Augustine H.H. Tan
Singapore
“There are instances when reserves should be used, but the govern- ment has to make a case to the President and if good arguments are used, the President is expected to concur. I therefore end by asking you, as you have done in your speeches, to support this Bill with a very loud "Aye" when it comes to the vote. [Applause].”
“We must have confidence that in the end, as Singaporeans, we know what is overall best for ourselves. We are a community of free citizens committed to making Singapore a great city to live in and for foreigners to come visit and admire.”
“There is such a thing as initiative. Who initiated the project? What was the objective of the project? And there is such a thing as economies of scale, the benefits of which are passed on to the taxi drivers. Let us not forget those elements. An hon. Member: They do not pay tax on their income.”
“They can still enjoy the seafood regardless of the indigestion. They can do the shopping and do other things in Johor Baru. I believe that what is important for us is that we do not preclude ourselves the option of setting our own national policies.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister stated that it is undesirable to employ foreigners to run child care centres because they affect the values of our children. Is it not also true that by having foreign maids in our homes that they too directly impact upon the values of our children?”
“It was a point which I brought out much earlier when a similar matter was debated here in Parliament. Because the government could borrow on the basis of the reserves even though the President has one key to the reserves because there is such a thing as credit-worthiness of the country.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,269 lines we hold for Augustine H.H. Tan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 26.
“I have a question, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is relevant to the point he is making. What is opportunity cost? Does it cost the hon. Member anything to be here this afternoon for three hours, instead of practising his law and earning maybe $5,000?”
“On a point of clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. There is a concept in economics, called opportunity cost. Would the hon. Member for Potong Pasir be able to understand this concept and explain it to this House?”
“Sir, another question. Is it not also true that in the course of a building cycle, if the HDB happens to be building in a boom year or boom years and construction costs have gone up very very high, the HDB does not necessarily pass on the higher prices or higher costs to the flat owners, but that it averages out somewhat over the years as well?”
“Can I ask a point of clarification, Sir. How much variation is there in tender prices in any given year for different estates of Housing Board flats to be constructed? Is there a wide variation in the tender prices? And does the HDB average out these prices to compute the construction cost of each flat? Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Sir, there are variations in prices for various areas. It depends on the locality because transport cost is involved. It also depends on the type of estate. If the estate is new, then the cost is higher because the contractor will have to incur expenditure in moving into a new area as the facilities are not there. Perhaps he has to lay a very long water pipe-line for supply of water. In building the extension to a more established estate, the cost will be lower.”
“On a point of clarification, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, is any MP free to set up his own maintenance unit?”
“But when the property market becomes depressed, then URA goes to great lengths to help developers by enabling them to reschedule their payments, for example, by not releasing blocks of flats which URA has built. There was another example some months ago. In Beauty World development there was a block of flats which was originally scheduled to be sold to the public, but because of the poor property market conditions, URA decided to withhold the sale and instead rented out the property there. Actions like this put all kinds of questions in the public's mind. Is URA a profit-maximizing agency? Is URA really a developer-enhancing agency? Who is URA for? What is it trying to do? Then, Sir, there have been questions raised by other people in Singapore, especially those who own rent controlled premises and encumbered land. URA would acquire these properties at low prices and later tender out parcels of land for much higher prices. The question is why is it necessary for URA to do this? Could it not allow private developers to do so, if at the same time the Government would perhaps relax the rent control legislation, and thereby enable private developers to do their own clearing of squatters and tenants and develop their property perhaps at much less cost than would be the case when they have to retender or tender for URA properties? I hope the Minister would be able to give answers to these questions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to add a few easy questions for the Minister to answer. One is in respect of road signs. Sir, we have widened many roads in Singapore. I think every motorist and the public welcome this. I notice that in the newer housing estates or in areas where new roads have been built, the street signs are very visible, very large, easy to read. Motorists and others find it easy to turn at the right junctions, But for many of the older roads, this is not the case. Road signs are very small, insignificant, often hidden away so that when a motorist comes to a junction, he does not quite know which road he is turning into. As a result, accidents may occur because of hesitation and because of wrong turns. I have a number of questions too in regard to the activities of the URA. Sir, we have been through several building cycles in Singapore, but I think the last one was probably the worst. Round about 1980-81, we saw property prices zooming to astronomical heights. Great fear came upon the people of Singapore, especially those who were aspiring to own private apartments and houses. Yet at the height of the property boom, one could witness some strange behaviour on the part of the URA - instead of releasing more land, it seemed to be keen to withhold land from the public. I noted one particular piece of property in Clementi. It was slated originally for residential development but was withdrawn from the market, presumably because the prices were not to the liking of the URA. And its more recent behaviour also raised questions and doubts in the minds of the general public about the objectives of the URA. Sir, when the property market is booming, the URA does not seem to worry about the ability or inability of the general public to buy property.”
