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 9 of 26.
“Sir, I am there every week. I am accessible to my voters and I have a Welfare Fund to look after them.”
“So where is the discrimination? Where is the unfair treatment? Tokens would not help the Singapore economy. And if we are serious about helping the unemployed, as MPs, we can help them, direct them to where the jobs are. More important, we should counsel them not to be so choosy, to grab any job that comes along. We can help them in their children's education. We can provide welfare relief at the constituency level. These things can be done if the MPs truly are looking after their people. 2.55 pm”
“Amen! Sir, I am trying to be serious. With the momentum of success, it is easy to extrapolate continued success. Therefore, let us not blame anybody for making mistakes. If you read the forecasts for the American government each year, you see that they keep on revising their forecasts every other month or so. But nobody points accusing fingers at the US government. With all the resources at their command, with all the PhDs from Harvard, Stanford and MIT at their command, they are still making errors in forecasting. So let us put that bit of nonsense behind us. Now, Sir, the more pertinent question is: what should be the priority of Government at this time? Is it to make everybody happy by releasing CPF funds to the workers? Or is it to try to salvage, to save jobs by saving firms? Which is more important? If it is more important to save the firms that provide the jobs, then what is unpleasant has to be done. The Report is not pro-business as some people had said. Neither is it anti-labour. We should be concerned whether the Report is pro-Singapore or anti-Singapore. Sir, we should not polarize the people of Singapore into employers, employees and Government, or whatever other groups there are. We should pull together. We are a small nation facing the rest of the world. We should pull together, Government, employers and employees. Tripartism. It is a formula that has brought success to Singapore. It is a formula which is necessary for continued success in Singapore. And let us not come up with token measures. Yes, I agree that MPs and Ministers should have wage restraint like everybody else. I do not know of any MP or Minister who has received a wage increase this past year. And I know that all of us are going to be subjected to the same CPF cuts.”
“May the Lord forgive you for that statement!”
“Secondly, Sir, we have very strong reserves, $25 billion worth of reserves, much bigger reserves than countries many times our size. Thirdly, Sir, and thank God for this, we have got healthy Government surpluses, the Government itself, statutory boards and CPF. Yes, we are now saying this is overly prudent. The Economic Committee Report is saying that we should now trim these surpluses in the interest of the economy. But, Sir, if we did not have these surpluses to begin with, where is the margin for adjustment? And, Sir, we also have high CPF rates. Yes, we may complain that they are too high. But the fact that they are high allows us to bring them down so that the process of wage adjustment is relatively less pain- ful. I think we ought to count our blessings and be thankful for our blessings, and not to gripe about things which are non-existent. Then, Sir, one must understand the nature of forecasting. There is no economist in the world, there is no econometric model in the world, that does not make errors in forecasting. If one wanted to understand why the Government's predictions were wrong, I have a very simple explanation. For 25 years, Sir, we have seen success following success in Singapore. It was as though economic growth was a blessing from God which, in fact, it is. [Laughter]. The trouble with the Members in this House is that they lack a spiritual dimension! But when we know from whom our blessings come, let me repeat, we had year after year of high growth and even when other countries were in recession, we enjoyed high economic growth. So I do not blame the Government for being optimistic at a time ---”
“You came in 1981 by some means or other. Since that time, I have not heard a single positive proposition. But most seriously, Sir, despite the interruptions, let us look at our present position. Are we dealing with a broken-back country? Are we dealing with a country flat on its back? Are we dealing with a country so broken that there is no hope and no future? Let me point to a few things. Despite the so-called unemployment of 5-6% reported by the Ministry of Labour, this is still an over-full employment economy. And I challenge anybody to say otherwise. We still have some 150,000-180,000 guest workers working here. And we have 50,000 or 60,000 people unemployed. Sir, I submit to you and to this House that if our Singaporean workers who are unemployed are willing to take those jobs undertaken by the work permit holders, the jobs are available. If they are willing to dirty their hands, the jobs are available. If they are willing to accept lower wages, the jobs are available.”
