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 17 of 26.
“Sir, I thank the Minister for his clarification. But has he not considered the possibility of a typographical error?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just ask a few questions of the Minister? First of all, in respect of the definition of "research and development", my comments which I made earlier on the Income Tax (Amendment No. 2) Bill apply here, namely, that they are exclusively limited to the manufacturing sector. Secondly, Sir, under clause 3, the proposed amendment as stated would seem to imply that two out of the three conditions laid down there must apply. Sir, I am not a legal man and so I do not know the legal implication of a semi-colon, whether the semi-colon denotes and or or. As I read it, Sir, from the (a), (b) and (c) conditions which are laid down, it would seem to me that either the company has satisfied conditions (a) and (b) or (a) and (c) because if the intention were otherwise, there should have been an "or" after the semi-colon appearing at the end of the condition (a). Then it would be quite clear that one of the three conditions applies. The way it is set out, it would seem to me that the company has to manufacture and has to provide specialised engineering or technical services or else has to manufacture and carry out research and development. I am sure that is not the intention of the Minister or the drafters of the Bill. Thirdly, Sir, I would like to seek clarification from him as to his definition technical services" because nowhere in this Bill is that provided for. I am not sure whether a similar definition appears in the Income Tax Act. If not, maybe he would want to insert a proper definition. Finally, Sir, he seems to have left out economic and management services altogether. It would seem to me that these services are very important in the development of Singapore, especially the manufacturing sector which he is trying to encourage.”
“Sir, I would like to thank the Hon. Minister for clarifying the questions I have raised, although I am not entirely satisfied with some of the answers. May I just point to one of the replies which he gave in respect of clause 9, especially the four conditions which are required of an organization to qualify for the special incentives for research and development. If we look at paragraph (b) of clause 9, it says: 'he has installed [that means the manufacturer must have installed] any equipment or device for the purpose of preventing, controlling or reducing air pollution or water pollution;'. What is the position if a manufacturing industry is a non-pollutive industry and therefore has no anti-pollution equipment? How would it fit into the scheme of things?”
“Sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) say: '(i) on or after 1st January, 1965, on the provision of machinery or plant for the purposes of that indus- trial enterprise; (ii) on or after 1st January, 1973, on the provision of that equipment or device for the purpose of preventing, controlling or reducing air pollution or water pollution;'. My question to the Minister for Finance is this. Why is he so generous in giving the incentive on a retrospective basis? I have never known him to be so generous in respect of other kinds of tax incentives. I would have thought that if a manufacturing enterprise had started as early as 1965, by now it would have written off most of its equipment many times over. Finally, may I refer him to clause 13 which provides a welcome relief of $750 a year to a taxpayer for maintaining any handicapped child or handicapped brother or sister living in the same household. Would the Minister consider extending the concession to the tax-payer if the child, or the brother or sister in question had to be confined to an institution but yet had to be supported by the taxpayer? It would seem to me quite logical for him to extend this concession because this will certainly encourage more people to look after their handicapped relatives rather than relying on the Social Welfare Department.”
“There are four conditions which are stated in the Bill. In reading the Bill it was not clear to me whether all or some of these conditions must be satisfied before the organisation in question can qualify for the incentives on R & D. Secondly, why is it that sub-paragraph (c) specifies the installation of a computer? I grant that a computer is a very useful kind of equipment to have because it enhances productivity but so do a lot of other machines which can be installed in any particular business enterprise. So why focus exclusively on a computer? Furthermore, Sir, in the matter of computers, I am given to understand that the hardware is becoming increasingly cheaper with new innovations and new products coming on to the market. At the same time, the software is becoming extremely expensive. I would have thought that it would be more logical to include some kind of incentives for the development of software in using computers. Fourthly, the incentives seem to be geared towards physical capital and again in the context of Singapore it would seem more logical for us to emphasize development of human capital. Maybe the Finance Minister would want to look into what incentives we need to encourage investment in human capital, i.e. encourage firms to send people abroad for training programmes which would advance their skills and so on. Another question in regard to this clause has to do with sub-paragraphs (1) and (ii) of paragraph (b) in page 8 of the Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a few questions for the Hon. Minister. First of all, in regard to the definition of "research and development" in clause 2, I am wondering whether the definition provided in the Bill is not too restrictive in view of the diversified nature of Singapore's economy. In other words, it seems to me to be exclusively geared towards the manufacturing sector which only supplies about 21% of the GDP. For example, under the exclusion of that clause, quality control is left out altogether. It would seem to me that for a fledgling manufacturing economy like Singapore quality is of the essence if we want to develop long-term markets abroad. So maybe some thought ought to be given to see whether adequate incentives exist to encourage manufacturers to look after the quality of their products. Furthermore, Sir, research in the social sciences, the so-called routine data collection, efficiency surveys of management studies, market research or sales promotion, some of these may be very significant and very important from the productivity standpoint, from the standpoint of enlarging the markets and even of manufacturing firms and also of the other service firms in the Republic of Singapore. The definition of "research and development organisation" is again exclusively limited to manufacturing trade or business. I can see a few problems here, Sir. First, you may have an R & D organisation that may not provide services solely to manufacturing but may also have services in the service sector of the economy. Secondly, the exclusion again of the service sector from enjoying any tax incentive in respect of R & D seems to me to be a very serious omission. Next, I would like to refer the Minister's attention to paragraph (b) of clause 9.”