“Well, I am glad to know, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the hon. Minister of State is not sitting on any toilet scandals. And with that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $2,255,000,000 for Head K ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $156,000,000 for Head K ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head S - The following amendments stood on the Order Paper Supplement -”
“Can I just have one minute to respond, Sir?”
“Until recently, the Army has done its own catering, its own cooking. I had occasion, about a year ago, Sir, to partake of some arm food. I was given a few midget pieces of chicken that had more calcium than protein. Now, Sir, the proposal is to have outside catering, Presumably the food will be pre-cooked and then reheated. I have the same concern about protein and calcium and carbohydrates. But more than that, I am concerned about vitamins being lost in this process of reheating and the quality of the food that will be supplied to Armed Forces. Sir, if we want a rugged Defence force, we must feed our soldiers properly, and I want an assurance from the Minister involved that they are doing the right thing. The third area that I wish to touch upon has to do with welfare for the servicemen and other personnel in the Armed Forces. I notice on page 141 of the Budget under KB-02 Welfare Services that the Grant to the Military Welfare Fund for FY 84 was only $10, for FY 85 nothing at all. Perhaps the Minister would like to report to this House what has been done in terms of welfare and welfare aid for our servicemen. I mention this, Sir, because I have written letters on behalf of people seeking exemption from full-time service, and the reply comes back saying that, although the family's circumstances are such, but if the national serviceman requested financial aid, "we shall be glad to do so." But that is the end I hear of that particular story. So I would like to know what forms of welfare aid are given to our servicemen. I have a bit more on another subject, but perhaps I let the Minister reply first.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head K be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead KA-01 Object Group 1100 of the Main Estimates. Sir, my purpose in moving this amendment is to highlight a number of policy questions in the Ministry of Defence. This Ministry is scheduled to spend something like $2.4 billion this coming financial year, of which $2.36 billion is for the Armed Forces. This total amount of $2.4 billion represents 11.4% of the total budget, a big slice of our annual budget. So my first concern is with productivity. Sir, since we understandably are not provided with access to Defence secrets, such as figures for the Armed Forces and so on, procurement requirements in terms of armaments and other needs, this House needs to be satisfied that, firstly, the Ministry is cost-effective in terms of its procurements. Sir, I raise this issue because (Members would have read along with me) there have been newspaper and magazine reports about the United States Armed Forces and the Congressional hearings which have exposed quite a few juicy scandals. You would have heard, Sir, of the very expensive toilet seats which were acquired at several thousand dollars a piece, when the true cost of each was only a few dollars. Sir, do we have such problems in our Armed Forces? It may not be toilet seats. It may be something much more important, but the case must be noted. Then, Sir, how conscious is the SAF, in terms o-f efficiency, in the use of machines and the considerable manpower at its disposal? Is there a productivity campaign conducted within the ranks of the Armed Forces from time to time? The second area that I want to draw to this House's attention is in regard to the food that is supplied to our Armed Forces.”
“May I ask a question of the hon. Minister. Since the Government would be selling the land to HDB at market prices so that we would then know the true cost of the subsidy of an HDB flat, can we have the assurance of the hon. Minister that HDB flats will continue to be heavily subsidized and will continue to be affordable by the people of Singapore?”
“It is vital, Sir, as we consider alternatives for future development, that people should get at the truth. Finally, Sir, we are all in a third kind of transition. From the Presidential speech and from contributions by Members in this House, and feedback from the public, it is clear that Singaporeans are searching for something more besides material things. And I believe it is not merely culture, be it music or drama or literature. It is really "coming to terms with God". Quite a few Members have already passed into the next world from this Chamber. Many more are due to go, soon. This nation, Sir, must turn to its Creator and acknowledge His ways. We have been much blessed, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I believe, if we seek God with all our hearts, we shall prosper as a nation and be secure. An hon. Member: Amen! 2.51 pm The Acting Minister for Labour (Mr Lee Yock Suan): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to respond to some points made by the Member for Potong Pasir regarding CPF as I am the Minister in charge.”
“They do not want a destructive Opposition, an abusive Opposition, an irresponsible Opposition, bent on mischief. The public wants a constructive Opposition. They want a credible Opposition and not superficially credible, mouthing apparently truthful platitudes, but people who know what they are saying, really truthful, and having done their homework carefully. Sir, let us raise the level of debate in this House and outside the House. I agree with some writers to the press that we should not be personal. If I have appeared to be personal at times and have offended the hon. Members of the Opposition, I do apologize for it. But I reserve the right to be angry, Sir, if I see Singapore's best interests being threatened. I have a proposal. The proposal is that the Government should provide briefings, information that is not secret, to educate the Opposition MPs in Statecraft. Perhaps then we shall see more constructive debates and propositions in this House. A second proposal is that in the process of gathering public opinion, forums should be encouraged in which genuine, constructive, in-depth discussions can be conducted about vital issues facing our nation, about the CPF, about road transport policy, about the Government Budget. There are so many misconceptions, largely stemming from ignorance. The Opposition Members were saying that the Government is getting more revenue, as though the Government is taking the revenue for itself. And who is the Government? Are there corrupt people in the Government? The Ministers are on salary, honestly and plainly on salary. Who benefits if Government gets revenue? Ultimately, it is the people. We need to educate the people in terms of economics. What makes Singapore tick?”
