When working in the open, I am always subject to the elements. Void decks, somehow or other, are very windy and I have difficulty holding my pieces of papers together.

When I was first elected MP, the situation then was even worse. I was not even allowed to plant one tree. Today, of course, I can plant as many trees as I like in my constituency or on the land under the jurisidiction of my Town Council. Things have improved a little for me, but on very basic things like application for Government grants, CIPC funds, I still have to apply to the person whom I defeated at the last election, and I believe he shall be competing against me at the next election. In the circumstances, I wonder how I can ever get the support of my rival to support me in getting CIPC funds which would lessen his chances of getting elected. I would probably think that the answer shall always be never.

My constituency, in a way, has been subjected to scare tactics at election time. They have been threatened that should they vote for me, they shall never get upgrading of their flats, kindergarten facilities shall be scaled down, the MRT

Column: 1137

station shall never be opened and any precincts that give 50% votes to the PAP shall get upgrading.

Another thing is that I was not even allowed to make a speech at my own constituency dinner. I am bringing up the above matters with the hope that all Opposition Members in Parliament in Singapore can be given their due respect and not treated shabbily.

The Minister for Home Affairs and Leader of the House (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Sir, Mr Ravindran asked for an update on what the Elections Department has done with regard to overseas voting for Singaporeans who are now overseas, and in particular, in preparation for the Presidential Election in 2005. Members would know that the Presidential and Parliamentary Elections Act were amended to provide for overseas voting in April 2001. The intention then was to implement overseas voting in five of our missions abroad. As preparation was underway, unfortunately came September 11, and as a result, due to security concerns, we decided to stop that process of providing for overseas voting for overseas Singaporeans. But we have not stopped looking at it. Of course, other than the five missions already announced, the Elections Department will now also consider several other missions where we have a consular representation to enable overseas Singaporeans to vote. We hope that when the time comes for the Presidential Election and if there is a contest, we will have more missions abroad where Singaporeans can go and vote, provided they have registered to vote.

As regards electronic voting, we also earlier on wanted to try out electronic voting in two single-member constituencies during the last General

Column: 1138

Election. While the process of authenticating or certifying the system was still going on, election had to be called. As a result, we ceased the effort of certifying that system. We have to start all over again at the next election. But having considered the cost of doing this electronic voting and the changing technologies in the years ahead, the Elections Department decided to defer this process of electronic voting to some future date until we see what others have done with regard to electronic voting and learn from their examples. For the next Presidential Election, should there be a contest, we are not likely to have electronic voting.

I come now to Mr Steve Chia's question about an independent election commission, a subject which he raised before and he has now found a new reason for asking the Government to do so. Again, I will have to say that whether the Elections Department is under the Prime Minister or an election commission to be an independent one or not really does not matter. We know that for years, the Elections Department has conducted elections fairly. While the Elections Department is under the Prime Minister's Office and the civil servants have a career, they also need to make sure that they do a good job. The Prime Minister does not directly decide on their career.

There is a civil service system to ensure that civil servants are appointed and promoted according to civil service rules. No Minister, not even the Prime Minister, can say to the PSC or to the Special Promotion Board, or any particular Promotion Board within the civil service, that this particular person should be appointed, promoted or demoted because the person has not been listening to him. That has never been the case in our system. So our system has separated the political leaders from the civil servants who will have to do an impartial job in

Column: 1139

carrying out their duties diligently without fear of interference from the political leaders.

12.30 pm

If we have an Elections Commission separate from the Prime Minister, then I think today Mr Steve Chia would not be able to raise his question here because there will be no one who will represent the commission to answer his question in Parliament. Now, at least he can raise this question every year, and he can get an answer from the Minister. But, having said that, let me stress that the Elections Department has conducted the elections fairly. And it has applied the same rule to all the candidates. I am not telling you a secret if I tell you that even PAP candidates have complained about the strictness or the toughness of election officials that they were not allowed to do this or to do that; whether to hang a poster or whether to get near a polling station, and so on. So the Elections Department officials have conducted their duties in a way that is expected of them, that is, without fear or favour, and that they have treated both Opposition and the PAP candidates in the same way.

I want to inform the House that our Elections Department has sat down with their officers who have experience in conducting elections and they have come up with a code of conduct for election officials. This code of conduct has been formalised and the officials would be reminded about the behavioural norms expected of them when they conduct an election. The code lays down the following seven principles to guide the conduct of election officials, namely: neutrality and non-partisanship; voting in secret, incorruptibility, transparency, accuracy, serving the voters, and professionalism. Any breach of this code will subject the official to appropriate disciplinary action. This will further enhance our people's confidence and trust

Column: 1140

in our Elections Department, the officials, as well as our electoral system.

