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 13 of 26.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, since last Friday we have listened to many wise comments on the Howe Report, from ageing and problem-creating Members of this House. It is also surely a tribute to my fellow PAP MPs that they have expressed their feelings of the people so well in this House. However, if the past policies of the Government are any guide, Government Ministers are more doggedly concerned with the question of what are the right policies rather than what are the popular policies, and the problem is then for us to help persuade the people to accept policies which are good for them. Sir, the CPF withdrawal age has unfortunately generated so much heat that we may fail to focus on the nature of the problems of the aged and to identify alternative policies. Taken as a whole, the Report has much to commend it. In fact, there are some very imaginative proposals. It has looked into almost every facet of the problem of the aged. I use the word "almost" quite deliberately because there are a few serious omissions in the Report. The conventional United Nations classification defines "aged people" as those above 65, and this has been used throughout the Report. This may be appropriate for the Western countries where for many years retirement age has already been 65. The irony is that the financial measures and other measures being proposed cover the crucial transition age of between 55 and 65. Already the data presented on the aged above 65 show alarming trends. The dependency ratio, as has been pointed out, will drop from 14.5 working persons to 1 aged person in 1980 to 9.8:1 by the year 2000, and 3.2:1 by the year 2030. On page 10, Table 1.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, is it in order for any Member of this House to question the competence of our courts?”
“And by allowing the CPF rates to be more in line with commercial rates of interest, Government departments, statutory boards, HDB and others which borrow these funds through the Government via the CPF would be forced to use their funds much more efficiently. So from a social point of view, it is desirable that we pay the commercial rate of interest so that nobody subsidizes somebody else. I may throw the very principle of the Government itself back at the Minister, that we do not believe in subsidy as much as we want an efficient system to operate. I suspect that there is a lot of wastage of capital because, through the CPF scheme and the unduly low rate of interest paid on CPF balances, a lot of projects are undertaken which are not quite as efficient as they might be.”
“Sir, I would like to react to the comments by the Minister on the interest that the CPF pays to its depositors. I do agree with him that the HDB home owners benefit tremendously from the low prices of flats and also from the 6 1/4% interest that is payable on the loans given to them. In fact, this is quite unheard of in the world to have a rate of interest as low as 6 1/4% for 20 to 25 years. To get a fixed interest loan nowadays is impossible to get anywhere, even less at 6 1/4%. If one has to get a commercial loan, one would have to pay 10% to 11% or so, and this interest rate would be adjusted from time to time. Having agreed with him on this, I must still get back to my original point. Referring to the table which was presented by him to this House yesterday, comparing the tax-adjusted average 12-month deposit rate of commercial banks with the rate that CPF pays its depositors, he made the claim that for most years the CPF interest rate was in excess of this deposit rate. I pointed out that this was because he adjusted for taxes, and I was not sure which category of taxpayers he was referring to. The adjustment looks quite substantial. So I would assume that his remarks were pertinent or relevant only for middle and higher income groups, because the lower income groups certainly do not benefit as much as he says they benefit. In fact, I would believe that the commercial rate of interest will be higher than the CPF rate of interest for most years for these categories. Why did I make my proposal on increasing the rate of interest payable by CPF? It is a very simple economic proposition, and that is this. When we make loans too cheaply at very low rates of interest, there is inefficient use of capital.”
“We have been informed in this House that there are something like 150,000 work permit holders and from time to time, as a Member of Parliament, I do get problems brought to my attention by a Singaporean who desires to marry a foreigner who is on a work permit and permission is denied to the person. He or she is in tears but there seems to be nothing that can be done to help the couple to get married because of various restrictions. I do advise them to marry Singaporeans. In fact, my question is: What is wrong with Singaporeans? Why must you marry a foreigner? But then love transcends national boundaries and so there are problems created. I would like to hear from the Minister on this subject.”