“Did I hear a single lawyer in all those years complaining of high growth, complaining that they were making high salaries? Not a single lawyer, good or bad.”
“Sir, of course, I am referring to good lawyers! When people are euphoric and you tell them, "Don't grow so quickly", who is going to listen to you? Everybody was euphoric in Singapore, with few exceptions. So let us put things in perspective.”
“And, Sir, the bankers who are very wise people, very prudent people, gave very substantial loans because no developer, no contractor, can undertake a building project without substantial loans from the banking sector. So if blame had to be assigned or apportioned, then I think a lot of people were to blame. Sir, in the years 1979 to 1984, we enjoyed 8(r)-9% average real growth per annum. In those years, as I look back, people were euphoric. I know the Government Bench were smiling all the time because things were going on very well. I know that workers were happy because wages were going up, NWC was going up year after year at very high rates. I know that firms were happy because they were making lots of money. I know lawyers, architects, engineers, were very happy because they were rolling in money.”
“No economist in the world can eliminate business cycles of whatever type. But having said that, can one ask the question: could it have been reduced in its intensity? In retrospect, with the wisdom of hindsight, yes. Who was to blame? Obviously, the Government gave the permits. But obviously too there were applications for permits. So one can deduce from there that if the Government was wrong in terms of its rosy forecast of continued high economic growth, then those who applied for the permits were equally wrong in putting their money where the applications were. And we are talking in terms of very substantial sums of money, billions of dollars worth of money, that went into construction in Singapore.”
“Therefore, tourists from those countries have been affected and, on top of that, certain policies were adopted in the regional countries that have affected us adversely, like exit taxes. Sir, it is no wonder that towards the last quarter of 1984, even though the macro-economic indicators still showed that things were okay in Singapore the small businessmen and the retailers had already felt the impact of the slowdown in tourism, particularly from the region. Coming to the internal reasons, there were five listed in the Economic Report on page 5. It says, "High costs of doing business in Singapore. Construction slump. Over-saving. Rigidities in our economy. Loss of business confidence." Let me comment on some of these and add one or two myself. As to the rigidities in our economy, Sir, we have a committee now looking into the problem of over-regulation. But in the process of doing so, one must be fair to our civil servants, as the MP for Clementi pointed out yesterday. Nobody was Machiavellian in devising restrictions or regulations that were meant to tie down the hands of businessmen. I think each Ministry, each statutory board, had good intentions of managing the economy of making sure that criminal elements did not overwhelm our business enterprises. But in the process, these regulations added up to some rigidity in the system. And I think it is to the credit of the Government that it has recognized this openly and is doing something about it. Not many countries can respond in such fashion. I will talk about over-saving very shortly. As to the construction slump, this has to do with economic cycles. The question is: can economic cycles, whether of the construction industry or of rearing pigs, be eliminated altogether? The answer clearly is no.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to reserve my time for speaking on the main Motion later. I would like to make some comments on the amendment now, if I may. First of all, Sir, may I point out that the Member for Anson was wrong when he said that oil prices declined in 1979. I think everybody knows that 1979 was the year when oil prices doubled. So before he goes out on a limb attacking people for the wrong reasons, he had better double check his facts. But, Sir, I want to focus on something much more important in relation to what he alleged. This has to do with the causes of the current economic difficulties in which we find ourselves. Sir, if one were to read this Economic Committee Report carefully, one should see at once that it is very candid, very honest about all the causes that brought about the current situation. Firstly, we should note, Sir, that it was a conjunction of international and internal events that brought about this recession. And lest Singaporeans forget our dependence upon the international economy, let me reiterate that some two-thirds of our demand is generated by the world economy. And later, when I speak on the main Motion, I will be submitting relevant facts and figures. In the international economy, a number of things have happened, to our disadvantage. First, there was a slowdown in the economic growth in the US, in the EEC, even in Japan. And then, at the same time, there has been increasing protectionism, partly as a response to volatile exchange rates, in particular the strength of the US dollar. These factors have also impinged upon growth of the region, Malaysia, Indonesia and the other ASEAN countries. Their commodity prices have gone down. Oil prices have gone down.”
