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 12 of 26.
“What about the question of children? Are the children of these people going to be filial? Will they support their aged parents? Have we done enough in the education system? Have we reinforced the values of filial piety so that these aged people will be adequately taken care of? What about old-age homes? Would we have enough of these homes if many of these aged people are pushed out of their homes by unfilial children? And if they happen to own a flat, could we not allow them to sell back to the Housing and Development Board even while they stay in those flats and yet have a means of income? This was an excellent suggestion made by the Howe Yoon Chong Report, and I hope the Government is giving serious consideration to this. Have we done a survey of the savings of people who will retire at age 55? Sir, these are very real questions, very real concerns, very real issues. They take time to determine. I would not grudge the Government the two years that it says it needs in order to make a careful decision about the CPF issue. I think it is wrong on the part of the Opposition to raise fears in the hearts of people about this matter. The Government is not flippant. The Government is not greedy about the people's money. The politics of mischief will only breed further mischief. It is mischievous to suggest, as the Member for Potong Pasir did yesterday, that the CPF has no funds to repay. Sir, I said this before in this House and it bears repetition. We live in a country where Government has been very careful in its spending of funds. We have allocated more to development than to recurrent expenditure, and that whatever funds are invested are invested wisely so that it will give us a rate of return in the future.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I was saying yesterday before I was crudely interrupted, the Howe Yoon Chong Report has not been sufficiently appreciated. The concerns expressed in this Report about the old are very real. Unfortunately, all the attention seems to have been placed upon one issue, and that is, the CPF withdrawal at age 55 years. Sir, the CPF issue has several dimensions. Firstly, the people are understandably concerned about any proposed postponement of the age of withdrawal beyond 55 years. We must understand that many workers earn only a few hundred dollars a month. So their savings are negligible, or none at all. So a sum of $10,000 or $20,000 at age 55 is like a bonanza. It is like winning a lottery prize. I know some of my own voters who are aged about 50 or so who are already borrowing against the prospective withdrawal. Others have plans to go travelling. Yet others have investment ideas. We should be careful not to shatter their illusions. Having said this, Sir, I believe the Government has a legitimate concern that there will be many people who are going to retire at age 55 who will not have enough CPF to last until they die. This was a point hidden in the Howe Yoon Chong Report, a point which I highlighted, a point which was not sufficiently debated. We have got to ask ourselves this question: if many people who are going to retire at age 55 will not have enough money to last until they die, what are the alternatives? So far, I have not heard any alternative plans put forward by any Member of the Opposition. All they have done is to create fear about the CPF withdrawal. The Member for Buona Vista yesterday talked about jobs, re-employment for those aged 55 and above, and it is something that merits serious consideration by the Government.”
“So I would say to the Government, I would rather have one or two percentage points less economic growth than that we bring up our children alienated, that threaten the future and the stability of Singapore. Coming now to the problems of the aged, it is unfortunate, Sir, that the Howe Yoon Chong Report is not sufficiently appreciated. First of all, I should like to make it clear before this House that it was a Blue Paper, not a White Paper. The public must realize that it is only a White Paper that sets out Government's position. A Blue Paper is for discussion, and I believe the Government in a sense erred or was over-eager in being democratic, wanting the people to discuss the problems of the aged well before the problems have come into a point of seriousness, and because of that we paid a heavy price. The people thought we were rushing to grab their CPF funds. It was gross distortion by the Opposition parties.”
“Well, there are lawyers and there are lawyers. If I may get on to the next goal or topic of working mothers and upbringing of children. I like what the Prime Minister said on Friday. He said the integrity of the family must be preserved, and there was considerable support on the Backbench for this idea. The Member for Kampong Ubi was very eloquent in his stages of life presentation, from the baby unto the grave. Unfortunately, he forgot that many unborn babies are aborted in Singapore. This is a sin of the government! If the Opposition, Members want something constructive, join me in this: let us work together and get this abomination out of Singapore! It is murder. How can we, Sir, cultivate a society, build a society, a people with compassion, who care for one another, if we have no care for life itself in the womb? Maybe you think it is a piece of tapioca inside the womb! I am sorry, Sir. How did I get hung up on tapioca? In the area of child-care, I would support the excellent suggestion of the Member for Ulu Pandan. If our women must work at all, let them at least take a break of a few years to care for their own children. It is an investment which is well worth it, for, Sir, if we consign our babies, our children, to the care of uncaring nannies and relatives, we are breeding trouble for ourselves in the future. We are breeding a generation of alienated people, well-fed, materially well provided for, but who do not understand the basics of life, of human relationship, of love, of caring for one another, of sharing and of giving to one another. It is only the close bonding between mother and child that can produce this.”
“No more building of rental flats is not no more renting of rental flats. Mr Speaker, Sir, I realize the English language is not exactly an easy language to master. An hon. Member: Even to a lawyer.”
“Has he any proof at any time in the past that the Government or the HDB has ever forced anybody into a Housing Board flat and forced ownership papers on him, "You sign on the dotted line or else we put you in jail"?”
“Let us not forget something else. If we were to compare construction cost per square foot or per square metre between Housing Board flats and private flats, I believe you will see a vast differential. That alone should speak for itself because it is a reflection of efficiency. It is a reflection of economies of scale that have been achieved by the Housing Board, the external economies that have been achieved, that have made it possible for the people of Singapore to own their flats at very low prices. I say, let us give credit where credit is due. Further, the amenities which are given in Housing Board estates have been provided very cheaply. Swimming pools have been built in the newer ones. Yes, I agree with my colleagues on the Backbench that we should strive to get the Housing Board to improve on these amenities, and I believe the Government would be willing to do so if funds were to permit in the future. Another point in favour of Housing Board flats is the low conservancy charges. If you do not believe me, compare it with the private condominiums. There are economies of scale again. What I am afraid is that when we devolve some of the Housing Board functions to the town councils, there may be some loss of economies of scale, and people living in those areas with town councils may end up having to pay higher conservancy charges. We never know what the situation is going to be, but I would say, however, that it is an experiment worth going through. Let us try it out in some areas and let us see how things work out. The Member for Potong Pasir also cautioned the Government not to force people to own their own homes. This is an incredible statement from a man who claims to be balanced and constructive.”