“So may I offer a few comments on that table. Firstly, on the positive side, one should add that CPF savings are completely tax-exempt and those of us who are paying into our CPF accounts realize that Government has been quite generous in this regard. Furthermore, CPF savings and balances are also exempt from estate duty if they are less than $500,000 and the CPF interest which is paid is also tax-exempt. Having said this, I do have a few points to draw the attention of the Minister to. Firstly, the tax-adjusted average 12-month deposit rate of commercial bank. I do not know what tax bracket he is using. Maybe he mentioned it but I failed to catch it. After the adjustment, it does appear that for most years the CPF interest rate is higher than what people would get commercially. But, on the other hand, there are a lot of small CPF savers who pay little or no income tax. Making this comparison really does not benefit them at all. I would like to urge the Minister to consider perhaps paying a higher rate of interest for small savers or allowing everybody's balances of, say, up to $50,000 or $100,000 to be paid a higher rate of interest and then a lower rate of interest for subsequent amounts in the CPF. This would make up for the distortions caused by tax rates. In other words, the point is small savers do not benefit from the tax exemption. Small savers do not have to pay taxes on the rate of interest which they earn on commercial deposits. I would like to urge that perhaps a higher rate of interest be paid for small savings. A third area that I would like to comment on concerns the number of Singaporeans who from time to time desire to marry foreigners, especially work permit holders.”
“Sir, on 10th March this year it was reported in our newspapers that the Central Provident Fund has relaxed some of its conditions under the Approved Residential Properties Scheme. I am sure all of us welcome the relaxation of these rules in order to facilitate the purchase and the improvements in terms of the homes that people can buy using the CPF savings. I have a suggestion to make for the attention of the Minister for Labour in this regard. Up to this point, those who wish to make use of their CPF balances to buy private residential properties are allowed to make use of only up to 90% of what is available in their Ordinary Account, subject to an overall limit of 80% of the assessed valuation of the house. Sir, these two conditions appear rather onerous. In the first place, typically the assessed valuation of a property is less than the actual market price paid for it. In some cases, it may be 10-15% less. If you impose this 80% rule it means that the purchaser would have to be responsible for at least 30-35% of the amount of money involved in the actual purchase. Furthermore, for purchases of HDB and HUDC properties, the buyers are allowed to withdraw the total sum available in the Ordinary Account. I would like to urge the Minister to relax the 90% ruling because when we deal with sums in excess of, say, $100,000 or $200,000 balance in the CPF, leaving 10% of this in the Ordinary Account is quite a large sum of money and it would help those purchasers of private properties who use their CPF balances considerably if this ruling could be relaxed. Next, may I turn to the table that the Minister circulated earlier on during Question time. By the time I got hold of it I could not get up to speak because the moment had passed.”
“(3) That the sum to be allocated for Head I be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead IA-02 of the Development Estimates.”
“I hope he will give due consideration because there are still plenty of cars that have got punctures or vehicles' tyres get blown up or they break down for some other reason. Anyway, Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendments stood on the Order Paper Supplement -”
“Sir, I welcome this comprehensive review of the road transport system mentioned by the Minister, Maybe I would just like to add one more suggestion which I forgot just now and, that is, that from time to time vehicles break down on our roads and even on our expressways. And one Minister mentioned the other day that all it takes is one vehicle to break down in one lane for a huge traffic jam to build up. Could we not impose hefty fines on any vehicle that breaks down on the road, and the bigger the vehicle the bigger the fine?”
“We are also looking at car parks -the provision of car parks, the pricing of car parks in such a way that we distribute evenly the population of cars and vehicles such that we do not create undue congestions at certain specific locations. And we are also, of course, looking at the management of vehicle population in toto.”
“What we need is a comprehensive approach to the total problem and this is what my Ministry is currently doing. Sir, on 3rd March, 1984 - many of us may still remember - we had one of the worst traffic jams in Singapore in recent years. This was the result of floods and seven major roads were closed. This is a preview given by nature to us of what can happen in Singapore if we do not restrain the number of cars coming on to our roads. If we add 20%, or slightly more, of vehicles on to the roads, the situation that we saw on the morning of Saturday, 3rd March, may be a daily occurrence and this is what we, as a nation, as a people, must work towards preventing it. Sir, the Member has a number of suggestions which I would like to bring back for my Ministry to consider and to, add to the very long list that we already have. There is the suggestion of letting the market decide on the price and road tax of a car. Being an economist, I am sure he has thought this matter through and we would like to consider that point in the light of all other factors that are already being considered. Currently, we are looking at the problem from at least four different angles. Firstly, we are looking at how to improve public transportation - how to improve the bus service, the taxi service, private buses and eventually with the coming of the MRT how it can dovetail into all the other public transportation systems currently available. We are also looking into traffic management - whether there are more bus lanes that we can draw to permit the buses which carry the bulk of our people to travel a little faster, a little more conveniently. We are also looking into possibilities of computerizing more and more of the traffic junctions that we already have.”