“Sir, I would just like to ask a point of clarification from the Acting Minister in respect of sub-paragraph (a) of both clauses 6 and 7, where it is stated: 'The amount of interest to which the employer is liable shall not exceed fifty per centum of the assessed amount; Why should there be a limit and upper limit to the amount that is liable from the employer? Because at the rate of interest that is being charged, I think within 1 1/2 years this figure would be reached.”
“If a bonus is set out as a productivity incentive scheme, then it will be all right. It does not come under the ambit of this particular law. Is that the intention of the Bill?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification. I am making reference to clause 2 (e), sub-paragraph (14), which says that: 'Nothing in paragraph (c) of subsection (10). or in paragraph (e) of subsection (12), of this section shall be construed as applying to any payments made by an employer to an employee under a productivity incentive scheme.' Would the Minister clarify how different is the productivity incentive scheme from an annual bonus payment?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I was looking for certain figures which I could not find in the Ministry of Health's Annual Report, neither could I find them in the Singapore Family Planning and Population Board Annual Report. Perhaps the Hon. Minister could give his reply here. First, how many unmarried women had abortions in 1979? Secondly, how many of the abortions carried out were repeated abortions? And, thirdly, why were these figures not published?”
“I have met some women who have been traumatised by their abortions and their personalities are warped as a result. Sir, I have no quarrel with the Government over the principle of birth control, though I do have some reservations over the extent of population control. Now we have other means, such as contraceptive devices and, even if need be, sterilization. This amendment seeks to extend coverage of the Abortion Act to employment pass and work permit holders. At the rate we are going, Singapore will soon become the abortion centre of South-East Asia. Sir, I appeal to the conscience of the Hon. Minister for Health and hon. Members to stop the murder of unborn babies.”
“(c) By the 12th week a child's fingerprints are indelibly in place. In other words, Sir, abortion kills a developing human being. In the first trimester, abortion is done by vacuum aspiration and curettage, that is, literally tearing and scraping the fetus from the wall of the womb. In the second trimester, abortion is effected by prostaglandin injection to make the womb expel the fetus, followed by curettage, or scraping. Studies done in Canada indicate that abortions can lead to sterility. In fact, the younger the mother, the more likely it is that she will suffer sterility later, if she has an abortion. The percentage is as high as 30% for women between 15 and 17 years of age. Moreover, Sir, I am told, and this has been confirmed by the Minister earlier, that abortion in the second trimester is twice as dangerous as during the first trimester. Quite apart from the hazards of abortion, Sir, we should realize that it is an act involving the taking of life, in other words, murder of the unborn child. Sir, God has clearly stated in His Word, His role in the creation of every baby. Permit me just to quote three passages from the Bible: (1) Jeremiah 1:5: Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you: (2) Psalm 139:13: For thou didst form my inward parts; thou didst knit me together in my mother's womb. (3) Ecclesiastes 11:5: As you do not know how the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything. Sir, every baby is created in the image of God and is precious to Him. He has a purpose for each one of us. Sir, when we violate the commandments of God, we are the ones to suffer, for we wittingly or unwittingly place ourselves in the hands of Satan.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I was looking at some of the figures on abortion presented by the Singapore Family Planning and Population Board and was quite shocked by the magnitude of the figures. Between 1970 and 1979 the cumulative total of legalized abortions was 88,499. In 1970, the year that the Abortion Act was first brought into force, there were only 1,913 legalized abortions or 4.2% of live-births. In 1974, the year the second Abortion Bill was passed, there were 7,175 abortions or 16.6% of live-births. By 1979, Sir, there were 14,855 abortions or 36% of live-births. If cases of menstrual regulation are also included, the total number of abortions in 1979 was 16,999 or 41.7% of live-births. This means that in 1979 one unborn baby was aborted for every 2.4 born. This is a horrendous trend. In 1969 when the Abortion Bill was first introduced, it was envisioned that legalized abortions would amount to no more than 10% of live-births, In 1974, the then Minister for Health and Home Affairs stated in Parliament that (Hansard, Vol. 33, col. 1102): 'Contrary to the fears expressed in the original debate, our pregnant women have not been turning to abortions in great numbers.' It appears, Sir, that his judgment was premature and that the 1974 Bill opened the floodgates to promiscuity and murder. Sir, the Singapore Family Planning and Population Board reported in its Annual Report of 1979 that the mean gestation period of the unborn babies aborted was 10.9 weeks. It may interest hon. Members to note some medical facts: (a) By the 21st day of pregnancy, the baby's heart demonstrates its first feeble beats, that is, before most women even know that they are pregnant. (b) By the sixth week, the adrenal gland and the thyroid are functioning.”