“It is very simple. There are two components to the housing cost of a Housing Board flat, the building cost, the construction cost and the land cost. HDB has never denied that its selling prices of flats more than cover construction cost. Its subsidy is in the land cost. Furthermore, let us not forget ---”
“6 1/4 %. I would like to get such a commercial loan. There is none. So let us give credit where credit is due. Sir, the Housing and Development Board is nothing short of a miracle. And yet it has become the favourite whipping boy of the Opposition, and all kinds of false accusations have been made against the HDB.”
“There is no government on earth, Sir, that dares to promise its citizens 100% home-ownership. There is none. If there is, please let me know. I may not have travelled throughout all the countries of Europe, but I know there is no European country that promises this. And we offer these flats to the people on very generous terms. I would like to get privately a loan with fixed interest for 20 years at 6 1/4 % or 6 1/2 % per annum.”
“" In fact, I will go further and say that in most countries governments not only do not create wealth but they squander it. And our fear, particularly the Prime Minister's fear, is that there may one day come a government that will squander the billions that have been accumulated by the thrift of 25 years of effort. Singaporeans should therefore continue to ensure that the people who are elected to government are really fit to govern because this is what it is all about - your future and mine. Having said that, let me refer to the policy of meritocracy. The Government has good intentions in this, in getting the so-called high-fliers, graduates with calibre, good degrees, putting them through their paces and promoting them rapidly. I think that is all to the good. Nobody would deny that Government has set out deliberately to create institutions that will support continuing development for Singapore. But at the same time, I think Backbenchers have been cautioning the Government in this area. It is just like having too many generals and too few soldiers (with apologies to the General from Teck Ghee). It is not merely the high-fliers that matter. I think the Government appreciates this. But it is a matter of expression, it is a matter of communication. We must say to those who are in the middle and lower echelons of the civil service and statutory boards that they do matter, and they matter a great deal. We must show appreciation to such people because if they get discouraged, if they feel that all that government is concerned about is the few graduates at the top, then they will not put in their best. Next, Sir, I would like to refer to the Government's home-ownership programme. I think it is a very daring objective - 100% ownership by the year 1999.”
“I hope there is no such ingratitude in Singapore. Among the audience that night, there was at least one man who understood what he felt. And that was a Japanese correspondent. But I believe there are many more people than this man who understood - I am speaking for the 70%-plus of Singaporeans who, one way or another, supported the government at the last election. So I say to the Government, "Don't over-react." The policies have been substantially correct. Make whatever marginal adjustments have to be made. Make them in the light of new circumstances and not of what people say; least of all, don't make them in response to two Opposition MPs, one of whom I thought was going to be more responsible than the other, but now I would say perhaps a little less irresponsible than the other. And I say so for good reason because I was listening to him very carefully, very intently; I took notes. While on the one hand he says he wants to be constructive - he supports the Constitution of Singapore, he will support good government policies - but every statement of his and every other sentence was to deride the Government, was to call the Government a liar, was to call the credibility of the Government into question. That does not speak well for a man who calls himself "constructive". I hope he would take note of my point because I still have hopes for his salvation in this House. The second objective of the Government has to do with the creation of equal opportunities for every citizen of Singapore. I like the statement: "Governments do not create wealth." I do not know how many MPs or people in the street who read this caught the meaning of this "Governments do not create wealth.”
“Yes, even hell-riding. We must not succumb to these pressures. I do not agree with the First Deputy Prime Minister when he says, "If the Member for Potong Pasir wants to have illegal parking, illegal hawking, we will let him have it." I say, "No, we don't let him have it." He too must obey the law. The Member for Anson too must obey the law! And the voters in those two constituencies must obey the law! Because the Government is there. It was elected by the majority of the people of Singapore. It was a resounding mandate by any standards, and the purpose and the function of Government is to govern and to govern effectively, to govern honestly and yet to govern with compassion and with fairness. Sir, I hope what the Prime Minister felt on election night is not true. For a moment, he felt as though the people of Singapore were ungrateful. He quoted the Bible. The biblical example was of a man called Joseph who was a Jew. It bears some explanation for those who are hard of hearing. Joseph was a Jew. He was sold as a slave to Egypt by his brothers. By the grade of God, he rose to power as Prime Minister of Egypt because he correctly interpreted the Pharoah's dreams. Joseph did well for Egypt. He did marvellous things for Egypt. But when he died, the next King of Egypt forgot all that he achieved. That was at the back of our Prime Minister's mind. That he and the senior Ministers of the Government having given their lives to Singapore, having invested so much to build up modern Singapore in the last 25 to 30 years, that all these may on a certain election night go to pot, go to waste. That there could come a bunch of Opposition people, ill qualified, ragtag, irresponsible, only knowing how to rear chickens, who might undo all the good things that we have done.”
“More importantly, Sir, there will be pressures, pressures to relax laws and regulations. We must be careful not to unleash the spirit of lawlessness upon our nation. There will be pressures particularly from Potong Pasir and from Anson to rescind fines, to allow illegal hawking, illegal parking, not to be hard on those who fire crackers, not to fine those who litter and throw rubbish which kill people from Housing Board flats. An hon. Member: And hell-riding.”