“I met an ex-MP recently. He was formerly in Government. He was very critical of several aspects of Government policy. And as I let him talk, after a while I asked him this question, "If you are so critical, and if you claim you have been so critical for so long, why did you stay so long in the Government?" And he gave this answer, and it is something which should really make us sit up and take note. He said to me, "The reason I stayed so long is because the Prime Minister is an honest man; the Cabinet is honest. They are for a better Singapore. That is why I put up with their nonsense." Therein lies a lesson for our younger leaders. If they can continue this tradition of honesty and effective government then we can have a bright future. But maybe I can give a word to the older leaders. Ex-MPs and ex-Cabinet Ministers can be one of two things. Firstly, they can be bitter in resentment, vengeful, bent on destructive criticism, kicking the ball into their own goal post. They will become the laughing stock of Singapore. People will ask, "Wasn't he part of the team responsible for the very policies he is now criticizing?" On the other hand, these older leaders can be elder statesmen. Beneath the grey hairs and beyond the receding hair lines, there is the wisdom of years that can be tapped by the younger leaders. They can be graceful in retirement, a little anxious at times perhaps about the bold new policies of their successors but, by and large, able to enjoy their pensions. Perhaps there is a third option: we can export their services to China and other places. I also have a word for the Opposition. The Opposition, Sir, is a part of the political transition. The question is: what kind of Opposition does the public want? I know what the public does not want.”
“There is plenty of capital around but we need to redirect the capital away from speculative channels to productive channels. I have advocated over SBC, on Friday Background, that the Government should consider a lowering of company taxes from the present 40%. If over the years we can gradually lower this tax, say, to the level of Hong Kong, I believe we will see a tremendous influx of new businesses, new head offices being established here, to fill up those empty offices and shopping centres. We have the trained manpower. We have been investing in this social infrastructure, whether it be university or technical and vocational training. What we need is simply a release of entrepreneurial energies. And I believe our people are creative, and I believe that the vision of the year 2000 of creating a City of Excellence, a Society of Distinction, is achievable. That is within our reach if only we are united, if only we work together towards constructive policies. We can bring in the tourists if we make the efforts, as are being made. We can encourage new companies to come in. So much, Sir, for the economic transition. Now, if I may venture a few words on political transition. As we have now got a group of younger leaders, people are looking at them to see whether they have style or substance, or preferably both. I venture a classification of leadership, a four-fold classification. Firstly, soft-headed and soft-hearted; secondly, soft-headed and hard-hearted; thirdly, hard-headed and hard-hearted; and fourthly, hard-headed and soft-hearted. Now, I know what Members would prefer, namely, the fourth category. A hard-headed government with the heart soft enough to be caring and compassionate for the needs of the people. Perhaps, here I might give a little anecdote.”
“So far, nobody in this House has really said anything about what the private sector can and should do for itself. Neither in the press do I read any statements by the private sector about what they can do and what they ought to be doing for themselves. People complain about paternalism. On the other hand, people should not treat Government like a "Big Daddy" that can give hand-outs and goodies. I think we have got to disabuse people of this attitude towards Government. At a time when there is an economic challenge, or the downturn, our entrepreneurs, our businessmen, must search for effective ways to overcome the problems. They need to look for new lines of production, perhaps new markets, to have greater efforts at productivity, and a willingness to use some of the fat profits accumulated over the past five years for times such as this, so that they can hold out during a period of recession. I believe that our people are more resilient, more enduring, but they need to speak out exactly what they can do, share ideas of what could be done. And above all, one should not panic. One should not create an atmosphere of panic. The banks, in particular, should not over-react. I believe they have been over-reacting to the Hoo Thye case. I think we do ourselves a tremendous disservice if we over-react both publicly and privately. In every crisis, there is opportunity, and I believe myself that we have all the vital ingredients for a great new boom to come. Firstly, we have an excellent infrastructure. Secondly, we have created tremendous excess capacity, whether it be hotel rooms, shopping complexes, offices, or residences. All we need are the people to fill these rooms and offices.”