“This, of course, would raise the prices of scrapped cars but then the market would take care of itself and no one then would point an accusing finger at the Government that the Government is just greedy for revenue and unduly penalizing motorists. The Acting Minister for Communications (Dr Yeo Ning Hong): Sir, let me thank the Member for Whampoa for his very many points. My Ministry has over the past few months been round to the various community groups and community leaders as well as Members of Parliament to discuss this matter of road transportation with as wide a spectrum of people in Singapore as possible. We have received a lot of suggestions from community leaders, CCC members, Members of Parliament, people from community centres, Residents Committees and the lot. I want to take this opportunity of thanking them again for the very many suggestions that they have come forward with. My Ministry has set up a committee to look into the whole problem of (and transportation. As the Member for Whampoa has rightly pointed out, we need to restrict the number of cars. We have a limited amount of land. We need to reserve land for building flats, for our children and for our children's children. There is that much that we can do, given a fixed amount of roads. My Ministry has given a lot of data to members of the public over the last three months demonstrating how intensively we are using the roads that we already have. We have also provided data to show that as a country we have the largest amount of road relative to the amount of land available for the population. Sir, it is not worthwhile looking at individual suggestions as and when they appear because that would not provide us with the son of solution that we need.”
“The question is: Has this programme resulted in more older vehicles being kept on the road that might have been the case otherwise? The previous policy was to tax older cars, i.e. cars above 10 years old. There was a surcharge on the road tax each year and I thought that had a deterrent effect on the older vehicles. The seventh point. People who could not afford to buy cars began to buy vehicles like panel vans and goods vehicles but again there was a move recently to try and restrict the purchase of panel vans. The eighth point. This has been voiced in the papers. There appears to be no restriction whatsoever on finance companies on the loans to purchase motor vehicles. I am not persuaded by the answers given by the Ministry in this regard to the effect that there is a substitution effect - that if you do not allow the loans on motor cars, they will take up loans on TVs and other home appliances and then save up their money to buy motor cars. I think home appliances do not cost a tenth or even a hundredth as much as motor vehicles. So I do not think that argument holds. I would like to propose to the Minister that as long as people in Singapore recognize that there is a need to restrict the number of motor vehicles in Singapore then the price they should pay for each car, inclusive of taxes, must be rising over the years. But then why does the Government take the blame on itself by raising the car taxes from time to time? Why not do it this way? Why not fix an absolute maximum number of vehicles and say that beyond this number, every new vehicle would have to have one old vehicle scrapped in order for it to be put on the road.”
“This is a letter which appeared in the Singapore Monitor on 9th November, 1983, and I quote: The acceleration in the car population during the last four years was because we did not increase ARF and road taxes to maintain the real cost of owning and maintaining motor cars relative to the growing disposable income of our population.' What is quite clear is that there appears to be a race between higher taxes and the number of vehicles that appear on our roads. I would like to point to a number of observations that might help to determine the nature of this problem. First of all, there appears to be little difference now between the price that one pays for a motor vehicle, whether one uses the PARF concession or one pays the full ARF price. So the PARF scheme appears to no longer have a restrictive effect as originally intended. Members might know that the PARF scheme requires a motorist to get rid of one old vehicle in order to purchase a new one. Secondly, people who cannot afford higher capacity cars have been switching to lower capacity cars and we certainly have witnessed this in terms of the number of smaller capacity cars on the road. Thirdly, people who cannot afford new cars have been buying second-hand cars and that is one explanation why the number of cars on the roads has been increasing. Fourthly, people have been buying second-hand company regis- tered cars until this was stopped recently. That appeared to be another loophole that had to be dealt with. Fifthly, Government departments and statutory boards encourage officers to buy cars with generous loans at 5% rate of interest. The sixth observation is that we have had the vehicle inspection programme now for some time.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head I be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead IA-01 Object Group 1100 of the Main Estimates. Sir, from time to time motorists in Singapore find themselves with higher road and vehicle registration taxes and people are blaming the Government for being greedy, for wanting more revenue. Indeed if one were to look at the 1984 revenue estimates for road taxes, special tax on heavy oil engine and ad valorem registration fees, we find a projection of $840.6 million to be collected this year. Against this very enormous amount of revenue, the actual expenditure on the road programme as budgeted by the Ministry of National Development for this year totals only $292 million. One could add the $9.7 million to be spent by the Land Transport programme of the Ministry of Communications. But what is obvious from these figures is that the revenue is far in excess of the actual expenditure on roads and the facilities to enable vehicles to travel safely. The question is: Is the Government using the taxes on vehicles as a revenue-raising device, or is it to restrict the num- ber of vehicles on the road? If the first is the objective, then the Government would appear to be eminently successful and also eminently successful in getting motorists to be angry. If the second objective is the real one, then the Ministry appears to be less successful than it would wish or that it intended. I say this not without any grounds. In fact, I can quote from a letter written by Mr Han Fook Kwang, representing the Permanent Secretary (Communications).”