“You know, I was three years old during the Japanese Occupation and I remember the distaste of eating tapioca and vegetables. But, Sir, if the hon. Member for Potong Pasir would look at demographic figures of Singapore, he would have realized that at that time Singapore had less than one-third the present population. There was still plenty of land to farm vegetables and tapioca and to raise chickens. Today, I do not think the Member is serious, but if he is, he would have to tear down the flats of Potong Pasir and rebuild the squatter huts to allow his people to rear chickens. And then he would have something like one-twentieth the population, not enough to support the Member for Potong Pasir. Let us not over-react. Similarly, Sir, in our eagerness to attract tourists to fill our empty hotel rooms, do not sell our souls. I mean this seriously. Do not just do anything and everything to attract the tourists. Let us be ourselves, a dignified people, a compassionate people, a cultured people, a graceful people, an educated people, a people that do not over-react, a people that know how to handle crises, a people that do not shake just because two Opposition Members get into Parliament. An hon. Member: Hear, hear!”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of the Member for Ayer Rajah. Sir, the President outlined six objectives for the next five years of Singapore's development. The first of these is: 'to reach an accord on the character of the society people desire, and involve the young in working towards its achievement;' Sir, by saying that we need to reach an accord, I hope that nobody is assuming that there has been a breakdown of the social consensus that has existed for the last two decades. Just because there are now two Opposition Members in this Chamber representing two minor political parties does not mean that the social consensus has broken down. Sir, I submit to you and to this House, firstly, that it is a safe assumption that Government policies have been largely correct over the last 25 years. Otherwise, we would not have witnessed the tremendous achievements that have been recorded. And that, secondly, Government continues to have majority support. If barely 60% is majority support for the Member for Potong Pasir, 62.5% must be a landslide for the PAP. Moreover, that is only for 49 contested seats. For the remaining 30 seats, our Senior Minister, Prime Minister's Office, Mr Rajaratnam, has claimed 100% support. I would not be so optimistic. I would be satisfied with 80%. If we were to work out the average between the two figures, then we are clearly in the region of something like 70%-plus and that is not a bad record. That is not a bad achievement. Sir, undoubtedly, some adjustments have to be made in policies. But I would urge the Government, particularly the younger leaders, not to over-react. Do not, for example, start building chicken coops in the void decks of Potong Pasir.”
“What does he stand for? Does he want a Singapore that is defensible? Does he want a Singapore that is sovereign? Does he want a Singapore where everyone, irrespective of religion, race, culture and language, can get a job, can got a flat, can have a decent standard of living? Will he uphold the Constitution that he swore on the Bible the other day? Can we be sure of this? Will he put a stop to all these unfounded allegations and come up with points of substance on which the Government can rebut and we can debate? If he has some constructive points to make, I would be one of the first to join him. If the Hansard were open to the public, the public would realize that there was no issue raised by any Opposition Member during the last elections which no PAP Backbencher had failed to raise in this House, at sometime In the past, and much better too. Take the question of the Housing Board accounts. Who first raised it? I did, and I regretted it later because I handed ammunition to some irresponsible people. And we are going to be more guarded from now on. Yes, we will make our points but we will want to ensure that people do not misuse these points. We have spoken out freely on this side of the Bench, Mr Speaker, in the best interests of Singapore. We have prodded the Government publicly and privately, and we shall continue to do so. I have spoken fearlessly. My colleagues have spoken fearlessly. I feel no restraint in this House or outside this House. So where is the lack of freedom? Mr Speaker, Sir, I would urge this House to completely reject this wild amendment. 12.40 p.m.”
“All right, hole-and-corner. How many corners you want, you can have it! That is, without consultation with the people. The Government has openly acknowledged that perhaps in some policy areas, there is need for some correction and the younger Ministers have been very open about this. The press, I have never seen the press so open as after the elections. So many letters have been written advocating new things, condemning some of the older policies. And the election was conducted freely and openly. I want to say something about this question of the ballot papers because I am very amused, Mr Speaker. For many general elections, the Opposition Parties, particularly the Member for Anson, made the point that voting in Singapore is not secret because there is a serial number on the ballot papers. But that is because they lost every election. But after the Member for Anson, to his surprise, won the by-election in Anson in 1981, suddenly we hear no more complaints about the ballot papers. Perhaps the PAP should have put out some lines like, "Remember, there are serial numbers." That could have frightened the voters away from voting for the Member for Anson! Sir, if the Opposition wants credibility before the voters in Singapore, they have got to do far better than this. I would urge the Member for Anson to emulate the Government Backbenchers, particularly my good friend the Member for Ayer Rajah. He has been very hard hitting in terms of Government policies, and yet I know, and my colleagues know, that he will never bring Singapore down. He stands for certain basic fundamentals. I would like the Member for Anson to declare to this House what are the fundamentals he believes in about Singapore? State his case clearly and plainly to the people of Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson wants "a free vibrant society", and yet he would deny my freedom to speak here. If there is any abuse, Mr Speaker, it has been totally by the Member for Anson. I have another example here of his abuse. He attributed to the Prime Minister's reaction on election night that the Prime Minister was acknowledging implicitly that a lot of Government policies were made in a hole in a corner -”
“They have an alternative economic programme. They are upholding the constitution of the country. And even the people on the government benches in those countries feel quite safe should power one day pass to the Opposition. But not so in Singapore. The Member for Anson referred to the Prime Minister's reaction on election night. He said that the Prime Minister looked disturbed. The question is: why was the Prime Minister disturbed? He is here, but let me speak my mind. I have done so in the past, fearlessly. It was not because of fear of the Member for Anson. The Prime Minister quoted from the Bible: "And there arose a new King and he knew not Joseph." Therein lies the clue to why he looked so disturbed. The Prime Minister and his senior colleagues have invested their lives in Singapore. He was a young man when he started out, and look at his grey hairs today. He was concerned because if on some small issues the people could react that way, especially the young voters, what is the future of Singapore going to be? If the people of Singapore could elect Opposition Members like the Member for Anson, what kind of future can we have for Singapore? If the people of Bedok could cast 5,000 or 6,000 votes for a man who was medically unfit, what is the future of Singapore?”
