MPs on Philip Yeo, EDB chairman
Siew Kum Hong/Xiao Jinhong
MAR 10 1998
Two MPs castigate EDB chief Phillip Yeo in
Parliament
Some more on MPs vs. Philip Yeo. Also from ST Interactive, 10 Mar 98.
Here is a transcription of what was said in Parliament on March 9,
1998 about the EDB chairman, Mr Phillip Yeo, and bond-breakers
Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Budget.
The Budget emphasised on education, and our education system is
moving towards creative thinking and creativity. Yet, there can be no
creativity if discussions are not done in a gentlemanly manner with
opportunities to speak up and alternative viewpoints sought. It is in this
context that I want to seek clarification from my parliamentary
colleague, Mr Chng Hee Kok.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask Mr Chng Hee Kok whether he
would like to confirm what he told me outside this House some time ago
that the chairman of the EDB asked him on these points: one, that he
should resign because as a government MP, he should not disagree with
this government policy of naming bond-breakers; number two, that other
MPs who disagree should also resign; and that the EDB chairman
stormed out of the meeting. Can I ask you, Mr Speaker, to ask Chng
Hee Kok to clarify?
Mr Chng Hee Kok: Mr Speaker, Sir, essentially, I agree, I confirm
what my colleague Dr Tan has mentioned. Actually, on top of that, he
mentioned two other points which I thought, maybe, since this matter
has cropped up, that I should mention. That is that when he showed me
the statement and he threatened my name be put into the statement
because I supported those three named scholars, for speaking publicly
against that issue. My name was supposed to be included in that
statement.
Number Two, he suggested that I should send my speech last year, the
speech of 12th October, to him for vetting.
I want to assure members of this House that in all my years as Member
of Parliament, no minister, no office-holder, has ever, has ever asked
me for my speech before I spoke on any subject. I told him so that I've
never given, offered my speech to any minister of this House, Sir.
Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Thank you, Minister.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I'm not being personal. I just want this House to be
clear on why I think this exchange should be made known to members
of this House as this involves a top administrator and elected members
of this House. And it touches on areas of creativity, leadership and
alternative views.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I listened to Chng Hee Kok's encounter with the
chairman of EDB with shock and disbelief. As an elected member of
this House, I cannot be a bystander.
Mr Wong Kan Seng: Point of order. Please sit down.
I am not intending to circumscribe members' right of free speech. In this
House, members can bring up any subject. In the minister's Budget
statement just two Fridays ago, he was elaborating on the government's
financial policy. And these are important issues for debate in this House.
And he has outlined the government's Budget. I think we should confine
our debate to the Budget statement, and during other times raise a
motion, raise a member's motion, have it fully debated as to whether we
should have publicised the names of bond-breakers or not. I think there
is an appropriate occasion to do so, and we should not use these two
days, precious two days, because there are 45 MPs wanting to speak
and 45 MPs to squeeze into two days. If you just divide by the number
of hours that we have, I think each MP will have very little time to
speak. I'm sure all the 45 MPs want to have their say and want to have
all the views expressed, but I would suggest that they keep their focus
on the Budget. Thank you.
Speaker of the House Mr Tan Soo Khoon: Order! What is your point
of order, Mr Wong?
Mr Wong Kan Seng: My point of order, Sir, is that we should confine
our debate to the minister's Budget statement and have this subject of
the EDB bond-breakers or whatever it is, exchange between the
member, exchange with the chairman of EDB, have it fully debated on
another occasion and there will no circumscription of this.
Mr Tan Soo Khoon: The subject of the bond-breakers of EDB
scholars has actually been touched upon by two previous speakers. I've
allowed it. And I think under the circumstances, it's not wrong for Dr
Tan to continue with the point that he's making. But I would suggest to
Dr Tan that you confine it as much as you can within the context of the
financial statement of the minister. You may proceed.
Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Thank you. I think this subject is important
because we are allocating funds to the various ministries, to the various
organisations. And, of course, Singaporeans would like to know the
funds we allocate to these organisations. They also must be accountable
to this House, whether in terms of the financial performance or whether
in terms of the way they handle matters. And I still strongly believe that
I have a right to speak on this matter.
Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said, as an elected member of this House, I cannot
be a bystander when my parliamentary colleague is insulted in this
manner. I cannot allow the episode to pass by without expressing my
concern. And I suppose my parliamentary colleagues would have done
likewise.
We are the representatives of the people. We are here in this House to
air the views and concerns of the people. And many of us in this House
have spoken strongly against the government, government's policies.
And we were reprimanded by the ministers. And we are taken to task
even by the Prime Minister, but we are still not embarrassed because we
have spoken out honestly and frankly on what we believe in, and also to
let the government know how the people at the ground feel. Despite our
differences in views, we were never asked by the Prime Minister to
resign.
In this instance, my parliamentary colleague was offering a view that
was different from the EDB chief. And because of this he was asked to
resign.
His (Mr Phillip Yeo's) reasons are:
He's a government MP and
naming bond-breakers is a government policy.
Let me state my stand on bond-breaking. I think it is not gentlemanly
and should be discouraged, but not by naming (the bond-breakers) in
public.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I have to continue because I have to paint a picture to
this House why this subject is important. After (Mr Phillip Yeo) asked
Chng Hee Kok to resign, he stormed out of the meeting. Should a man
of his standing do such a thing to an elected representative who refused
to agree with his views? I don't think our Prime Minister has ever done
that. It is not a gentleman's behaviour. We want to build a more civil
society and we must behave like one.
To add insult to injury, he wants Chng Hee Kok to let him know the
names of those MPs who share Chng Hee Kok's views. And he does
this by way of a letter, signed not by him but by his head of human
resource division, a Mr Timothy Sebastian, asking these MPs to meet
and discuss with him.
Now, since he has already concluded that those who disagree should
resign, there would have been no civilised discussion. And I presume the
MPs will be told off similarly the way he told Chng Hee Kok, and a
demand for their resignation would be asked. Let me read the letter that
was faxed to me by Chng Hee Kok:
''Dear Mr Chng, your meeting on the 19 Jan 1998 with our chairman Mr
Philip Yeo refers. During the meeting, the issue of scholars terminating
their scholarships was discussed. It was also mentioned that there are
other MPs who have differing views from our chairman on this issue.
Our chairman would like to meet with these MPs to hear their views and
further discuss the issue with them. In this connection, we would
appreciate if you could let us have the names and contact details of the
relevant MPs so that a meeting can be arranged.''
Mr Speaker, Sir, has he the right to summon MPs for a meeting to
answer to him why they disagree? Mr Speaker, Sir, is he getting too big
for his shoes? And this is not the first time he has displayed such an
attitude towards elected leaders. Mr Speaker, Sir, when I discussed this
with my members of parliament, I was shown a copy of a newsletter
called Pioneers Of Computing where he was featured as IT champion.
In this interview, he had expressed views contrary to government policy.
For example, he questions government upgrading of our HDB flats.
Now, he is quoted as saying, and I quote him:
''We spend millions of dollars renovating HDB apartments for people.
What for?''
In other words, he disagreed with this major government policy. No one
asked him to resign. Yet, he wants Chng Hee Kok to resign and other
MPs to also resign. On what matter? On a minor issue, a departmental
issue on bond-breaking.
He obviously has his own views as to who should lead Singapore. I
quote: ''When we were a young country in the 1960s, we were all
creators: Lee Kuan Yew, Howe Yoon Chong. Now referring to all in the
front-bench, we have the era of the CFOs.'' I'll explain what CFO stands
for. ''This is where Singapore is right now. Now we have to see if we go
up or down...We must get rid of these people. These people should
never be allowed to be number one because they are not creative.''
Unquote.