“(8) That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead NF-01 Object Group 1210 of the Main Estimates. The sum of $2,841,823,290 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $1,568,933,700 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head W -”
“(6) That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead NE-01 Object Group 1210 of the Main Estimates. (7) That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead NE-03 of the Development Estimates.”
“(i) That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead NA-01 Object Group 1100 of the Main Estimates.”
“(1) 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. The Chairman: Amendment No. (1), Dr Tan is not here. Amendment No. (2), Dr Lau.”
“The reason for this, I understand, is that HDB has been building new three-room flats only for sale and that even the old three-room flats have been increasingly put up for sale because of the tremendous demand, especially by sitting tenants who reckon that they can get a good bargain by buying the older flats that they are staying in. All these are, of course, to their good. However, there are people who are caught in a particular dilemma because they need bigger space for their families but they do not have the 20% downpayment in their CPF or they may have no CPF at all and so they are not able to purchase HDB flats. Would it be possible for the Housing Board to give special consideration to these people by allowing them a smaller percentage, maybe 5% or 10% downpayment instead of 20%? I believe this will enable many such people to get on to the list for purchase flats.”
“Sir,.first, may I add my congratulations to the HDB for its tremendous success in its housing programme and also for its very efficient management of housing estates. I think it is no mean task indeed to manage so many units so successfully without creating slums in the process. I have a little puzzle for the Minister to solve. In his Budget Statement, the Minister for Finance mentioned that the HDB expects to complete another 48,000 units of flats this coming year, 1984. When I read the Memorandum on the Budget for the Financial Year 1984-85, on page 32 it is stated there that HDB expects to complete some 64,800 units in financial year 1984. I hope, of course, that the second figure is the correct figure but then somebody gave misinformation to the Finance Minister. Secondly, I would like to ask the Minister what plans the HDB has for redevelopment of St. Michael's Estate which forms part of Whampoa Constituency. Recently the HDB demolished some units of emergency one-room flats which needed to be demolished, and I understand that some new blocks of flats will be built there. But some other residents have become concerned that their units might also be slated for redevelopment, in particular, those who live in the terrace houses of St. Michael's Estate. Perhaps the Minister has some information at this stage to inform this House. Thirdly, Sir, there are many people who are waiting to rent three-room flats and they have been told that they have to wait a few years - I think six or seven years.”
“(4) That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead PC-01 Project 8301 of the Development Estimates.”
“Sir, it was precisely because I was considering his after-life that I want him to make a stand right now. I was trying to help him but since he refuses to be helped, reluctantly I withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“You have got to make a stand. You have got to be counted.”
“Sir, the feelings of the Minister are important to me in this respect. Does he support this Abortion Act?”
“Sir, when the Bill was brought before this House and subsequently amended, the initiator was the Minister for Health. So why is he backing out of this responsibility now?”