“We can thank God that we have achieved tremendous economic success, and the $18 million that was spent on the National Exhibition is well-worth an expenditure to reflect what has been achieved in the last 25 years. So I would say to the Member for Anson that if he wants the voters of Singapore to take him seriously, let him not talk about his airy-fairy ideas of freedom and such like, but let him outline an alternative development programme for Singapore. Let him say to this House what economic policies he ha?. I have never heard a single word about his alternative economic programme for Singapore, either during the elections or during the time that he has spent in this House. But I have heard the consistent use of wild adjectives concerning the loss of personal freedoms in Singapore, violation of fundamental rights of people, criminal neglect of human rights. Mr Speaker, Sir, he has been an MP for the last three and a half years. He repre- sents a small section of Anson, but he speaks as though he represents the voters of Singapore. He wants a more open society, and yet he derides the Government's attempt to set up the new consultative machinery. He says that it would not work and people would not say freely what are on their minds. What does he want? He derides the present Parliament but he has made excellent use of this Parliament to make his wild allegations to some effect, regrettably. And now he has the TV cameras right here in Parliament. What else does he want? I feel very sad, Mr Speaker. I said so during the elections. In countries like America and Europe where there is an Opposition, at least the people know that the Opposition are in for something. They are for the sovereignty of the country, for the defence of the country.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I do so in response to the Member for Anson's amendment, and I reserve my right to speak later on on the main Question. Mr Speaker, Sir, I strongly object to this amendment. If there is any lamentation to be made, it is to be made in respect of this amendment itself and not the President's Speech. Sir, the hon. Member for Anson, in his amendment, states that the Government, through the President has not set out any measures (and I repeat the word "any") any measures for the achievement of a free vibrant participating society. If I may refer to the President's Speech, Mr Speaker, the President stated: 'My Government will seek the participation of our people both the young and the old in these tasks. Everyone has an honoured place in Singapore society. Everyone has a valuable contribution to make. All must participate in the big decisions which will re-shape their lives.' The President has set out six objectives. Among the six objectives is a principal one, regarding the standard of living of Singaporeans - how to improve upon what we have already achieved. Mr Speaker, Sir, as an economist, I have access to a lot of data about developing countries. So many of them, after having achieved political sovereignty, independence, have failed miserably on the economic front. And because they have failed miserably on the economic front, their people live in abject poverty. They have slums for housing. They have to borrow money from abroad. They have to go round begging for economic aid, even their political sovereignty is being questioned. Many of them come under the thumbs of some major power.”
“Sir, I do not know whether there are as many marine institutes issuing certificates as there are universities in the world. I know that the National University of Singapore has perennial problems in deciding which certificates are worthy of the paper and ink they are written upon. So I would imagine that you would also have similar problems in determining the validity of marine certificates. But more crucially, Sir, the question that I would like to raise is whether the exercise is worth while to have these foreign ships register under our flag if (a) they are not employing a sufficient number of Singaporeans, and (b) they take up so much of our time in certification.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been encouraging foreign shipowners to fly the Singapore flag, and I have been concerned with this matter ever since I was on the Estimates Committee quite some time ago. The first question is whether we have the capacity to look into he seaworthiness of these many vessels hat fly our flag. And now, do we have the capacity to certify the worthiness of the seamen who have to man these ships? It is some time since I looked at the figures but I have the distinct impression that (a) a great majority of seamen who manned these ships are foreigners; and (b) the absolute numbers of Singaporean seamen have been on the decline. So I just wonder whether we do have the capacity that I have alluded to.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I suppose the Minister would be aware that there is a danger that a holding company, in its relationship with the new subsidiary, such as this new technology company, might be tempted because of the provisions of this amendment to engage in transfer arrangements, pricing arrangements, to make the new company bear the losses that might otherwise be borne by the holding company and therefore be entitled to the exemption under this provision. Coming back to my original question in point, surely the Minister would also be interested in promoting new companies apart from subsidiaries of present companies.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, just a couple of points for clarification. As the Bill is presented, there seems to be the assumption that the so-called new technology companies have holding companies or parent companies which own them. What about companies which are new ventures altogether? Secondly, there does not seem to be a definition of "new technology" or what "new technology" implies. Clause 46zc(2) simply states: 'Where the Minister is satisfied that the technology, if introduced in Singapore, would promote or enhance the economic or technological development of Singapore, he may approve the company as a technology company and issue a certificate to that company subject to such conditions as he thinks fit.' I suppose that, for the purposes of implementation, he would have to draw up a set of criteria to determine the eligibility of such companies. I just wonder whether he has such a list available for this House right now.”
“I know it is not pensionable. But if the object is to make it equivalent to the CPF contributor, then it should be incorporated for this purpose.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder whether the 13th month payment is taken into account in his computation? It does not appear to be so. Therefore, there appears to be a slight discrepancy because the officer on CPF would have been paid 25% of this 13th month payment into his CPF as well.”
“Round-trip effect. And at the same time the amendment also allows the MAS to accept deposits from Government-owned companies, and there appears to be some concern in the banking circles about this. I think already the Government appears to have intruded into many sectors of the economy, and here is another example that is causing people to be a bit nervous. Finally, Sir, I would like to ask him, what is the policy of MAS in regard to the number of domestic banks in Sin a ore? We have seen some mergers in recent years, the big banks are growing bigger while the smaller ones are disappearing. Is there a conscious policy to produce big banks? And how many of them would be allowed, or whatever other reasons that he may have?”