Mr Steve Chia also talked about the Electoral Boundary Review Committee and he has a series of questions. Let me state at the outset that the appointment of an Electoral Boundary Review Committee is not a requirement under the law. He may have misunderstood that there is such a legal requirement that the Prime Minister appoints such a committee. There is none. There is no such requirement under the law. In fact, dection 8 of the Parliamentary Elections Act empowers the Minister-in-charge, and in this case, the Prime Minister, to decide on the number, names, boundaries of the electoral divisions for the purpose of election in Singapore. But, in practice, the Prime Minister appoints the Electoral Boundary Review Committee to review the electoral division boundaries and recommend changes to him. The Electoral Boundary Review Committee is made up of a number of senior public officers who are guided by a set of terms of reference for their work. The review will take into account the population growth, the population shift arising from housing developments since the last boundary delineation exercise, etc.

As to whether or not there are election officials in the Electoral Boundary Review Committee, the only official on the committee is the Secretary, who is the Head of the Elections Department. He is there because he needs to perform the secretarial work for the Committee. That is all there is to it. The people who are appointed to it are senior civil servants who know about the number of voters, the population changes, housing changes, and so on. These are key officials who know about population shifts and statistics of our demographics.

Mr Chia asked whether or not the committee had been appointed, when will the report be ready, what are the terms of

Column: 1141

reference and whether or not the report can be published early. As of now, I do not know of any Electoral Boundary Committee having been appointed. So I cannot give him the rest of the answers. So I cannot tell him whether or not the Committee has finished its work.

I come to Mr Chiam's question about the GRC. After 16 years of operation of the GRC - we had our first election based on the GRC system since 1988 - we are still talking about the GRC system. Unfortunately, even after 16 years, Mr Chiam is still contesting in a single constituency and has not gone into a GRC. Maybe if he had led a team to the GRC he will then know how he can win a GRC.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Do you want me to be in the GRC?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sure. Mr Chiam just asked me whether I want him to be in the GRC or not. He is the leader of a party, he should really decide. And, being the leader of a party, he should lead the charge and not leave it to others to lead the charge for him and he just follows behind and says it is very good.

But to be serious, there is a reason why we have GRCs, as the Deputy Prime Minister explained earlier on in answer to another question concerning the GRC. The reason is that we need the GRC for multi-racial representation. But whether a 2-man, 3-man, 4-man, 5-man or 6-man GRC is to the disadvantage of the Opposition or not, I think it is the same to both the Opposition and the PAP. The PAP would need to put up candidates whether it is a 2-man, 3-man, 4-man, 5-man or 6-man GRC. And so do the Opposition. But the fact that since the Opposition cannot put up enough candidates that surely cannot be the fault of the GRC system.

Column: 1142

Mr Chiam See Tong: That is not the only reason.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: That is the fault of the Opposition, for not being able to get enough people to contest for them. Otherwise they would be there in the GRC. And Mr Chiam had the by-election effect strategy, which says that he would rather not contest in all the constituencies. I think that is a very good reason to give for not being able to get enough candidates to contest in an election. But that is very clever.

The Prime Minister (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Ask him if he would like Potong Pasir to be part of a GRC.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: If Mr Chiam says he would like Potong Pasir to be part of a GRC, the Prime Minister just told me that he might ask the Electoral Boundary Review Committee to consider this.

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Ask again. Get an answer.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Does he want it?

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Potong Pasir to become a GRC.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Give us time.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Now, and we will tell him the answer.

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Better record this, Kan Seng.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: It is in the Hansard . Mr Chiam will know that. But, again, more seriously, whether it is a single-member constituency or a GRC, really it is up to the candidates themselves whether they can convince the voters to vote for them. It does not depend on whether it is a 2-man, 5-man or 6-man GRC.

Column: 1143

On Mr Chiam's points about treatment of Opposition MPs, his first point was about his experience at the Istana party where somebody asked him where were his grassroots leaders. I do not know what grassroots leaders he has. I know that Potong Pasir grassroots leaders were invited. Maybe not his grassroots leader but, as far as the Government is concerned, the grassroots leaders are the ones who serve in our CCC, RC, CCMC and so on. We did not consider Town Council as part of the grassroots, otherwise the PAP Town Councils would also be involved.