“Sir, is the Hon. Minister not aware that by keeping the value of Singapore's currency down, this will lead to an increase in money supply and, at the same time, allow import prices to be filtered into the domestic economy and, on both counts, raise the rate of inflation?”
“Sir, why does the Hon. Minister think that imported inflation is inevitable when we can change the exchange rate, i.e. allow the currency to float upwards and thereby mitigate the effects of imported inflation?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am aware that Milton Friedman said many things, but is the Minister not aware that Milton Friedman blamed excessive supply of money as the basic cause of inflation? And does he not think that such a factor is also operative in Singapore at the moment? Mr Goh Chok Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, in theory, I think excessive supply of money is a cause of inflation. Whether or not money supply is excessive in Singapore is best seen in the inflation rate which we have in Singapore, and I think an inflation rate of 9%, taking into account factors which have caused price increases, such as the oil price increase, would seem to suggest that money supply in Singapore has not been excessive.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Hon. Minister think that the explanation for inflation given by Milton Friedman is applicable to Singapore?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. Minister mentioned that this merger of the two universities into the NUS has the support of the Nanyang University MPs. Presumably, Sir, there must have been consultations between him and the MPs concerned. However, I do not recall any such consultations between him and the University of Singapore MPs. In case he is getting nervous in his seat on my taking the Floor, let me hasten to assure him of my unsolicited support towards making the NUS truly a centre of excellence.”
“Sir, the Minister has made quite clear his intention in this Bill, and that it is really a preliminary kind of planning. At the same time, in the drafting of this Bill, whoever drafted this Bill has put in much more than he intended. If we look at clause 7, sub-clause (1) of the Bill, it says: 'The Provisional Authority shall do all such things as are necessary or expedient in the planning and establishment of a Mass Rapid Transit System in Singapore for the conveyance of passengers.' Sir, I am not a legal man, but plain English usage would suggest to me that this clause empowers this Authority to go ahead and implement such a system if it had a mind to. Of course, we trust the Hon. Minister for Communications. We do not think he is a wild man. But at the same time a bad precedent has been set in this House. We have to get our legal terms spelt out properly.”
“You introduce a new Bill. Mr Ong Teng Cheong: That is right. That takes time, Meanwhile, pending this process of setting up a permanent body, due to exigencies the Provisional Authority may have to do the necessary things, e.g. borrow funds, acquire interest or properties to safeguard the interest of the permanent body which is responsible for the system.”
“Secondly, Sir, in respect of feasibility studies, two of which have already been done at a tremendous cost of $8 million - this is the figure which I heard earlier - I am just wondering whether we have insisted on a Singaporean input into the feasibility studies which have been done so far. Or have these studies been done solely by foreign experts? Sir, there are experts and there are experts. We should get our own Singaporean people into the project so that our people can learn, can ask questions, and make sure that things do not get out of hand. Finally, Sir, presumably, whatever system that we implement will take quite some time in the future. In the meantime, what plans does his Ministry have for ensuring that the transportation system will be adequate, that there will not be undue congestion on the roads, that public transportation will be upgraded accordingly in accordance with the increasing demand?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the title of this Bill is a little strange because it is called the "Provisional Mass Rapid Transit Authority Bill" and yet clause 7 (1) says: 'The Provisional Authority shall do all such things as are necessary or expedient in the planning and establishment of a Mass Rapid Transit System in Singapore for the conveyance of passengers.' It is really the Mass Rapid Transit Authority that we are setting up, not a provisional one. I think this is strengthened by clause 13, to which attention has been drawn by the Member for Punggol earlier, on the borrowing powers that this Provisional Authority will have. Sir, if we pass this Bill right now as it stands, the Hon. Minister could go ahead and implement the system without having to come back to this House for any further authorisation. I am rather concerned, Sir, because to throw back an argument which the Hon. Minister has put out at the outset, namely, that this is a huge project involving billions of dollars and this is a project which is not only involved in transportation but affects many other facets of life in Singapore, among which are physical planning in Singapore, I think the Minister should come back to this House before he steps out and borrows billions of dollars in the name of Singapore, with the massive consequences that he seems to be very much familiar with. Sir, I would also like to ask him whether, in the matter of physical planning, the planners are already taking into account the possibility that we are going to have such a system in the future. This is to ensure that planning consideration is given to areas of concentration along the lines or tracks of whatever railway system that is going to be laid in the future, thus ensuring an adequate volume of traffic for the proposed system.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, is it intended under the proposed amendment that the CPF Board will engage in investment in property on an extensive scale?