Mr Speaker Sir, you judge for yourself. Isn't this a reference to the
present leadership as no more than uncreative CFOs, which stands for
Chief Financial Officers. And earlier in his interview, he equates CFOs
as bean counters. Are our ministers bean counters?
Is the (matter) of bond breakers a government policy? No, it can't be. It
is a departmental policy. As members of this House must have read in
the papers that even PSC, the body that awards the prestigious
scholarships, is not naming the scholars. Therefore, he is not being fair
to Chng Hee Kok. He was hiding the government to push his own view
and belief. He then has the audacity to ask Chng Hee Kok as an elected
MP, and as I said on what issue - a minor issue, a different approach to
management for bond-breakers. Chng Hee Kok's electorate, those who
voted (for) him will be wondering why they have to lose an MP. Maybe
the EDB chief should go to Mr Chng's constituency and explain to them
why their MP should go.
He talked of a lack of creativity in his interviews, lack of leaders with
creativity. In his interview with Pioneer Of Computing. I think you all
must read this. It is a very, very important paper and I think I should ask
the clerk of Parliament to circulate this later on. And I quote him: ''They
are preoccupied with auditing, counting - making sure that every chair
and table is there. They are so preoccupied with the material part, they
forget that the most important is the creative part - the people.
Mr Speaker, Sir, all that is well said, but you ask yourself: How to be
creative where the leader of the company has no room for deferring
views. All this type of creativity in that interview is just lip service. Mr
Speaker, Sir, this is a serious matter because I see this action as an
affront to the office of the elected members of this house, by a member
of the administrative service. And may I ask the Minister what he
intends to do.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the budget. I am very impressed by the
Nominated MP's discussion on the budget. She did a very good job and
I am sure we agree, we support our Finance Minister's budget. Thank
you, Sir.
xjh <lima...@pobox.org.sg> <x...@pinky-and-the-brain.com>
The Singapore Bean Asylum: http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palms/5545
ARCHer with a Broken Arrow
On 11 Mar 1998 11:53:40 +0800, lima...@pobox.org.sg (Siew Kum
Hong/Xiao Jinhong) wrote:
[ Snip ]
> Two MPs castigate EDB chief Phillip Yeo in
> Parliament
>
>Some more on MPs vs. Philip Yeo. Also from ST Interactive, 10 Mar 98.
>
> Here is a transcription of what was said in Parliament on March 9,
> 1998 about the EDB chairman, Mr Phillip Yeo, and bond-breakers
[ Snip ]
I think there is a very important issue we need to first determine.
Is it 'Phillip' or 'Philip'?
[ Sorry .... :-) ]
--
ARCHer
R S Rajan
Siew Kum Hong/Xiao Jinhong <lima...@pobox.org.sg> wrote in article
<MOD$98031...@sintercom.org>...
> MAR 10 1998
>
>
>
>
> Two MPs castigate EDB chief Phillip Yeo in
> Parliament
>
If a guy can break his bond and pay off the sponsor, then he must be from
a rich backgound. In the first place he should not have applied for the
scholarship. Such scums deserve to be exposed. Phillip Yeo has my vote.
Carry on with the good work Phillip.
Scythe
R S Rajan wrote:
> If a guy can break his bond and pay off the sponsor, then he must be from
> a rich backgound. In the first place he should not have applied for the
> scholarship. Such scums deserve to be exposed. Phillip Yeo has my vote.
> Carry on with the good work Phillip.
First off, there is a reason why most of the scholarships don't ask about
your economic background. They don't care. Frankly, the various sponsors have
absolutely no interest in whether you can afford your education, and are
merely interested in increasing their talent pool. Secondly, Phillip Yeo CAN'T
have your vote. Why? Because he wasn't elected! I think that there is nothing
wrong with having your own opinion, but apparently Phillip Yeo does not agree
with me. The reason why we have MPs and ministers and deputy prime ministers
is so that the government can can pick from the different opinions. Phillip
apparently would prefer that there was nobody speaking but him.