“Sir, there was a man called Pontius Pilate. When he sentenced Jesus Christ, the son of God, to death on the cross, he called for a basin of water and he said, "I am washing my hands. I am innocent of this man's blood." The Hon. Minister is part of the Government. I am not. And as a Backbencher, I voiced my opposition to this terrible measure of the Abortion Act. I would like to appeal to him to lend his support to get this legislation amended, restricted. I would like to get his support to get the public conscious of the fact that they should not use this terrible means of contraception. Is he prepared to step forward and help me in this campaign? 7.30 pm”
“Can we not do something to persuade people to stop this dastardly method of family planning? And can we not tighten the law? Why can we not admit the mistake, a ghastly mistake that has cost 150,000 lives over these last 14 years? I appeal to the conscience of the Minister and the conscience of the entire Government of Singapore about this matter.”
“And earlier today we were informed that we have issued exactly 150,000 work permits. The Government is very concerned today that we are not producing enough brains in Singapore. I would like to pose a couple of questions to the Minister. How many graduate mothers over the years have had at least one abortion? How many of these unborn babies would have made it to university? One need only to apply the national average to find that a significant number would have done so. How many of these 150,000 unborn babies would have been gifted children? Again, if 100 per year is the norm, then 100 times 14 years gives you 1,400 gifted babies, just on the basis of simple extrapolation. Sir, I am concerned that we have made it so easy for people just to abort these unborn babies and we do not seem to care about the consequences. We have all kinds of campaigns in Singapore. Why can we not have a campaign to discourage abortions? Why can we not do it? If we are really serious about moral education, if we care about the quality of life in Singapore, we should do something about this. It is a crime against humanity. If a woman and her husband or her boyfriend can together connive with the doctor and a nurse to kill this unborn babe in the womb, what value would they put on life? I asked the question last year and I will keep on asking until it gets deep down into the conscience of the Minister and the Government that they do something about it. Is a foetus a piece of meat, an animal, a vegetable or a human being? It is part of you and I, part of the father and part of the mother. I have got nothing against family planning. I have got nothing against contraception. I have got nothing against even sterilization.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead PA-01 Object Group 1100 of the Main Estimates. Sir, I note from the Budget Estimates that the Singapore Family Planning Board will be allocated a Government grant of $3.5 million this year and that it spent $3.3 million last year. As I look at the Report of the Singapore Family Planning Board, the latest of which is the 1982 Report submitted sometime last year, I find that in 1960 we produced 61,775 babies in Singapore. But by 1982, live births were only 42,654. If one were to compare just these two figures, one might come to the conclusion that we have achieved family planning in a way that we set out to do. 7.20 pm [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] But as I look at the figures in greater detail, I begin to ask myself, what is the main means of contraception? What is the one measure that has achieved this tremendous reduction in the number of live births? Sir, I would like to present these figures for your consideration to see whether you would agree with me. In 1982, I found from the Singapore Family Planning Board that the number of abortions was 15,548. The number of menstrual regulation cases was 3,562, adding up to a total of 19,110, If we were to add this 19,110 to the number of live births in 1982, we arrive at the figure of 61,764, which is about the number of live births that we had way back in 1960. Can we then conclude that abortion has become the means of contraception in Singapore? Further, Sir, I have been keeping track of the number of abortions each year and I find that by the end of last year, if one were to extrapolate from the figures of 1982, we have aborted between the years 1970 and the end of last year, 150,000 babies, unborn foetuses.”