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek clarification from the Hon. Minister for Labour in respect of clause 6 of the Bill before this House. Under the proposed amendment to section 5 (2) (c) in clause 6 of the Bill, the Board is empowered to use moneys "for the purchase of any property and for the construction of buildings." Then I notice that subsection (2A) mentions that: "The land situate at 79 Robinson Road, Singapore, acquired by the Board, and the building constructed thereon prior to the commencement of the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Act, 1980, shall be deemed to have been purchased and constructed by the Board in pursuance of the powers conferred upon the Board by paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of this section.". Sir, this again seems to be a case of something having been done outside this Parliament without proper authorisation and then subsequently seeking permission in this House. What if this House were to say no? Would the CPF Board be prepared to give up that building? Earlier, in the Budget debate, we had to censure the Minister for Finance for converting a loan into a grant. As stated in the Annual Report of the Sentosa Development Corporation, this was already implemented and then permission sought in this House for that particular purpose. Would the Hon. Minister please explain, and would he give an assurance to this House that in future the CPF Board will not do things without the permission of this House?”
“I shall be happy to quote the Hon. Minister in the future.”
“Sir, to my knowledge, of the four voluntary funds mentioned by the Hon. Minister for Social Affairs, I have only heard of one of them, that is, the Silver Jubilee Fund, and that applies only to people who are above a certain age; I do not know what it is, it may be 65 or 70 years and above. The other point that must be taken note of is that these sums are not additive in nature. In other words, a destitute person cannot expect to get from all the four funds in addition to the social welfare grant. I hope he does not intend to give the impression that these destitute people are very well taken care of because there are so many funds handing out money. I would like the Minister to supply this House with a firm figure. Let us take a representative case of an aged destitute, who is perhaps single. What is the maximum amount that person can expect from all the sources of funds added together? On the second point, the Minister said that old people who are destitute or abandoned by their children are automatically admitted into the homes for the aged. This is not true. I have come across a number of cases in Whampoa where the children have abandoned the old people. It is difficult to make out a case for these old people because in some cases their children are quite well off. Their children simply lacked filial piety. If the Government's attitude is that if the children do not take care of them, then the Government will also not care about these people because it wants people to have filial piety. In the meantime what is going to happen to these old people? Somebody must take care of them. That is the point which I wish him to note.”
“the Woodlands Home for the Aged or the Woodstock Home, then Government ensures that they are well looked after, For those in homes run by voluntary organisations financial assistance (as I have explained in my answer to the Member for Serangoon Gardens) is given by Government to the inmates of these homes by way of Public Assistance. And as I have indicated earlier on, as at February 1980, some 530 cases in such homes have received Public Assistance allowances from the Social Welfare Department. As for the other recipients, there are ways and means which ensure them a minimum subsistence level. The 'welfare' funds administered by the Social Welfare Department are used to make-up, so to speak, in order to make sure that the amount of money which a recipient receives is up to the minimum subsistence level, provided it is a genuine case of hardship and the person can turn to nowhere else for additional money or he is not employable due to physical disability and so on. 3.45 p.m.”
“Sir, in the context of Singapore where we have got no natural resources and everyone has to work to earn a living, no one can quarrel with the philosophy of Government that every able-bodied person should work. But, Sir, at the same time, from the very figures given by the Minister for Social Affairs, 83% of the 5,000-plus recipients are over the age of 60 and presumably these are people who have got no children who are able to support them, or else they have been abandoned by their children. The question is: would these people who are destitute, who are unable to work either full-time or part-time, be able to live on the minimum subsistence level with the allowance given by his Department? He mentioned a number of voluntary organisations which do give welfare grants, But is there a systematic attempt by his Ministry to monitor the needs of these aged people to ensure that whatever is given by his Ministry, in conjunction with whatever these people are able to get from other voluntary organisations, adds up to a total which ensures them a minimum subsistence level? I think that surely must be the critical concern of his Ministry. We have no quarrel in respect of the other categories of people he mentioned, i.e. there are people in other countries who are passengers and dependent upon the state for sustenance when they could jolly well go out and earn a living. We have no quarrel over that particular issue. But for people who are genuine destitutes, are they being adequately taken care of? Dr Ahmad Mattar: Mr Chairman, Sir, the destitutes among the 60-year olds I have just quoted, and those who for genuine hardship reasons could not live with their children would be in the homes for the aged. If they are in the Government homes for the aged, e.g.”