His other complaints about not having a room, having to work at the void decks, not being able to plant a tree, not being able to have CIPC funds, not being able to speak at a dinner, and not getting upgrading in his estate, etc, I think we have been through all that before. Mr Chiam now finally finds a piece of ground to plant the tree, and the reason being that, as he said, that piece of land is managed by the Town Council. But in the public housing estate, the HDB owns the land and, therefore, it is up to the landowner to decide who plants the tree. And every year, we have the tree planting campaign and, therefore, the Advisor is the one who is allowed to plant the tree. We have been doing this for the last umpteenth year since we have the tree planting campaign. This is not something new.

On the conducting of the meet-the-people session, the PAP MPs do not have a room either. The PAP MPs make use of the PCF centres. The PCF is a foundation with $5 million or more of paid-up capital. They set up kindergarten education classes, etc. And, because of the relationship between the PCF and the PAP, the PAP was able to pay a rental to the foundation to make use of one room for our once-a-week meet-the-people session.

Column: 1144

On CIPC funds, I am not sure why Mr Chiam brings up CIPC funds because, as far as I know, from what I was told, Town Councils already get grants from the Government and that is for the residents But CIPC funds are for improvement of the whole constituency and therefore it is disbursed through the CCCs, and if they have projects, they can apply to the CIPC for funds. From what I was told, Potong Pasir residents have not been deprived of CIPC project funding. In fact, in 1998, CIPC funds were used for back-lane lighting of Jalan Wangi and Upper Aljunied Road. In 2002, CIPC funding was available to build covered linkways in Potong Pasir Town, but because Potong Pasir Town Council failed to come up with its co-share of cost, the project could not be implemented. Why is this so? I do not know. Only the Potong Pasir Town Council can answer. But as far as PAP Town Councils are concerned, when the CCC gets funding for CIPC projects, the Town Council would have to chip in to pay for part of the cost. It is not completely free, it is not completely at Government's expense.

On the issue of not being able to speak at his constituency's dinner, I thought Mr Chiam must have known by now that the Police has relaxed the rules to allow MPs to speak at constituency functions.

Mr Chiam See Tong: In the past.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: He is talking about history. But we are in the year 2004 and this rule was changed in the year 2001/2002, I think we must move on.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Minister for all his answers except one which is not answered. Will the Prime Minister undertake an assurance that the Electoral Boundary Review Committee's Report will be out for at least four months before he decides for a dissolution of Parliament? We hope not to have a case like the last election where

Column: 1145

Parliament was dissolved one day after the report was out, but at least we can have an assurance that it would be out for at least four months.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: From the records I read, I know that whenever the Electoral Boundary Review Committee submits its report to the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister will, as soon as it is possible, get the report published. That is the standard practice.

As soon as the Electoral Boundary Review Committee's Report is published, and depending on the timing as decided by the Prime Minister, he may call for election three months after that, or he may call for election three weeks after that. This is the prerogative of the Prime Minister, and this practice remains.

12.45 pm

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, is it very difficult for the Prime Minister to give an assurance or at least a certain timeframe?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: If the Prime Minister gives the assurance now and he fixes a particular date or a particular period and timeframe, he may not be able to fulfil it. One should not bind the Prime Minister's flexibility in making such a decision.

The Chairman: Mrs Lim, are you withdrawing the amendment?

Mrs Lim Hwee Hua: Sir, I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister and the two Ministers for their comprehensive answers to almost all the questions except for the issue of medical benefits for female civil servants. I would like to let the Deputy Prime Minister know that we are waiting with bated breath and in anticipation of positive changes to come.

Column: 1146

With that, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Amendment No. (2), Mr Chiam.

Election Process

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head U of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code UA 1500.

Sir, this is on the election process and the four points I want to bring up are: the Electoral Boundary Review Committee's Report; the date of the election; the deposit candidates will have to pay; and, election sites.

As regards the election process, I think they should be fair. "Fair" means that it must have openness, which means transparency of the election process.

The Electoral Boundary Review Committee's Report is an important report, in particular, to the Opposition, because it will tell which are the boundaries to be contested at the elections. I would call upon the Prime Minister please to issue the Report as early as he can. Of course, he will say it is his prerogative. But to be fair to the Opposition, I think the Report should be published at least six months before the election date. Because if we do not know what are the constituencies to be contested, we got no chance to work on the ground in those constituencies. There was a case where an Opposition member was about to win a single constituency, and when the Report was published, that constituency was no longer in existence. I think this is the classic case of Braddell Heights constituency. The Opposition

Column: 1147

member there, if I am not mistaken, in 1991, obtained nearly 50%, and he was hopeful that he may have a chance to win the next round. But when the next round came, his constituency disappeared. It was absorbed by Marine Parade. The only difference is that Marine Parade has got a seafront. Braddell Heights has got no seafront. It became part of Marine Parade constituency. Sir, I call on the Prime Minister to publish the Report of the Electoral Boundary Review Committee at an early date.