“Sir, I thank the Hon. Minister for his reply and I am glad to note that the indicators show a big improvement in this area which is of vital concern to our people, especially to our youths. My concern is for the future, whether this trend will somehow be reversed especially with changing values of our young people. I am particularly concerned with what I call the birth control and the abortion generation, birth control starting from the time when we really pushed the birth control programme in Singapore in the early 60s. The abortion generation came in 1970 onwards because 1970 was the year the Bill was passed in this House. Sir, I mention these two points in time because I feel that our family planning programme together With the rising affluence has resulted in small families where children being one or two only in the family, they get rather spoilt by their parents, get shunted on to TV, on to nannies and relatives, have too much pocket money, perhaps even time on their hands. We see many of these young people at coffee houses drinking beer and so on and so forth. I even hear reports of young girls picking up money as prostitutes. Even some college girls are being prostitutes and so on to earn extra money or for the fun of it. These trends have been in existence in the advanced countries. The question is, as we progress into an advanced country, whether we would catch up with some of these undesirable trends. I wonder whether the Minister has indicators of some kind to show to this House.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I accept that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $40,957,310 for Head S ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $35,248,100 for Head S ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head Q -”
“The second point that I wish to raise - and this is related to the first - has to do with Government activity in terms of the acquisition and sales of land in Singapore. We know that Government has done a tremendous amount in terms of the physical development of Singapore and no one can deny the progress which has been made. No one can deny the additions to the amount of land by way of reclamation. It is very substantial, in excess of 10% of the total land area, I understand. But at the same time, as an economist, I do have a sneaking suspicion that Government activities by way of acquisitions and sales of land have somehow introduced an imbalance into the total demand-supply situation in respect of lands and properties in Singapore. I would, of course, like to have details of such acquisitions and sales of land by type for the last 20 years but I do understand that this would take quite a prodigious effort. So if the Minister is not able to assemble the data readily, I would be happy to file a question sometime in the future. Furthermore, Sir, we seem to have different types of land tenure systems in Singapore-freehold, 999 and 99. I do not know but there may be others. But I would like to ask him what are the criteria for the issue of the different types of land tenure and what is the current Government policy. Is it to issue any more freehold land, 999 land or simply 99 years' land? Furthermore, what is the intention of the Government once the 99-year lease is up for HDB flats or for any other type of property? Does Government simply acquire back these properties or would Government re-offer these properties for sale at some future date? I would let the Hon. Minister reply first.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head S be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead SA-01 Object Group 1100 of the Main Estimates. Sir, last year, under a similar threat to cut $10 from the Ministry of Law, the Minister for Law supplied some information that I requested in respect of the issue of permits to foreigners to own landed residential property in Singapore, I have put the information given to me to good use. But to refresh the memory of this House, the Minister informed us last year that from 1973 to 1982, a total of 2,585 approvals were given for both persons and companies to purchase landed property in Singapore. I then expressed considerable alarm at the situation in view of the fact that we have been building so few bungalows, semi-detached houses and terraces in Singapore. My alarm was worsened as I look at the latest Year Book of Statistics which gives me data up to 1982. Last year when I spoke in this House I had data up to 1981. The figures for 1982 in respect of the number of units of buildings commenced for bungalows were only 131, semi-detached houses 169, terraces 256. If one were to compare, say, the figure for bungalows of 131 as against the issue of permits in 1982 of 290 for all kinds of property, probably mostly bungalows and semi-detached houses, one can see that a tremendous imbalance has been created. However, Sir, last year when I pressed my point of view the Minister for Law was gracious enough to say that he would tighten the criteria for approvals in future. Part of my purpose in moving this amendment this year is to find out whether the Minister has been well behaved in the past year, as he promised.”
“Okay. I just needed to clarify this, Sir.”
“Okay, in that case, then why have the graduate parents produce more?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister misunderstood me. I was not advocating large families for the sake of large families to produce gifted children. I was saying that if one could identify the first child or the second child as gifted children, then we could prevail upon the parents to produce more rather than sterilizing them altogether. An hon. Member: Family planning.”
“Sorry, 29, Is there not something that we can do? In other words, if we can identify gifted children at a very young age, let us say at the age of seven or so, then we can prevail upon their parents to have some more children. That is my whole point. But if they stop at two, they get themselves sterilized after two kids, by the time you identify that these are bright kids, they are lost forever. Later I will raise a query again on the abortion programme, that the abortion programme has destroyed many gifted children.”
“And if ECA is one reason, then maybe something ought to be done there. Finally, Sir, on the gifted children programme. The Minister's figures confirm what I suspected, that if 71 out of 100 children came from parents who are non-graduates, that is a big number - 71 out of 100, 71% of the total - and yet all our efforts are geared towards the 19 children who come from parents, one of whom maybe a graduate - An hon. Member: 29.”