“Sir, I do not recall the Hon. Minister having visited my grandfather. But I can arrange for such a visit at some appropriate time.”
“No, Sir. My grandfather got sick three months ago. For three days and three nights, my grandmother looked after him. She is just three years younger than him. He is 79 years old. When he lost control of his bodily functions, it nearly killed my grandmother. She had to lift him up to put him in and out of bed, and had to clean him in bed. That was a terrible task. Are we providing for these people in this way? This is what I mean. Does the Hon. Minister know the sufferings of these old people?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if I were to be explicit about those functions, you will rule me out of order. I am talking about the physical needs of old people who are unable to go to the toilet by themselves. They are unable to bathe themselves. Is that clear enough, Mr Minister?”
“Sir, I certainly hope the Hon. Minister would never get to the stage where he cannot control his bodily functions!”
“I think the most dreaded thing about old age is not simply growing old but being unable to look after one's own bodily functions. Is there provision anywhere to help these people? The Minister talks about building one more Home for the Aged and he seems to be happy that it is taking quite some time to be built. Will he tell us something more about the accommodation of this new home that is being planned? How many places are available? Will this new home cater for the category of old people which I have mentioned, namely, those people who are not able to look after themselves physically? A further point which I wish to raise, Sir, is with regard to the social welfare allowances for the aged. Recently, the Government added another $20 per person. I think it was from $40 to $60. I would like the Hon. Minister to tell this House how his Ministry went about determining that $60 would be a sufficient minimum to keep body and soul together, whether for an aged person or for a destitute younger person. Will he enlighten this House?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I was a bit puzzled over two points mentioned by the Hon. Minister for Social Affairs. First, he said he was against gambling and yet he advocated mahjongg. I may be wrong, but I always associate mahjongg with gambling. Secondly, he stated that there is a trend for the old to be abandoned in Singapore and yet I heard him distinctly say that he is trying to shame the young into abandoning the old. He should look at his text again or maybe look at the Hansard. A slip of the tongue perhaps, but indicative of what goes on in the mind! Sir, I do agree with the Government's philosophy that we should encourage our young people to have filial piety. But how exactly is the Ministry of Social Affairs going about this process of educating our young people? People in Singapore seem to respond more to a combination of the carrot and the stick. Perhaps the Minister can tell us something about the policies that Government is planning in this respect. Are we, for example, giving more reliefs for the support of aged parents? Right now, it is $750 per year and I hope the Hon. Minister for Trade and Industry is listening, in case he is preparing next year's Budget. Sir, the other point which I wish to raise is in connection with the promotion of community homes by the Ministry of Social Affairs in conjunction with voluntary bodies. I am familiar with such homes because a new one has been set up by the Methodist Church in Whampoa recently. But these homes are set up for the aged people who are still able and capable of caring for themselves physically, who are not chronically sick, not invalid nor need 8ttention by the bedside. Is his Ministry looking into the needs of such people, as there must be an increasing number of old people who need physical attention?”
“I notice that along stretches of certain roads the lamp posts are now being decorated with creepers climbing up the lamp posts. I just have a couple of questions. First, how would the Parks and Recreation Department go about repainting those lamp posts when they need to be repainted? Secondly, these creepers might overwhelm the light itself. How then do they go about preventing the creepers from reaching the lights and dimming the lights? Alternatively, why do they not simply paint the lamp posts green?”
“This centre has been in existence for nearly 10 years now, but business in this centre has always been poor because there are no proper car park facilities. The road there is a one-way street and traffic along Jalan Toa Payoh cannot get into that area easily enough, although there is a piece of land right beside the Jalan Toa Payoh Expressway which could be converted into a car park if the HDB or the Ministry of National Development wanted to do so. Perhaps the Minister could give some thought to see whether he could make this centre a more viable place because, as I understand it, only about a third of the stalls are currently taken up and two-thirds are empty. An eighth point concerns arrears of rent. From time to time I get requests for help from residents who, being financially strapped, owe quite a few months of rental to the Board. We have a Welfare Fund which helps them to some extent, but my complaint is that very often the Housing Board does not give me a chance to help these people. They simply drag them to court and as a result their arrears of rent double up because of the court-cost involved. I would like to have the Housing Board drop me a note on those people who are in arrears of rent, so that we can investigate their case and see what help can be rendered before adding on to the financial plight of these people. One last point I have relates to the Parks and Recreation Department. When we travel abroad and come back to Singapore, we are all very grateful that we have a very clean and green city; and when we see attempts by countries around trying to emulate us, we feel very proud of the efforts of the Parks and Recreation Department. But there is just a little complaint that I have.”