Sir, the other matter is the election date. In America, everybody knows when the President is going to be elected - every four years, on a fixed date in November in the fourth year. This is really called openness. As far as the PAP is concerned, they keep their cards very close to their chest. We do not know when the elections will be called at all. We have rumours and whether or not to believe in the rumours. Often, a snap election is called and that catches everybody by surprise. Sir, I hope the election date can be given at an early date.

The third matter is on election deposit. The election deposit currently stands at $13,000. To PAP candidates, $13,000 may not be a large sum but to many other candidates, $13,000 is a large sum. I think we should not deprive people who want to stand for election just because they cannot afford the $13,000 to disbar them from standing. If the election deposit can be announced at an early date, it will give a chance to all citizens in Singapore who want to stand for election to prepare for this sum of money so that he can stand for election.

The Chairman: You have one more minute, Mr Chiam.

Mr Chiam See Tong: My fourth point is with regard to election sites. I would call on the Prime Minister to ask the Elections

Column: 1148

Department to make sure that there are more than one election sites in one constituency, especially in a single seat constituency. At the last elections, Potong Pasir had only one election site, and there was a scramble for that site from the two candidates.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, Mr Chiam asked that our election process be fair, open and transparent. Our election process is really very fair, very open and very transparent. As far as the conduct of the election is concerned, I think the same rule applies to all. There is no particular part of the election process that is not known to the Opposition but which is known to the PAP. We all know that and we have all been through the elections, and we know what an election entails.

As regards his specific request on the publication of the Electoral Boundary Review Committee Report, I have answered Mr Steve Chia on this question. It is published as soon as the Prime Minister receives the Report. But to ask the Prime Minister to fix a date and say, "I'll have this particular date", the Prime Minister cannot do so, firstly, until he has appointed a Committee, and until the Committee has completed its work. Even then, he will have to think carefully about when to call for an election. So, if you ask the Prime Minister now, it is just as difficult for him to answer the question as it is impossible for me. So, we really do not know when will be the election date.

Mr Chiam made the point that in the US, election dates are known, but that is the American system. In the parliamentary system, it is different. In the Westminster system like in the UK, Australia, Malaysia and New Zealand, the Prime Minister has the prerogative to fix a date for the election. There is no particular date that he has to fix for the election.

Column: 1149

As regards Mr Chiam's question about the deposit being too high, the same deposit applies to all the candidates, and it is a certain percentage of the MP's allowance for the preceding year before an election. So, while it might have been $13,000 the previous time, and over the last few years, the MP's allowance had been reduced, the deposit may not be $13,000 at the next general election. At the next election, whether it will be $13,000 or not, it depends on what would be the MP's allowance in the preceding year before the election is called.

The election deposit is not something that would definitely be lost. It is not like going to a casino and he puts his money down on the table on one colour or the other, one number or the other, and then he loses the $13,000. The threshold for reclaiming the electoral deposit is not very high. It is only a small percentage of the votes. And if a candidate cannot marshall the percentage of votes and as a result lost his desposit, then, in the first place, he should think carefully whether he should participate in the election.

On election sites, I am not clear what Mr Chiam meant by election sites, unless he refers to rally sites.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: As far as rally sites are concerned, this is a matter under the police, and not under the Elections Department. I am not speaking for the police now because they decide on this. The police choose a site to ensure that safety and security, law and order can be considered. We know that from past experience, outdoor open areas near housing estates are not areas that would be favoured. They would prefer to have

Column: 1150

enclosed areas like a stadium. In the case of Potong Pasir, because there is no nearby stadium, there was a site available. I do not know whether it is still available or whether it has been built up now. There was a site available in Potong Pasir but, unfortunately, on that very day, there was a clash. The PAP candidate happened to book the site earlier as it was allocated on a first-come-first-served basis. As a result, Mr Chiam went to a different site. But he might also know that at that site, there were a lot more people than could have been accommodated at the Potong Pasir site. But in the end, what was the result? The result was that he won the election. And there was trouble at the site that he went to. So, can he imagine if that particular rally was held within Potong Pasir, there could be no end of trouble.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, I have a point of clarification for the Minister. He said that the Prime Minister's hands should not be tied on the announcement of the election date. Can the Minister give a good reason?

The Chairman: That is not a clarification. It is a question. Mr Chiam, are you withdrawing your amendment?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I am still unhappy with the answer given by the Minister. I thought that he would at least give some concessions to have the election process really open and transparent. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $155,233,550 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $46,986,300 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.