“Sir, on the reply by the Minister about the school textbook programme, he mentioned that there was under-spending last year. Therefore, he feels free to cut back on the budget. But as I listened to the criteria which he listed, especially on income, the criteria seem to be rather stringent. I gather that only those who come from families earning less than $350 per month will qualify. We live in an age where many workers earn much more than this, if one were to take gross income rather than net income. So I submit to him that the criteria are unrealistic and need to be updated. Otherwise next year or this year he will find that he will continue to under-spend. In regard to bursaries for primary school, it is not only with respect to the payment of fees that bursaries are necessary, Sir. Children, who come from poor families; they need pocket money; they need bus fare. Therefore, I feel that supplements by way of bursaries would be necessary and helpful to children from poor families. I hope he would consider this for next year's budget. Again, on school tuck shops, I suspect, as with the Ministry of the Environment which I will take up later, the criteria for hawkers and school tuck shop stallholders are the same. Those who qualify under the hardship criteria are few and I feel the need for revision in the light of current incomes. With respect to school teachers, perhaps the Ministry might want to do a survey to find out why men do not want to become teachers. I understand the market is such that it is so good that there are many job opportunities available. But if it is true that their salaries are competitive with the private sector, then there must be something which prevent the men from becoming teachers.”
“Or they seem to produce more. All right. Cannot please the man! They seem to produce more. But in terms of absolute numbers or proportionately, I am not so sure he is right. So the poorer educated parents may produce proportionately less gifted children but they are the majority. And if they produce a few thousand gifted children and the graduates are so few, if they have a high proportion of gifted children, the absolute numbers are still very small. Can we not do something about this? I think he should think of some answer. The final problem I have concerns the question whether there has been any increase in suicides, psychiatric disorders, after the implementation of the Goh Keng Swee Report.”
“I had a complaint from a male teacher who left the service because he felt that he was forced to do some ECA for which he had no inclination. I think it had to do with some physical activity for which he is not particularly geared. Fifthly, Sir, I would like to ask whether the Ministry is doing anything or some- thing about gifted children from parents who are less well educated. Is there some means of identifying these gifted children early so that before the parents get themselves sterilized they could be suitably induced by tax incentives or some other priority schemes to produce more? And further whether or not some supplement to their diet can be given or special allowances to make sure that there is no brain damage by way of malnutrition? [Laughter]. I do not say this lightly, Sir, though Members are laughing because statistics can be presented to suit one's convenience. The First Deputy Prime Minister yesterday quoted some figures to show that the gifted children come overwhelmingly from graduate mothers. The First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education (Dr Goh Keng Swee): They produce more.”
“Sir, there are a number of queries I have for the Minister of Education. First, Sir, I notice that the provision for free textbooks and stationery for pupils in the primary schools has been reduced from $50,000 last year to $35,000 this year. I would like to ask why this is so. Secondly, there are no bursaries given at all for primary school students. Thirdly, there seems to be a decline in the provision for bursaries for pre-university students from $400,000 last year to $323,000 this year. The second subject that I need clarification about is the criteria for the allocation of school tuckshop stalls. The third question I have relates to the proportion of female teachers. For 1982 in the Year Book of Statistics, it is shown that for primary schools, out of a total of 10,687 teachers, 7,188 were female. And for secondary schools and junior colleges, out of 9,743 teachers, 5,597 were female. And the figures are likely to get worse in the years ahead if one looks at the data presented by the Institute of Education in its annual report. The graduates that were produced in the 1982-83 session totalled 725, of which 593 were females, a ratio of more than 4 : 1. For the total student population of the IE, out of a total of 4,683, 3,489 are females, a ratio of more than 3 : 1. I am concerned, Sir, about this because I do not know what the psychological impact would be to have our schools overwhelmingly run or dominated by female teachers. I would have thought that the father figure is necessary as part of the education process. The fourth area that I seek clarification about concerns extracurricular activities, particularly for male teachers.”
“Supplementary question, Mr Speaker, Sir. Is it not true that many Housing Board dwellers who have bought their flats are able to rent out one or two rooms, especially those who live in four-room and five-room flats? Therefore, they can derive quits an income from the rental.”