“Fourthly, I support the point raised by the Member for Toa Payoh regarding the need for flexibility in the Housing Board's policy on allocation of flats or hawker stalls. The Housing Board should try to ensure as far as possible that people are located near their business, their jobs, or their education. Otherwise, Sir, a lot of unnecessary commuting will result when people are transferred far away from either their jobs or education or place of business. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 5.55 p.m. The fifth point that I have, Sir, relates to the cost of Housing Board flats. There have been reports that the Housing Board will shortly increase the prices of their flats. May I just ask the Hon. Minister whether he intends to increase the resettlement benefits so as to enable people who are being resettled to afford the higher-priced Housing Board flats? The sixth point I wish to raise relates to the numerous requests that I get from time to time from hawkers regarding change of trade. These may be raw-produce hawkers who would like to have a cooked-food stall. I do understand the problems involved if everybody is given that flexibility or that leeway. But there are genuine hardship cases where a fishmonger or a pork seller has to wake up at two or three o'clock in the morning to collect the fish or the pork. And as they get older, this becomes quite a strain on their health. Would the Hon. Minister consider more sympathetically such requests in future, especially when the Member of Parliament writes in support, stating the facts of the case that I have mentioned. Next, I have a problem with the Jalan Tenteram hawker centre.”
“Sir, about half of the Whampoa constituency is under privileged, like the Member for Kim Seng's constiuency. St. Michael's Estate is a very old housing estate and, therefore, I would like to ask the Hon. Minister what plans the HDB has for upgrading St. Michael's Estate. There has been some anxiety among the residents, particularly, residents of the one-room emergency flats, as to when the HDB is going to demolish the building or to upgrade the buildings. So they are worried about having a place to stay. Secondly, I wrote in to the HDB, shortly after the last elections, requesting that a piece of vacant land next to the Whampoa community centre be used for a swimming complex. I did not get a direct reply to my letter, but indirectly I learned that there were plans for such a swimming complex. Could the Minister please confirm that there are such plans, and if he would let us know how soon the swimming complex will be completed? Thirdly, as part of the HDB's attempt to upgrade the older housing estates, second lifts are being installed in certain blocks in the St. Michael's Estate. Along Jalan Bahagia there are some blocks of three-room flats where the HDB is currently building a second lift. However, in designing this second lift, somehow the engineers have placed the lift right outside the front door of some of the dwellers. They could have, with a little bit of imagination, sited the lifts in such a way as not to face directly the front door of the flats. I did ask the Housing Board engineers to look into this, but apparently they could not come up with any solution. It may be too late to do anything about the lifts in the St. Michael's Estate but, for the sake of other constituencies, maybe the Hon. Minister would take note of this complaint.”
“Why do we not venture to synthesize, taking good elements from the three main cultures and fusing them together into something distinctly Singaporean, something distinctly creative? Why must we be shackled by the traditions of the past? The Member for Chai Chee mentioned the spiritual Singaporean, but I am rather disappointed that his idea of a spiritual Singaporean is one who conducts campaigns. That is a very sad attitude, a sad state of affairs. The real meaning of "spiritual" is matters concerning the soul, and perhaps Singaporeans need to look more towards the soul rather than towards sheer materialism. Finally, Sir, on sports in relation to politics. Look at the Olympics today. It is a big tussle between the super powers. I think we have to learn, and learn fast. It is no mere spectator event, but the big powers have an interest in the outcome of games. Maybe the Chinese lost to us for diplomatic reasons or maybe we won legitimately. Who knows!”
“We can therefore never be a threat to anybody, whether in terms of race, language, culture, religion or economics. But perhaps this is a time for us to examine the reasons behind this outburst in the Indonesian newspapers. I venture a number of hypotheses. One possibility is our very success itself in attracting the envy of other people. Secondly, there are racial undertones, probably goaded by mischief-makers and by at least one super power trying to stir up trouble in this part of the world. That is a natural line to take for whoever wants to create mischief. Thirdly, is there such a thing as an "Ugly Singaporean"? Are our businessmen conducting their business in Indonesia and in other parts of ASEAN in an ethical manner? Are they obeying the laws of those countries, or are they bribing their way around corrupt officials? Maybe, Sir, it is time for the Singapore Government to set up a joint consultative body with Indonesia and maybe with the other ASEAN countries to which complaints by people in Indonesia, Malaysia and other countries, and even Singapore itself could be channelled and any abuses investigated and rectified, if possible. I come to the question of culture for Singaporeans. Maybe this is a time to venture what I have been thinking for quite some time. Every time we have a National Day rally, we have an Indian presentation, a Chinese presentation, a Malay presentation, and so on. I wonder every time, if the Chinese who came from China, and the Malays who came from Malaysia and the Indians who came from India were to visit us and look at the presentation, they will see that this dates back centuries ago. We have made no progress. We have a static culture, taken from the past.”