“The rationale for this policy should be obvious, namely, that Government is trying to encourage greater production and trying to give more incentives to individuals and firms to produce more. Let us never forget that it is only when we can produce more that we can safely spend and consume more. To do otherwise is to court disaster. But Sir, here, as in other countries, taxes on expenditure are very unpopular measures and, beyond a point, they even become counter-productive. Taxes on expenditure have been used in Singapore to achieve certain social goals. We need to ask ourselves a number of questions. First, do people understand the entire rationale for these taxes, for example, in the car ownership, taxes on taxis, ie, the diesel tax, and so on? Do people understand these policies? Are people able to see the comprehensive road transport policy of the Government? There are buses, there is the MRT to come, there are taxis, there are private cars, private vehicles. Perhaps more explanation need to be given. At the same time, hon. Members in this House have brought to the Government's attention that taxes which impose costs on people and on the production process can have a multiplier effect. And I think Government would be foolish not to take this into consideration. The problem is, when taxes on expenditure become too high, people get too angry; and when they get too angry; they stop listening. So we have got to defuse the anger and to get the people to listen to the rationale. There is clearly a need, as several Members in this House have pointed out, the need to look for alternatives to fiscal measures to achieve a social policy. What about the private sector itself?”
“Next, Sir, I would like to make some comments on the Government's proposal to sell off Government companies. I think it is a good move at this time. After 25 years of building up a very solid infrastructure, after much effort to attract the multinationals to set up bases in Singapore to export, it is time we gave stimulus to the private sector in Singapore. As to Government companies, the Minister of State for Trade and Industry said earlier, in defense of Government's efforts in these companies, that by and large they have done well. But at the same time I would urge the Government to look carefully to see whether some of these companies might not have departed from their original objectives, or that they might have exceeded whatever authority or original goals given to them. In the process of divesting Government ownership, I think one must make a distinction between privatization of ownership and privatization of management. I think it may be wise to go beyond privatization of ownership and to allow more private management to take over some of these companies. And I would like to see that, in the process, there is more share ownership by workers-a process already begun I believe if one reads press statement about Singapore Airlines (SIA). It has from its inception been encouraging employees to buy share. So when the Government offers its shares to the public, I am sure this would be a point that they would pay attention to. Next, Sir, we come to the question of our taxation policy. Over the last few years, we have seen a switch in terms of Government tax policy - away from taxes on income to taxes on expenditure.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I was commenting on the Central Provident Fund when we adjourned for lunch. The Member for Potong Pasir asked whether the CPF would be able to repay its contributors when the time comes for withdrawal. I have here the Monthly Digest of Statistics, February 1985, and on page 98, Table 11.20, the data given is as follows: in 1984, the CPF collected $5.4 billion but the amount withdrawn was only $3.5 billion. Of this $3.5 billion withdrawn, only $817 million represented withdrawal at the retirement age. In other words, only 30% of the total amount collected for the year was withdrawn by people upon retirement. In other words, on the basis of the current figures, every year the CPF takes in more money than the amount withdrawn by people upon retirement. The total amount due to contributors is $22.7 billion. It might interest the Member for Potong Pasir to know that our external reserves for this year happen to be exactly that figure, $22.7 billion. I believe that is an underestimate because our gold stocks, as I understand, have been valued at cost, and so the actual figure may be higher. The Member for Potong Pasir also mentioned that because of rising Government expenditure, Government has had to tax more and more each year. I just looked up the figures in the Yearbook of Statistics, page 204, for the last five years. I find that the percentage of increase in Government revenue from year to year has been dropping: Percentage Revenue increase 1980-81 28.3 1981-82 33.9 1982-83 15.2 1983-84 - 0.02 1984-85 12.4 1985-86 1.6 Sir, statistics can be made to lie. The Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Office has exhorted us to tell the whole truth, but some people tell everything but the truth.”
“They are the ones that depend completely on the CPF savings to finance their purchase of HDB flats. They are the ones that are in danger of not having enough CPF balances at age 55. I challenge anybody to contradict what I am saying and produce figures to show me I am wrong. And we are concerned. Government wants to help the lowest 15-20% of the population. And how can we uplift their standards of living if we want them to spend more and discourage them from saving? How can we do it? So I say, be careful what we advocate here in this House. It is superficially appealing but it is going to hurt a lot of people, the very people we claim we want to help. Sir, the Government is moving towards what may be called privatization. I think this is all to the good and as the Minister of State for Defence and Trade and Industry ---”
“When we want to advocate measures, like reducing CPF, if we are really genuinely concerned about the poor, the low-income group, let us be mindful that it is precisely the low-income group that need their CPF savings most of all. An hon. Member: Hear, hear!”