“So that raises the cost of funds in two ways: (1) because of the reserve requirements, and (2) because of the lack of interest which is payable on those funds. The result has been, since the lifting of exchange of controls, that banks try to circumvent this by swopping Singapore dollars for US dollars, say, buying US dollar spot and at the same time selling US dollar forward; and thereby they are able to offer residence an Asian Dollar Deposit rather than the Singapore Dollar Deposit and at the same time avoid the reserve requirements on Singapore dollars. But by having MAS pay interest on the reserve deposits, this will reduce the cost of our funds to the domestic banking system and hopefully prevent this kind of what you call, round-robin effect.”
“I think there are some loopholes there that need perhaps to be tightened, even if we have a President with the kind of powers that could safeguard or lock-in the reserves that we have. Because the Government of the day could easily borrow abroad, when the bankers look at the reserves, although they are locked up, and you just borrow because you are credit-worthy, then if you default they can go to court; and whether you have got a President in power over those reserves or not, they are going to attack your reserves, attack your assets abroad. So what you have got to do is to do something else. It is to restrict the ability of the Government of the day to spend wildly and to borrow wildly. Without those additional powers, I do not see how that safeguard will be effective enough. The next point I have to raise is in regard to the relationship between the offshore banking and our domestic banking system. Here, in one of the clauses, I see that it is proposed to pay interest on deposits that are placed with the MAS by the banking system. I think there is good reason for this. I do not know whether it is the same reason that the Minister has in mind, but something of the following has been taking place ever since we lifted exchange controls in 1978. This is the so-called swap techniques by the banks to avoid reserve requirements on Singapore dollar-denominated deposits. MAS requires of the domestic banking system that they hold what are called reserve requirements, liquidity requirements, so that they do not run haywire in terms of their lending. But these reserves which are held with the MAS are not paid any interest.”
“If one were to look at the composition of Government expenditure, one sees a very healthy trend in that the proportion of expenditure devoted to development projects has been rising over the years. Now over half the total budget goes to development. This means that we are then spending money not uselessly, not wasting funds away, but these projects will in future provide further productive capacity for the economy. But when one goes to a country like the Philippines and one reads of the President carving a huge stone statue of himself out of a mountain, now half completed because he has not got the foreign exchange to complete it, and one sees all kinds of projects in Manila and Makati, and they say, "Oh, these are the First Lady's projects" and so on and so forth, one goes away shaking one's head because of the sheer waste of expenditure in such countries on prestige projects. I think we can thank God that we do not have such a government in Singapore. Further, people complain about the CPF system. But it is precisely because of the CPF system that (a) we can afford so much economic development; (b) that we can do so without inflation; and (c) we can do so without having to borrow substantial funds abroad. We are also in the fortunate position of borrowing abroad only to establish our credit rating. In other words, if you do not borrow, you do not know how credit-worthy you are assessed to be by the banks. So you just borrow a bit, let them examine your accounts and then show that you are a good credit risk, in case you have to borrow in the future. And here, perhaps I may refer to the Prime Minister's proposed plan to safeguard our reserves in the future.”
“The term referred to is the effective exchange rate, which is the weighted exchange rates of various currencies in that basket that he referred to earlier, and that MAS just intervenes to keep the exchange rate within those limits, and that the money supply will fall out whatever the case may be. But, from the study of past figures, one can identify periods in which this intervention was done in such a way as to cause too easy a money supply situation in Singapore or too tight a money supply in Singapore. One can link up the behaviour of the stock market and the property market to the monetary effects of this MAS intervention in the foreign exchange markets. So I would like to contest that particular point which he made. But having said that, I think what he said in regard to the system that we have in Singapore bears further scrutiny and attention by people in Singapore. Other countries are in deep trouble not because their central banks are foolish, but because their governments are foolish. In the literature one reads about the need to pay attention to money supply, exchange rates as well as fiscal policy, but the key to the whole system is really fiscal policy and the national savings rate. That is why Singapore is in a very good position, with the Singapore dollar appreciating from time to time and MAS is in the easy situation of simply having to prevent our Singapore dollar from rising too high in value. It is because of a very conservative government fiscal policy; overall, the public sector generates a surplus, if one includes all the statutory boards. I would add a further point which he should have highlighted, and that is, the kinds of expenditure undertaken by Government.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am sure all of us can appreciate the masterly lecture on the role of central banks given by the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister, and now I assume it is time for tutorial. So I shall address a number of questions to him. Perhaps he ought to have mentioned that there is one other difference between central banks as they operate elsewhere and the Monetary Authority of Singapore, and that is in regard to the degree of autonomy that central banks normally have. Mr Volcker, for example, does not sit in the Cabinet in America and the Federal Reserve Board in America could, if it chooses fit, tighten the money supply or loosen it unduly. If he were to do so, for example, tighten the money supply unduly before November, Reagan could be thrown out of the next election. Whereas in Singapore the Monetary Authority does not quite have the status of a central bank and the Chairman is a Cabinet Minister and presumably better behaved. The second point I would like to refer to is in regard to what he said about the role of the MAS in regard to money supply and exchange rates. Here, I think, he has analysed the situation very clearly indeed. One does not read in too many places about how the system operates in Singapore. But I do want to take issue with him when he says that MAS does not watch the usual monetary aggregates of M1, M2 or M3. Just because MAS does not sit up to watch these aggregates does not mean that MAS should not watch these aggregates or does not have to watch these aggregates. I put my point to him in the following manner. He says that all MAS has to do is to look at the exchange rate changes within set limit.”