“We just grab whatever we can. But we do not build up the reputation of Singapore and it is important to do so if we want to carve a permanent niche for ourselves in the world economy. I agree with the Minister that there is an over-hang given by the debt problem of developing countries of US$810 billion. Nobody knows when that balloon will burst. I do not think it is going to be this year because it is election year in America. So I think things will be quite rosy this year. There is enough momentum. So I believe 1984 will be a better year than 1983 for us. I think inflation will creep up somewhat, maybe interest rates, towards the end of the year. But it is beyond next year or beyond this year that the problems lie because then the problems of inflation, debts and so on will come to roost within two to five years. We have got to face the music. Finally, Sir, I was talking with a businessman and he mentioned that Singapore is not really well-known in America and, I believe, in Europe too. Hong Kong has a higher profile than we do. I believe that maybe we can do something to shore this up. People still get letters addressed as "Singapore, Republic of China." I believe that a little public relations campaign will help. 6.35 pm”
“I for one do not see why gamblers should have more right of way compared to non-gamblers. By way of conclusion, Sir, the Minister is right when he says that the real way to combat protectionism in the advanced countries is to raise our productivity levels here in Singapore. But there are two other dimensions which I would like to draw his attention to. One is the quality dimension. I am afraid that as we look at Singapore goods, services and buildings, we find that the quality is somewhat wanting. I am sure you will agree with me as you look around. We can do something and we must do something about it. It will affect our competitiveness abroad because if we want to reach out to markets which are more durable, markets which are less prone to protectionism, then we must be able to compete on the level of quality. The second point is that Singaporeans tend to have a very short mentality, a very short horizon - a get-rich-quick mentality. In whatever area that you look at in Singapore, this is true. People do not invest in goodwill. People do not invest in the long-term and that is bad for us.”
“One each. I have another point on the relief for parents and grandparents which I raised sometime last year in this Parliament but the former Finance Minister told me it was inappropriate at that time, and I would like to bring this to the attention of the Minister. We are allowing relief of $1,500 a year to a taxpayer for maintaining a grandparent, a parent or a great grandparent who is living with him. But there are two conditions which are rather onerous. First, the parent or grandparent concerned has to live with the taxpayer. Secondly, he or she has to have an income of not more than $1,500 per year. I believe that many retired people would have $15,000 to $20,000 in the bank and the interest on this would give a sum of $1,500 or more. Therefore, if people are honest, not many would be able to benefit from this particular provision. So I urge the Minister to do two things. One, to be more generous with this relief because of the old-age problem that is looming on our horizon for Singapore and, secondly, to remove those two onerous conditions. Perhaps a third one would be to allow relief even in cases where the parent or grandparent does not live with their children because it is not practical to do so. On the tax increases, last year, Sir, I provoked the wrath of some smokers and drunkards when I commented on tax increases then. This year I do not propose to add to their increased tax burden by adding to their burden of guilt. In other words, there is no increase in the moral tax this year. However, Sir, I do wish somebody could resite the Turf Club to an obscure corner of Singapore. If I had my way, I would abolish it. Many non-gamblers, like myself, are regularly inconvenienced by the traffic jams generated by the gamblers.”
“These are traditional values we should keep. I may be called a male chauvinist something or other, but I do not care. I want women who are mothers. I want women who are home-makers. I want women who will transmit the right values to their children. An hon. Member: How many?”
“Here I find myself with a problem. While I agree that we should encourage people to produce more gifted children, at the same time I feel that too many Singapore mothers are neglecting their children and therein lies the problem for our future generation. When children are farmed out to nannies and to grandparents, I think they feel a lot of rejection, a lot of hun. They transfer their affection to their grandparents, even to their nannies. They acquire the values of their nannies and their grandparents. I have had occasion to counsel some parents who have got problem children. One of them came with a child, five years old, and said to me, "My daughter is telling lies." So I said, "Is your nanny a liar?" She said, "Yes." Of course, if your servant or your nanny is a liar, your child will be a liar. If your nanny speaks broken English, your child will speak broken English. There are no two ways about it. The mother is the person who is supposed to transmit values and attitudes to the children, and I believe that in our over-eagerness to get an extra percent or so of economic growth, we are really mortgaging our future in this regard. I would urge the Minister to think of a more imaginative scheme to allow our women to withdraw from the labour force for a few years while they bear and nurture their children. This is fundamental for the good of Singapore, for the future of Singapore. Our homes in Singapore are not really homes. It takes a woman to make a home. But when the woman goes out to work and both parents come back tired, there is no proper home. Many men are married to hawkers or hawker centres rather than to women or wives because their wives do not cook for them. Many women in Singapore, especially those with tertiary education, despise cooking and housework.”