“He would like to have a surplus that we have in Singapore. It is a much more pleasant situation, much easier to govern under such conditions. Given these difficulties, we have got to be aggressive. We have got to have initiative. We have got to be innovative in searching out new markets, new opportunities in the world economy. Next, Sir, let me talk about the public sector here in Singapore. The achievements of full employment, low inflation, balance of payments surpluses, public sector surpluses, these are no accident. We come back to the same point that I made earlier. Because of high savings rates, because of responsible government expenditure, because of emphasis on development rather than on recurrent expenditure, we have gotten to the place today, a very blessed position, a position that many countries in the world would like to be in. We take our jobs for granted. Our people just move from job to job. I like to talk to my former students, graduates from the University. Three years after graduation, many of them have had three to four jobs and with each job they get promotion and they get a higher salary. That is not exactly desirable but that illustrates for us the opportunities available to our people here in Singapore. Again, opportunities that we take for granted. Perhaps we should send truck-loads or plane-loads of young people to Europe, maybe not in a little Volkswagen, but in a bus trip across Europe. It will open their eyes to see what unemployment means - the degradation, the shame of unemployment, having to live on the dole, on subsidies from the Government, on handouts. I thank God we are not that kind of country, not that kind of economy, and let us keep it that way.”
“Associated with these problems are the currency gyrations that we see in a world economy today. These currency gyrations, instability in exchange rates, are threatening the world economy in ways which are not evident. They are bringing on added protectionism. They add to the cost of our exporters and our importers as well. When you export a good and you do not get payment until three months later, in the meantime, the exchange rate has moved against you, you have to bear the cost, the risks of the exchange rate change. These, Mr Speaker, Sir, are the real cost, real threats that our people have to face up to. Let us not play shadow boxing. Let us not set up straw man to punch and so on. Let us not try to assign blame where blame is not due. Yes, there are certain things about Government policies that may need correction and I will come to some of those later but let us first put things in perspective, as the Member for Leng Kee exhorted us yesterday. I was reading in the papers, Sir, that the United States, the economic super-power in the world, for the first time this year may become a nett debtor to the rest of the world. You think about it. Their government is in debt every year to the tune of US$200 billion. That has had the result of pushing up interest rates all over the world. They have had to borrow money from the rest of the world and paradoxically the US dollar has gone up in value. For how long, it is anybody's guess. The bankers and the currency traders will tell you that they are holding their breath. They never know when the dollar is going to come plummeting down. It is a fool's paradise people are living in. President Reagan would like to have a Singapore-style budget. He would like not to have to worry about a deficit of this sort.”
“People will be out in the streets. It will be revolution. It will be riots. It will be mayhem. We would not be able to debate in an orderly fashion like this in this Chamber. So I say, let us count our blessings. But more than that, the de the developing countries poses a severe threat to the world economy. It threatens to de-stabilize the international monetary system. It threatens to bring on a depression so severe that it will make the last Great Depression look like a minor recession. These are the facts of life that we have to face up to and if we want to reduce savings at this time, where are we going to get the wherewithal to tide over a world depression of long duration, of great depth? Yes, supporters of the Member for Potong Pasir have written to the press and have supported his position on growing vegetables and rearing chickens. Yes, we have in a sense made fun of his proposal. But what is the reality? The reality is, we do not have the land. We would like to rear chickens. I like to rear chickens. I am growing vegetables in my garden for the information of the Member for Potong Pasir, but I do it as a hobby. We cannot be self-sufficient if we try to grow our own food. It is just impossible. Let us have a public debate. Let us have the facts and figures. Let us not beguile the public with simple statements that look good. If we could survive a great depression by rearing chickens and growing vegetables, Mr Speaker, Sir, the world would be in a better position. It would be in a very blessed position. We would have no problems. We would not have to agonize over the possibility of a great depression. It is going to be that $22 billion worth of reserves that we have that is going to tide us over some years of a great depression. Make no mistake about it.”
“It is irresponsible government spending, wasteful government spending. It is governmental corruption that has added to the woes of these countries. If we compare with our own country, we have much to be thankful for. We may gripe about our high CPF rates, our high rates of savings. I am not ashamed of them. As an economist, I would tell you in this House, Sir, and the Members here, that Singapore would not be where it is today without the high savings and investment that Government policies have engendered. Singapore would not be where it is today if we had irresponsible government expenditure. Do you know the surest evidence of irresponsible government expenditure? Where it is to be found? It is to be found in the rate of inflation. And we have consistently low rates of inflation compared to the rest of the world. We have 2.6% last year or an average of 4% over the last five years as compared with double-digit inflations or compared with a thousand per cent rate of inflation in Israel. I was in Israel in November of last year and you can see the kind of economy that has to cope with 1,000% rate of inflation a year. Do you know what it means? People are having to make trips to the bank several times a day. They postpone their payments as long as they can. Why? Because with every delay in payment there is a gain in terms of inflation. People are trying to cheat other people, and there is a lot of expenditure on bank tellers and bank clerks just to cope with the number of zeros that the cash registers have to register. In no time at all, such a rate of inflation would bring any government down. We do not need an opposition to bring this Government down if this Government is guilty of misuse of funds. The rate of inflation will be so high.”