“But there is also a bird's eye view and it is good for the people to know that there is something called the bird's eye view. It is good for Singapore that more people realize this. I mentioned earlier or I asked the question whether we have established the framework, and it is something which is acceptable, widely accepted by the people. What is that basic framework which we need? We ought to agree on what makes for economic viability for Singapore. We ought to agree that we need a strong external defence for Singapore. We ought to agree that we need good internal order and security and if our Opposition parties and those who aspire to come into this Chamber can agree on these basics with us, I would feel more secure about the future of Singapore. Sir, I would like to support the motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister. It is something new, but I think it is something worth trying.”
“The future clearly is in the hands of these people, and we must ask ourselves this question and they too must ask themselves this question. Do they understand what makes Singapore tick? Have we established enough common denominators that people will know what it means to debate within a given national framework without destroying the framework altogether? Are young people prepared to play their part, a constructive role, in community work, in leadership roles, in functional groups and other groups? Can our young people take the pain of sacrificing short-term expediency and interest for the long-term? There is clearly a need for better communication between our leaders and the people. We had the recent experience of the pre-university seminar where the Member for Leng Kee was roundly applauded because he took a stand against the policy for graduate mothers. It showed that our young people are concerned. It showed that they are interested. They have got views to express and they want communication. I have been very glad, Sir, that in the last couple of years, our Ministers have been going around the constituencies in their walkabouts conducting forums with the people. Some of my voters in Whampoa, especially community leaders, still vividly recall the Prime Minister's visit at the time of the Battle for Merger. They remember that he was nearly pushed down the drain somewhere in Whampoa and, as they recount their recollection - it is with affection - the Prime Minister bothered to go down to the ground to meet them and to listen to their problems. So also I see the same effect with the Ministers going down to the ground. The people feel that at least their views are listened to. There is such a thing as a worm's eye view.”
“We have heard a voice that is not constructive, a voice that is concerned with airing the rumours, the frivolous allegations of people in the street and sometimes of his own imagination in this House. There is, in other words, a lot of hot air. Sir, I say this not to put down the Opposition MP. I say this because there is a danger of Parliament degenerating into a circus. If our young people get a mistaken idea that it is fun to be in Parliament because one can just land blows at the Government at will, one can say things against the Prime Minister and the Ministers at will, regardless of the consequences because one cannot be taken to Court for what one says in this Parliament, then there is going to be disrespect for this House. People are not going to take MPs seriously any more. I believe, Sir, that any MP worth his salt must be a leader of public opinion and not a follower of public opinion. And I believe the Government has been successful because it has not shrunk from leadership. A third level of contribution by PAP MPs has been in private meetings with Ministers on Bills of great importance to the people. I do not want to recount all that the Backbenchers have achieved but some recent ones included higher resettlement benefits and ex-gratia payments for such people who are resettled. And in the matter of the increased rentals for HDB shop houses, PAP MPs have been instrumental in getting some moderation of policy from the Minister concerned. I mentioned earlier the CBD scheme where, again, some modification was effected because of the PAP MPs. Sir, I come now to the concern of the Prime Minister about the 60% voters who are below 40 years old.”
“I am glad, Sir, for the 15% rule because I believe that by imposing that rule people know that those with at least 15% of the votes have a chance to get into Parliament and people may not waste their votes on candidates who are not of the right calibre. We can only hope that the Bill will produce the, right candidates, the non-constituency candidates who are being provided for. The Prime Minister kindly mentioned the constructive role of PAP MPs in this Chamber. Perhaps I can elaborate a little bit from my experience. At one level, we have to perform at the constituency level, at the grassroots. We have to be in contact with people on the ground. We have to meet their needs, channel their complaints and their grievances to the right authorities and sometimes we are in the unenviable position of having to defend unpopular Government policies. I believe that all PAP MPs over the past 25 years have tried their best. I know they have. They spend time each week meeting the people. They spend much time meeting community leaders on a regular basis. So there is constant feedback for the Government. At another level, we have the role of PAP MPs within Parliament itself and I am afraid that the mass media, either because of shortage of time or space, have not done justice to the contributions, especially the Backbenchers, of this House. If the Hansard were made more freely available, perhaps the voters might realize what the PAP MPs have been concerned with these last 25 years. There has been no issue that we have not raised. There has been nothing that we have not probed in any aspect of Government policy. But since the entry of the Opposition MP into this Parliament, the scenario here seems to have changed.”
“And the motorists will learn that when the system goes into effect and the vehicles can flow along the roads, people can get to work on time, they will bless the Government for this policy." And it has proven to be right. Now, other countries have come to Singapore to try and learn something from our CBD restriction policy. Singapore is small geographically. It is small in terms of population among the nations of the world. Yet it is not small economically any more. By per capita income or total GNP, it is among the middle ranks of nations, and by per capita income we are edging up towards the ranks of the industrial nations. This is an achievement of no small consequence. Politically, we are of some consequence. The views and the counsel of our Prime Minister and his colleagues are sought after by world leaders. We have managed to establish a climate of confidence here in Singapore because we have political stability. Although the economic textbooks do not mention political stability and a climate of confidence as a sine qua non of success, yet we know in actual practice it is something very important. If one were to make a survey of nations, those with stable governments have had better track records of economic development and social development. What is the basic premise of this Bill? I believe it is this. That the public, having experienced 25 years of PAP MPs, desire to have PAP MPs for reasons which I shall give shortly, but they also want some Opposition voices in Parliament. But the question, Sir, is whether the Bill would encourage more frivolous votes for the Opposition and to what effect. Are we going to reproduce people like the Member for Anson in this House? If one already gives us so many antics, three will give us a circus in this House.”