“Therefore, Sir, as a nation, surely we will not be racial in outlook; we will not be biased in any direction towards any particular nation or any particular religion, culture, or language. Then the very economic basis of Singapore is one where even if we want to be Marxist or Communist, we could not do so. Even the Malayan Communist Party refuses to talk about an independent Singapore but talk about an independent Malays, that means the combination of Singapore with the rest of Malaya. They know their economics. With no natural resources, it is impossible for this place to be a Marxist economy. We have only people, as the Minister for Trade and Industry reminded us; and people can be a liability or an asset depending upon whether jobs are available for them, a means of living is found for them. So just for sheer survival we have to be outward-looking, for sheer survival we have got to depend upon free enterprise, and that is being pursued with a vengeance by the Minister for Trade and Industry. We have a global orientation in our economic philosophy, but at the same time we have been mindful of our regional interests and responsibilities. And with ASEAN, I believe Singapore has played a very responsible role in economic terms and in other areas of diplomacy. But in economic terms, hon. Members will recall that we participated in the summit conference where five industrial projects were allocated, one to each ASEAN nation. But because of other countries' objection, we could not implement our diesel engine project. There was no uproar in Singapore. An anti-Indonesian feeling could have been played up in the newspapers, but there was not. That shows the maturity, the tolerance of the Singaporeans.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, last night I had occasion to meet with some potential members of the Whampoa Residents' Committee. I raised this issue of the Indonesian reaction to the spectator response to the badminton match which was held in Singapore not too long ago. One of the men attending the meeting stood up and told me something which I have not read or heard anywhere else. He said that in his view the reason for the Singapore spectators booing the Indonesian players and cheering the Chinese badminton players was that, first, the Chinese were the underdogs and, secondly, they conducted themselves at all times with humility; whereas the Indonesian players were arrogant in their attitude and therefore the reaction of the crowd was hostile towards the Indonesians. So perhaps this interpretation might be pursued and analysed to got at the core or the truth, and the truth presented in the newspapers, as a counter-response to the accusations against the Singaporeans. 4.15 p.m. Sir, by the very make-up of our society, the Singaporean has to be multi-racial in outlook, multi-lingual, multi-cultural and multi-religious. We have had lessons tom our recent past history in the early 60's of bloody race riots. In 1970 when I first came to this Parliament, through a misinterpretation of what I had said, some strong feelings were generated over the language issue. Several Members of Parliament jumped on me at that stage. It was a bitter lesson for me, Sir, but I learned from that lesson the dangers of playing up feelings about language, race, religion or culture. I think the Singaporean has learnt too over the last 20 years that that is the only way to survive for a nation, and no serious political leader worth his salt would be foolish enough to play up such dangerous issues.”
“Sir, there seems to be an element of contradiction in what the Hon. Minister has said. First, he advocates free competition, and then he says it is all right to restrict employment passes, the purpose presumably is to protect employment for local people. I am all for preserving jobs for Singaporeans. But by the same token there is a point in restricting competition if that competition drives out local entrepreneurs, or if that competition is on an uneven footing, or if that competition is brought about by established trading companies with a wealth of expertise, economies of scale and so on behind them. There is a point, surely, in trying to encourage local entrepreneurship, and I think it is the function of Government to do so. To put that example on the same footing as removal of tariffs for products coming to Singapore is a different issue altogether. The fact is that we have a small economy and that the local market is too small to protect and that all our manufacturers ought to be export-orientated if we are going to survive, prosper and grow, and so on and so forth. But the point raised by the hon. Members of Parliament earlier was that we already have firms in Singapore taking care of distribution. Surely there is something to be said for Government policy to try and encourage the growth of local agency.”
“I thought if we have a lien on the property, then there is no catch to my proposal.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the natural and immediate aim of the Skills Development Fund would be to identify skill training programmes that are put up by various companies and to assess them accordingly. But, Sir, we have about a million workers and I do not think that any survey has yet been done to look at the structure of the skills of the million workers that we have. I am just wondering, in the census that is going to be undertaken shortly, whether the Finance Minister is not thinking of trying to use the census to get some idea of the structure of the skills of our working population. My impression would be that a lot of these workers do not even have the minimum literacy. If a prerequisite to imbibing new skills would be a minimum literacy in whatever language, like English, Chinese or Malay, I would like to propose to the Minister, in view of the large sums that the Fund would be accumulating - I believe in the region of $100 million a year or thereabouts - that part of this Fund could be profitably invested in simply raising the basic literacy skills of our workers. It is one thing to do it in the schools and so on for the younger members of our population. But for those workers who are already working, some adult training schemes might be introduced as a first step towards raising the skill levels of our working population.”