“Well, we would not charge a fee for Members of this House. Furthermore, Sir, the industrial countries are in the process of re-industrialization, as the Minister for Finance told us. It is a curious phenomenon. It is a phenomenon born of protectionism. Because the Americans and the Europeans have raised such high import barriers they are inducing the Japanese to invest in America, in Europe, otherwise Japanese exports will be shut out from those markets. It is a very inefficient form of investment and it is a kind of investment that threatens the viability of developing countries like ours, because not only do we have to compete with countries exporting to America but we now have to compete with Japanese investments in America and in Europe. Then there are the debt problems of developing countries which the Minister for Finance has highlighted. It is now US$900 billion and by the end of this year it will get close to US$970 billion. The sheer cost of servicing these debts alone amounts to $90 billion or more a year, a staggering sum when you compare with our GDP. We need to ask ourselves: how did these developing countries get into so much debt, so much difficulty? The reasons are not far to find, and I find the reasons very instructive for us here in Singapore, especially in this period of transition. Firstly, it is because those countries have low savings rate and I challenge any economist anywhere to dispute this: that the basic cause of the difficulties in many countries in the world, developed and developing, is because they are saving too little. They are consuming too much. They are living off the future. Not only private citizens but governments are doing this together. It is the blind leading the blind, and they all fall into the pit together.”
“More than that, we are seeing an escalation of protectionism, escalation into services. Even tourism has been subject to exit taxes and other forms of taxes. It extends also to higher technology products, an area which we have been hoping to get further into. And because of these protectionist devices and their extent (of them) foreign investment has become much more limited and this is evident in our latest figures for Singapore. It has nothing to do or little to do with domestic cost conditions. It has everything to do with world economic conditions. And if Members of this House would want economic lessons, let them turn to proper experts and not quacks. An hon. Member: Let them pay.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, historians looking back over current events in Singapore will rightly conclude that the 80's represent a crucial period of transition. The political transition is in evidence and I shall comment on it later. Allow me now to describe the elements of the economic transition. First of all, let me comment on the world economic conditions. Let us never forget our role in the world economy, how small we are geographically, in terms of population, what kind of area in the world we find ourselves in, how close the nearest war is to our borders, how dependent we are on world trade and investment. It would be completely foolish of Singaporeans at this juncture to turn insular,to be so concerned with domestic problems that they forget the more basic fundamentals of our survival. What are the trends in the world economy? First, despite the economic recovery in America, Europe is still lagging behind. Japan is recovering all right. But there is fear that overall world economic recovery may shortly be aborted. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, among the industrial nations, there is a fundamental shift in the structure of their economies to a service-oriented economy, away from manufacturing towards services. This must bring in train stresses and strains, the lowering of productivity, the threat to world trade. Already we have seen increasing protectionism. Even as tariffs have been lowered, non-tariff barriers have come to the fore, and these non-tariff barriers which are quantitative, like orderly marketing arrangements, voluntary export restraints and so on, represent very potent threats to the world economy, especially to the viability of developing countries like ours.”
“On a point of clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker. I never gave him a tutorial. If I did, he would speak better than this.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, would the hon. Minister agree with me that the variation in proportion of land cost to total cost is a reflection of the failure on the part of URA to balance supply and demand in the market from year to year?”
“Sir, is the Hon. Minister aware that in September last year, there was a further revision already agreed upon, which is the third stage of the shop rental increase?”
“Sir, should the Hon. Minister not make a distinction between difficulties faced by individual shop-keepers who have tendered for high rentals and the general market conditions in which many shopkeepers are finding themselves today? And if that is so, should the HDB not give special consideration to the difficulties faced by shopkeepers all over Singapore today?”
“Sir, is it conceivable that it will be within the ministerial lifetime of this Minister?”
“Sir, will it be of the same kind of interval as in the past, namely, 20-25 years?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the Minister's reply that the HDB has only reviewed shop rentals once in the last 20-25 years, what is the HDB's future policy in this regard? Will there be a periodic review of shop rentals?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir tried to deflect my question by refusing to answer it at all. I made my point very clear that if he could believe those figures himself and he wanted the voters of Singapore to believe his lie, why can he not accept the proposition straightaway? Planning approval is presumed to be given, everything is ready to start building. And perhaps if he wants a loan, would you, Mr Minister, be prepared to give him a subsidized loan?”
“Point of clarification, since my name was invoked, in vain. Sir, the point is, here is the Secretary-General of a supposedly major party in Singapore, pretending to be an alternative government before the election and during the election, publishing what are supposed to be facts and figures, showing that the HDB is making huge profits. In other words, Sir, he believes those figures, his party believes those figures, and they would have the voters of Singapore believe those figures. And yet when the proposition is made to him, he says, "I cannot accept the proposition." Either he is a liar or he is a sham! BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I await clarification of my query.”
“Supplementary question, Mr Speaker, Sir. Is it not true that many of the seamen are highly skilled in various trades and that, therefore, it will be very easy to convert them to alternative occupations?”
“Supplementary question, Mr Speaker, Sir. Is the Honourable Minister aware that some of the unemployed seamen have found alternative occupation in the overfull employment situation in Singapore?”