“And the PAP Government has been concerned with the right policies rather than popular policies. The Bible has a quotation for this. It says, "Righteousness exalts a nation." And in the last 25 years we have seen policies that have transformed an undisciplined society, given to riots, industrial unrest, dirty, filthy, unkempt buildings, into a modern metropolis, something the envy of many other nations. I was privileged to be in my early 20s when this Government took over, and so I have experienced what it was like to have the conditions of the late 5Os and early 60s. I have been privileged to serve in this Parliament for the last 141/2 years and in the process I have seen the formation and implementation of major Government policies. I have seen how National Service, something which was very unpopular and yet which is good for Singapore, has been introduced and finally won favour with the people when they realize not only is it a good thing for Singapore but it is something good for the young men who undergo the discipline of the 2, 3 years' training. I would like to quote one example that I had experience of in this House and, that is, the time when the CBD restrictions on motorists were being introduced. I remember they were extremely unpopular even with Members of this House. We were very agitated. I remember many Members were concerned that the motoring public were very important elements of the voting population of Singapore. We were very concerned what would happen at the next elections. But the Government stood very firm. It knew what it was doing. It said, "This is for the long-term and best interests of Singapore.”
“At minimum, we need a strong Government that dares to do what is right and what is best for Singapore, and I believe over the last 25 years the PAP Government has been doing this. It has been concerned with the long-term interest of Singapore rather than with short-term expediency. It has governed fairly without violating the minority rights and sensitivities. The Opposition Member mentioned that there were restrictions placed upon things said during election rallies. But if he knows the Constitution at all, he will realize that it is out of concern to protect the rights of minorities and the best interests of Singapore that nobody should say anything to inflame racial, religious or linguistic sensitivities.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I start off with the basic premise that a Constitution is not a document to be changed frequently nor frivolously, and therefore if the Government sees it fit to introduce an amendment to the Constitution it is something to be treated with gravity and its objectives are to be examined very carefully. To my mind, the Constitution should provide the framework for the organs of effective government. It should provide safeguards for fundamental human rights. It should assure that the rights of minorities are not trampled upon. The question is: Can our Constitution, any revision to the Constitution or any other Constitution, guarantee what is best for Singapore? I am afraid the Opposition Member here in this Chamber has missed the point of the Bill totally. He is so concerned about building up an opposition. If he had any leadership qualities at all, he should be aiming to take over the Government rather than hoping to be in this Chamber as an Opposition leader. Mr Jeyaretnam: We will. Not to worry.”
“Sir, coming now to the Minister for Labour's proposal, suggesting to withhold the minimum amount to ensure that the aged will have adequate means of support in their old age, I think the critical question here is, what is the minimum? One can define the minimum as to include 80%-90% of the CPF holders, or one can define the critical amount to be a very low amount, in which case most people would have something to withdraw at the age of 55 or 60. The more critical question is whether people have sufficient balances, to begin with. As the figures presented in this Report seem to indicate, my fear is that at the age of 55, most people already do not have enough balances to support an annuity of $200 per month. 6.17 pm”
“In conclusion, Sir, I would support legislation to provide for parents and grandparents, and I would agree with fellow MPs who have asked for increased income tax reliefs and the removal of stipulation of staying with their children or having an income of $1,500 as recommended in the Report. Secondly, I would support legislation to raise the retirement age to 60 with suitable provisions for retraining and with a watchful eye on productivity. Thirdly, I would make a careful study of the available CPF balances on retirement at the age of 60 taking into account home ownership and personal savings to determine whether and how many of our aged will have sufficient means to support themselves in their old age. Fourthly, I would be inclined to be more liberal in providing homes for aged sick and the destitutes. If I may refer to page 37 of the Report, the figures given for the population of homes for the aged appear to be 3,117 on page 36, and in the survey done on the present accommodation for Types A, B and C of the aged in Table 5.1 at page 37 appear to be 3,882. There is nothing stated as to how to reconcile those two figures. Secondly, and more importantly, Table 5.1 seems to be adopted as the norm by the Committee, and the figures or the percentages there are then used for extrapolation in Table 5.2 for the year 2000. I would like to ask the Minister: on what basis is this admissible? My gut feeling is that the present facilities are grossly inadequate, and I would like to see a classification of the figures provided in page 36, paragraph 5.3.2, of the provision for the aged in homes in respect of categories A, B and C, and I think the glaring deficiencies would become obvious.”
“There is a saying, Sir, "if the cap fits." There is a point, Sir, that people wear out faster in the tropics than in temperate countries, and surely we should take note of it and not use 65 as the benchmark. Sir, I come now to the question of filial piety. On page 43, the Examples of Taiwan and Israel are provided. Israeli law is really based on biblical standards. In the book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 5, verse 16, it says: 'Honour your father and your mother as the Lord your God has commanded you. That your days may be tong and that it may be well with you in the land which the Lord your God is giving you.' In other words, if people want to have long life and enjoy good health, they should honour and obey their parents. And in honouring their parents, Proverb 20:20 says: 'Whoever curses his father or his mother, his lamp will be put out in deep darkness.' Proverb 30:17, says: 'The eye that mocks his father and scorns obedience to his mother the ravens of the valley will pick it out and the young eagles will eat it.' The second part of honouring our parents has to do with providing for them, especially in an old age. In 1 Timothy, Chapter 5:8, it says: 'But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.' In turn, Sir, parents are instructed to discipline their children and to train them. Proverb 13:24 says: 'He who spares his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him promptly.' We have a problem here in Singapore, Sir. There is the problem of working parents. There are problems of increasing permissiveness, of exposure to rock music, undesirable culture, problems of abortion, divorces and the latest craze of break-dancing. Some Members seem to be devotees!”