VeryNiceGuy
R S Rajan wrote:
...
> If a guy can break his bond and pay off the sponsor, then he must be from
this is not always true. a poor scholar may obtain loans, beg, save up
etc.
Gilby Tan Ah Kow
On 12 Mar 1998, Scythe wrote:
>
> I think that there is nothing
> wrong with having your own opinion, but apparently Phillip Yeo does not agree
> with me. The reason why we have MPs and ministers and deputy prime ministers
> is so that the government can can pick from the different opinions. Phillip
> apparently would prefer that there was nobody speaking but him.
Deciding what to do with EDB scholars is quite clearly
within the proper responsibilities of an EDB chairman.
Philip Yeo is fully justified in feeling indignant
about Chng butting in.
If Chng was concerned about the matter, what he,
as an elected MP, should have done is this:
he should have raised the matter in Parliament,
and asked the relevant Minister (Philip Yeo's boss - Lee or Goh)
whether it was right to name bond-breaking scholars.
Instead, Chng went to Parliament and whined piteously
about how brutally Yeo had stepped on his feeble little tail.
He was more concerned about his own injured pride,
than about the issue of how to treat bond-breaking scholars.
Chng has abused his rights as an MP,
and he has wasted valuable Parliamentary time.
What a shame.
Scythe
Gilby Tan Ah Kow wrote:
> On 12 Mar 1998, Scythe wrote:
> Deciding what to do with EDB scholars is quite clearly
> within the proper responsibilities of an EDB chairman.
> Philip Yeo is fully justified in feeling indignant
> about Chng butting in.
He may be justified in feeling indignant, but does that give him to authority to
ask Chng to resign? Or to demand his speech for vetting? Phillip Yeo is entitled to
have his own opinion regarding this matter, but so does Chng.
> If Chng was concerned about the matter, what he,
> as an elected MP, should have done is this:
>
> he should have raised the matter in Parliament,
> and asked the relevant Minister (Philip Yeo's boss - Lee or Goh)
> whether it was right to name bond-breaking scholars.
At the time, the naming thingy had already occured. DPM Lee had approved the
policy, and there is nothing wrong with that. I personally do not agree with this
policy, but there is a reason why I am not running this country :)
> Instead, Chng went to Parliament and whined piteously
> about how brutally Yeo had stepped on his feeble little tail.
> He was more concerned about his own injured pride,
> than about the issue of how to treat bond-breaking scholars.
His injured pride? There is a far greater issue at stake here than pride or bond
breakers. It is the matter of being able to have a different opinion. Why do we
have a parliament? So that we can have the advantage of different viewpoints, and
see which one would be the best. As Chng himself mentioned, the bond breaking
thingy is a minor matter. He did not think that bond breaking was a good thing, but
merely objected to the way in which the government intended to punish it. He put up
a reasonable arguement, but when Yeo could not convince Chng to his view, he asked
the MP to resign!
> Chng has abused his rights as an MP,
> and he has wasted valuable Parliamentary time.
> What a shame.
No, YEO has abused CHNG's rights as an MP. We have a parliament so that we can
hear different opinions aired. An MP is a representative of the people. Yeo is
merely a civil SERVANT. I will have to agree that this particular subject probably
should not have been brought up in the budget debates, but Yeo is not exactly what
you would call a small cog. No doubt Chng needed to use the budget debate to gather
enough coverage that this thing couldn't simply be snuffed out. From what DPM Lee
and various others said, you can tell they are still trying. It saddens me that
Singapore has come to this, but I applaud Chng's courage to make such a bold move.
Siew Kum Hong/Xiao Jinhong
On 12 Mar 1998 11:43:01 +0800, arc...@spamproof.cyberway.com.sg (ARCHer with a
Broken Arrow) wrote and I quote:
>:I think there is a very important issue we need to first determine.
>:
>:Is it 'Phillip' or 'Philip'?
I was looking out for that. And in the ST, I think they tend to use "Philip".