“Supplementary question, Mr Speaker, Sir. I know that the Government has got honourable intentions in this matter but what precautions have been taken by the Social Development Unit to ensure that its activities do not degenerate into what I would call "subsidized sin"?”
“A supplementary question, Mr Speaker, Sir. Since our graduate men seem to be much in demand both by graduate ladies and non-graduates, should not the Government think in terms of importing single graduate men from abroad?”
“Sir, in the vision for Singapore, many good things have been laid out. But there is one thing that I particularly like, and that is, the concern for the poor and for the aged. As long as this Government continues to have this concern for the poor and the aged, it will have my support. And finally, Sir, we need to be a unified nation. It is one thing to have a General Election where people can say anything they like, but the Elections are over. We have got five years to govern Singapore. Let the people rally behind the Government in unity for the sake of our nation. 11.26 a.m.”
“Because, Sir, I believe that if the Prime Minister and his colleagues could take a generation of Singaporeans that existed in the late 1950s and early 1960s, and if you read the newspapers of those days, you know what Singaporeans were like in those days - rioters, leftists, disparates, prone to riots, prone to communal tension and violence, largely uneducated, low standard of living, and yet they could weld and mould a modern Singapore out of these people. I believe we have better material today, better education, more sophistication, and people, many of them have gone through the hard times. The history can be read. Many have seen the National Exhibition. So I believe that we have got good pluses to build upon, and I think the President was right - we should safeguard what has been achieved and we should build upon what has been achieved. But communication is necessary, and yesterday the Member for Paya Lebar brought up the very important point that the person, the individual, is important. If you regard him as a digit, he is going to respond as a digit. If you regard him as a person, someone worthwhile, someone built in the image and likeness of God, then you will be able to motivate him to produce his best. Mr Speaker: Dr Tan, you have two more minutes to go.”
“Let me despatch that and get on to the good points. I did not like his analogy or his metaphor of a kidney transplant. I am not a doctor Sir, but I have always read that there is a high proportion of rejection when kidneys are transplanted. So if the younger MPs are likened to kidney transplants, God help them! Sir, I would choose a better metaphor. I would regard them as promising buds grafted onto the Tree of Experience of the senior Ministers. That way they will grow into beautiful branches and be fruitful in due course. Now, on to his good points. Firstly, he noted the need for feedback mechanisms, but more importantly, that those who have access to these mechanisms make good use of them. Sir, when I was young, my mother used to clean my ears. I would advise the Ministers to get their ears cleaned. The Member for Ayer Rajah also said that it was a fast pace of change that brought some of the problems upon the Government. I believe this is true, and yesterday the Member for Changkat brought this up rather forcefully, that with rapid economic growth will come rapid changes in lifestyles, and we are going to pay the price for it unless we produce healthy antidotes. And here is where the spiritual rather than the cultural dimension comes in. Thirdly, the Member for Ayer Rajah emphasized the need for better communication. I said this yesterday also and something which we must pay attention to. The Government has got a lot of good intentions, a lot of good proposals, but unfortunately, in the haste of implementation, not enough is done to prepare the ground to receive these excellent ideas. I believe that if we can go through the motions, the pain of listening, of explaining, we can get wide acceptance.”
“The man does not appreciate the efforts that have been put in - the efforts to get the best deal for Singapore, the best technology for Singapore, to build the MRT in the quickest possible time in the most efficient way. Would the Member for Potong Pasir like to have the roads logged up with traffic, while mountains of earth are being moved gradually, over 30 years? I think the man needs to have his head examined. Certain things are having multiplier effects up there, which should not be there. But, surprisingly, he did have one good point. He mentioned that there are a lot of speculators in Singapore who make lots of money, speculating on land, on real estate, instead of channelling their money or their investments into more productive types, like growing mushrooms. I think it is a good point. And I think it is a consequence of a number of factors. Firstly, it is a consequence of our rapid growth. In a situation of rapid growth, many opportunities spring up for speculation. Furthermore, it is a consequence of the fact that we have no capital gains tax. So people can safely speculate, make their gains without having to worry about taxation. Now, Sir, the answer is not to put on a capital gains tax if we want a free and open market economy. But rather, I believe, the answer is to lower corporate taxes gradually over a course of time to make it more worthwhile for people to invest in more productive types of investment. The Member for Potong Pasir not only must make good suggestions but he must follow through with concrete proposals. Sir, if I may come to the points raised by the Member for Ayer Rajah. First, let me congratulate him because in his own special, personal, inimitable way, he has set the appropriate tone for this debate. I have only one quarrel with him.”