“We need to change attitudes towards ageing in Singapore and to show that it is possible to be vigorous mentally and to be mobile physically. We have some good examples in this House who show us that there is increasing wisdom in some cases and increasing mellowness as their hair greys. However, there are a few who become hard of hearing and remain rather stubborn.”
“Coming now to the question of employment, on page 21 of the Report on Voluntary Employment, the whole discussion here assumes that Singapore will always have full employment or over-full employment. This is a rather heroic assumption in an age when we expect bank failures and world depressions. I rather shudder at the simple extrapolation of the experience of the 1982-83 recession when the retrenchment figures showed that few people above the age of 55 were retrenched. I do not think we can simply extrapolate from this experience. I would support legislation for extension of retirement age to 60. I now come to the question of attitudes towards old age. In the West, people refuse to acknowledge that they are growing old. In fact, many adopt youthful hairstyles and fashions which appear quite ridiculous for them, especially ladies with well-rounded tummies and are suitably ageing. There is something called the cult of youth which infects the ageing population. In oriental societies, Sir, the reverse appears to be the case. People seem to love to declare themselves older than they actually are. The Chinese typically add one or two years above their actual age and those who die have three years added on at their coffins. Why is this so? In oriental societies, age seems to be equated with respect, with honour, and with positions of authority in extended family systems. It also seems to be equated with wisdom, and there is a Chinese saying, "Wo chi yan duo guo ni chi mi" - I have eaten more salt than you have eaten rice. I hope they do not get high blood pressure as a result. The trouble is when one thinks that one is old, one actually becomes old faster. Some young people already have diseases of the aged like arthritis and rheumatism.”
“3 appear to be mis-labelled. It is surely paradoxical if one turns to page 29 that the proportion of people who have already withdrawn CPF savings for housing and who would have enough balances to pay for the annuity is greater than those who have not withdrawn their CPF savings. There is something wrong there with those Tables. I think it should be reversed because one would expect that those who have withdrawn would have less balances available. He is shaking his head. I hope with good reason. Table 3.3 also does not appear to take into account the capital already embodied in the flats and the houses which are purchased. Surely there should be a Table showing the numbers and the percentage of those who have already purchased properties. There are some good proposals on page 30, paragraphs 3.3.5.1 and 3.3.5.2, which would allow people to purchase annuities by exchanging their flats for smaller ones. An additional proposal that I have would be to extend these provisions to those who own houses, and not merely HDB flats. Furthermore, those who already own their flats can in any case rent out one or two rooms. The problem for those who already own flats is not as severe as those who do not own. Furthermore, Sir, there is nothing in the Report about the amount of personal savings that people will have on their retirement. Perhaps a survey should be taken because we are assuming that they have zero savings and they have to rely entirely on their CPF balances. I do suspect that many people do have some nest egg somewhere, and in order to get a compre- hensive picture this personal saving element must be brought into consideration as well as the amount of property which they own.”
“I say this on good economic grounds because we are making loans at very cheap rates to statutory boards and to Government who may not use these funds as efficiently as might be the case if the rate of interest payable by CPF were more reflective of commercial rates of interest. Furthermore, Sir, the annuity calculations in Tables 3.2 and 3.3 assume that the CPF will pay 13% on balances which are kept for purchasing annuities. This is way above the current rate of 6 1/2 or so per cent paid by CPF and certainly way above commercial deposit rates. Yet nowhere in the Report is there any suggestion about how this will be financed. Who will pay for the 13% or the excess above the commercial rate of interest? Tables 3.2 and 3.3 also assume that people retire at 65, in which case the calculation seems to show that a majority of people will have enough balances at age 65 to buy an annuity of $200 per month. Yet the Report notes, and I quote: 'if the retirement withdrawal age is not raised to 65 but remains at 55, the percentage of members aged 54 now who will have sufficient balances will fall drastically to 22.9%.' Thus, Sir, the debate on whether to allow withdrawal at 55 or later surely misses the point. The point is that, as at present, many of those who withdraw at 55 do not appear to have enough to live on even if they manage their funds wisely and nobody has noted this point at all. This problem can only be tackled if the retirement age is raised to 60 and this seems to bean urgent matter. I agree with my fellow MPs that to tinker with CPF balances before the retirement age issue is settled is putting the cart before the horse. This surely is the most compelling reason for raising the retirement age to at least 60. Incidentally, the two columns of Table 3.”
“1, one can see that we have very successfully reduced the Young Dependency Ratio between 1947 and the current year, and this would continue to improve. At the same time, we have obtained an old age dependency problem instead. This really shows us something: that, whereas Government can succeed in birth control programmes, no government can control the structure of the population. If one were to study this Table very carefully, one may also identify an emerging political problem, one that has plagued the governments of the advanced countries. As the proportion of the aged in voting population increases, the pressures and the measures and policies devised to cater to the aged will also increase, particularly in respect of welfare subsidies, and this is something which the Report has failed to grapple with. Furthermore, Sir, surely the dependency problem would be greater if the cut-off point for the aged is 60 rather than 65 and, even worse, if it is 55 and yet the Report has nothing to say about this. Next, Sir, in the calculation of the annuities, the amounts which are deemed to be necessary to support people at a minimum standard of living assume an inflation rate of only 5%. I feel that this would be very inadequate, especially when we are living in an age of tremendous inflation. In fact, I am concerned for those of us who still have balances in our CPF that, by the time we withdraw them, the inflation would already have eroded much of what we have inside, especially at the meagre rate of interest that is being paid out on CPF balances at the moment. Sir, I have argued before, and this is something which I hope the Government will pay attention to, that we should pay a higher rate of interest on CPF balances.”