“Mr Ho See Beng( In Mandarin): I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his reply. I have finally received a reply which is satisfactory to me. I beg leave to withdrew my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn.”
“Mr Chor Yeok Eng( In Mandarin): Sir, the Member for Whampoa hoped that we could deal with hawkers' problems of site transfer and change of article of sale with more flexibility. I would like to say that in principle, we agree, but the crux of the problem lies in whether there are adequate vacancies. If there are adequate vacancies, then generally we would consider the change of stalls. As I said, very often, eating stalls would have better business and therefore many people would like to change to eating stalls. But usually in food centres there are very few vacancies, apart from newly built centres. There are very few stallholders who want to move away from the site or give up their stalls. If at all there are vacant stalls, that would usually be cases where the stall-holders are old with no children who are willing to take over, or were refused licences to carry on with their trade for various reasons. In this respect, we are negotiating with the relevant authorities to see whether we could make certain adjustments and provide better facilities for certain hawkers. 4.45 p.m. Mr Ho See Beng( In Mandarin): Sir, before I withdraw my amendment, I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary a question. He seemed to have replied that if the tables and chairs are placed on private open areas, then this will not be interfered with by the officials. If the open space is within an HDB estate where the HDB does not object to it, may I ask whether the Hawkers Department will object to it? Mr Chor Yeok Eng( In Mandarin): Sir, if the HDB is the proprietor and it does not object to it, and if the business can also provide hygienic facilities and does not interfere with traffic or other regulations, then we may consider approval.”
“Sir, while I do appreciate the difficulties of the Hawkers Department in considering requests for transfer of stalls from one location to another, particularly in respect of new markets which are being built by HDB and not by the Hawkers Department, yet at the same time, the Hawkers Department is in control of the issue of licences. Secondly, the very policy laid down by the Hawkers Department requiring new hawker centres and markets to give priority to resettlement cases automatically precludes a lot of requests for transfers from being considered. While I appreciate all the difficulties concerned, I would at the same time like to urge the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to give a little more flexibility in this regard because there have been substantial shifts of population in Singapore as a result of new housing estates being built and there are transportation difficulties encountered by hawkers as a result of shifting from one location to another in respect of their residences. So I hope he would be more flexible and pass down this message to the Head of the Hawkers Department so that where legitimate cases come up, they would be given due consideration despite the fact that a certain proportion of the stalls had to be kept for resettlement cases. I would also like to urge him to give more flexibility to requests from hawkers in respect of change of the type of food they are selling. Often times, because of old age catching up on these people, for example, a fishmonger cannot get up that early at 3 or 4 a.m. to go all the way to Jurong to get his fish, and therefore he comes to see the MP and requests a change of trade from selling fish to cooked food. I think such requests ought to be considered sympathetically.”
“And then we have got to close the loopholes in respect of our work permit policy if we want to implement our high wage policy. Otherwise, Sir, my belief is that we are going to get a very distorted wage structure in Singapore as a consequence of these inconsistent policies.”
“Sir, I ask these questions not to embarrass the Minister but to try and get a clearer picture of Government's approach to this socalled second industrial revolution, because a high wage policy by itself without attention towards the supply of labour and the composition of labour will not be successful. In other words, it is no use having NWC recommendations of 15 to 20% a year and then allowing firms to freely recruit labour from wherever they choose because obviously firms faced with having to pay higher wages for Singaporean workers would then go abroad to seek cheap labour. Earlier, one of the Members pointed out that they would then take the incentive to retrench their more senior workers in order to escape the consequences of higher NWC awards from year to year, especially when the NWC specifically puts in a provision every year to the effect that workers must have been in employment for at least a year before they can be entitled to NWC awards. Then, Sir, there is another feature in the past work permit policy which militates against this high wage policy and mobility of labour. In the mistaken belief that there was a very high labour turnover and that workers were adopting an irresponsible work attitude and were job-hopping, I think the NWC has in the past tried to penalise these so-called job-hoppers. At the same time, we have the Minister for Trade and Industry arguing that we should upgrade our industries and that we should not fear retrenchment and there must be mobility of labour and so on. We have to allow for mobility of labour if we want to upgrade skills. We have to allow for mobility of labour if we want to force employers to pay higher wages.”