“[Interruption] If I am wrong, I will be very sad. But let us not be beguiled, let us not be pressured by people who are looking for the wrong kinds of fun, unclean kinds of fun. I do not know whether it is the Information Minister or the Community Minister now, but let whoever is responsible for censorship continue to maintain the strict rules of censorship. We can have good, clean fun, and yet have good rules of censorship. Further, Sir, we should not relax on social discipline, and I was glad yesterday as I listened to the MP for Potong Pasir that he supports the idea of a disciplined society. Unfortunately, he is not a man of his word. I am told, Sir, that there is a certain political party that is holding illegal Meet-the-People sessions in the void decks of Chong Boon, in open defiance of the law, by people who are self-proclaimed alternatives to the present Government. If there is any association with the Member for Potong Pasir, let him speedily renounce this before this House and repent of his sin. The Member for Potong Pasir made reference to the MRT yesterday. He decried the fact that because the MRT has been largely awarded to foreign contractors, the so-called multiplier effect upon the domestic economy has been minimal. This may be true to some extent, but I would like to pose a question to him; he is not here today. What alternative is there? Do we have the technology in Singapore to build the MRT? Are we going to do it with pick and shovel, boring those tunnels deep down into the earth, and take 30 years to accomplish the MRT? Or are we going to take advantage of modern technology that is available, contractors abroad who have the experience and who are willing to tender at very low prices to our benefit, and have the MRT starting by the year 1988?”
“The older community leaders, although they have much less education, have humbler economic means, but yet their generosity has been out of proportion to their means when it comes to contributing towards National Day activities or community projects. It is not so with the younger community leaders. They are better educated, they earn much more money, but then their expectations are also higher, their plans are more grandiose for a higher and ever higher standard of living. They plan to travel. They plan university education for their children. They plan to upgrade their flats. As a result, we would be doing very well to get a $10 or $20 contribution from them for National Day activities. I think the older MPs know exactly what I mean. We need to change such attitudes. We need to tell the people: yes, we need to work hard, that Singapore as a whole needs to work hard because we have no natural resources. We need to compete with the outside world, yes, but then there is a time and place for competition. There is a time and place for cooperation. There is a time and place for giving, selfless giving. We are going to get what we preach, Sir. So if we preach these values, we are going to reap some of the rewards. In both the Presidential Address and the Addendum put up by the First Deputy Prime Minister, part of the vision is that Singapore would be what is called "a fun place to live in." I detect the hand of the young Minister of State for Defence and of Trade and Industry because, just at the time when he got into politics, he broached this idea that the young want a Singapore that is fun to live in. But then the young man from Defence is a clean-cut young man of impeccable upbringing. So I would assume that the kind of fun he imagined is good, clean fun.”
“Let me now get to another matter. I am glad that the Government has recognized that there is something beyond purely material pursuits. But, Sir, what lies beyond material pursuits, material satisfaction, is not culture. It is something called spiritual. "Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." This is a quotation from the Bible. We need to have people conscious of the pursuit of spiritual goals. But, Sir, that is none of the business of the Government. "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." Again, a quotation from the Bible. But having said this, Government can make it conducive for people to practise their religions, to pursue their spiritual objectives. It can make available land and buildings. It can have more flexible building codes to allow change of use of offices and factory spaces as churches. Sir, we have over-emphasized material rewards, and I believe by so doing we have unleashed selfishness, intense competition and elbowing, greed, and as a result many people, even though they have done well materially, have become unhappy. As the Member for Changkat said so eloquently yesterday, we need to deemphasize material rewards. We need instead, Sir, to motivate people, to call them towards dedication, towards selfless giving, towards the caring for our fellow citizens, towards concerted community efforts. In this regard, those of us who have been long enough in politics will realize that there seems to be a distinct difference between the quality of the older generation community leaders and the younger. I say this with tremendous sadness.”
“One does not need to be an economist to realize that the large and growing foreign exchange reserves that we have are something to be envied by many countries. These represent the real backing of the CPF. The infrastructure that we have built up represents the backing for the CPF. Perhaps the Government may find it fit one day to reveal what GSIC has been doing, so as to allay the fears that have been generated by irresponsible politicians. Sir, should there be a world depression, we would need to use these reserves to tide us over the two, three or five years that we may have to go through. It is just ridiculous to think that we can tide over a world recession by rearing chickens and by planting a few tapioca trees. If the Member for Potong Pasir has access to an economist with any credibility, he would have been told in no uncertain terms that planting tapioca in the context of modern Singapore would only feed a few people, given the large numbers of people that we have in relation to the little amount of land that is available. Beware of the politics of fear and of mischief. It is so easy to be on this side of the House to poke fun at the Government and to criticize policies. It is so much harder to come up with constructive proposals, even harder to implement these proposals. Nobody has given credit to people who spent long hours agonizing over possible alternatives for Singapore, I feel the need to speak out, Sir, because in the climate of Singapore following the general election, people may be getting the wrong ideas about what to expect from the Government, wrong ideas about what can be done about our economy, about the future progress of our country, because of misrepresentation and because of distortion of facts by the Opposition.”