“Point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. I forgot this point just now. If you take the average of 1979 to now, plus another one or two years of zero growth, you will get about 5% to 6% average growth. And in the presentation of the First Deputy Prime Minister, for the year 1999 it was projected that if we could attain an average growth rate of between 4% and 6% per annum we should be on target. So unless the recession drags on beyond two years and if we were to adopt the policies of the Member for Anson and the Member for Potong Pasir, then we will not be able to achieve the target growth rate of 4-6%.”
“Point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. There are two things. One is a Swiss standard of living. The aim was not 1986 but 1999, some 15 years more. The comparison with Hong Kong is not to lower our standard of living of our workers to that of Hong Kong but to make us more competitive with Hong Kong. We are not trying to put adverse conditions upon our workers in the factories.”
“We have had very ambitious plans to develop Singapore into a sophisticated financial centre, but are we producing the requisite personnel in order to make this a reality? If we want to be a world-class economy, we must have world-class inputs. 7.04 pm”
“I would like to make a few other points, Sir. First is the question of local versus foreign participation in the insurance business in Singapore. If one were to look at the statistics as presented in the Annual Report of the Insurance Commissioner 1984, one finds that whatever one uses as the criterion that only slightly more than half, or about half, the business is conducted by so-called local firms. I would like to ask the Minister in question what is the intention of Government. Is there the intention to promote local insurance companies just as we have had a conscious policy to promote local banking? Of course, there could be offshore activities going on at the same time. Another question that we ought to be concerned with is the extent of Govern- ment participation in the insurance companies. Again, I am told there are about three companies owned by Government. I do not know whether that includes the NTUC Income as well. But just counting two of them that I know, for individual life, group life and general insurance, the amount of premiums commanded by these Government companies are not inconsequential - 80% in the case of group life, 23% for individual life and 26% for general insurance. I myself feel that Government should phase itself out of various commercial activities and perhaps the insurance area is one that they ought to get out of. Another question concerns the capitalization of the insurance industry - whether or not our firms are big enough to take on the kind of risks and to have the kind of sophisticated expertise or personnel to compete against very large insurance companies overseas. Then there is the question of whether we have enough personnel in Singapore to run the industry well.”
“We had cases in the past where companies in Singapore had been closed down because the Authority wanted to penalize the owner and therefore the licence was withdrawn. I would have thought that the proper thing to do would be to institute criminal proceedings against the person in question and to allow the entity to be transferred to somebody else. Appropriate fines could be levied so that the person who committed a criminal act would not benefit from the arrangement. I think one has to look at the interest of Singapore in the construction of this Act and,more important, in the administration of this Act. Clause 19 on page 22, new section 19(A) sub-section (1). Again, the insurance agent or broker must not have beenconvicted of an offence "involving fraud, dishonesty, or moral turpitude." I do not know what "moral turpitude" is in the context of this Bill, but clearly the attitude here is very unforgiving towards those who have at some stage in the past run afoul of the law. I want to make this point here, Sir, that if Singapore really wants to create an environment for business, it has got to be forgiving towards entrepreneurs who fail at some time in the past. By all means let us take those to court who have committed criminal acts but those who have erred unwittingly and who have been made bankrupt because of bad judgment should have a chance to start all over again. It is the environment which is important, and if we are going to introduce clauses like this then nobody would dare to come to Singapore to set up anything. If at some stage the record is dug up that so-and -so had some criminal record or some complaint of a moral nature, then theoretically the whole company could be closed down. I do not like it at all. I think it will stifle entrepreneurship.”
“Criminal proceedings can be taken against the officer in question. If we go further down to subsection (k) on page 4, it says that the licence can be withdrawn if: 'the insurer has furnished false, misleading or inaccurate information, or has concealed or failed to disclose material facts in its application for registration.' If this again were to be stringently imposed, then I think there would be circumstances where owners of insurance companies will be forced to fold up if some oversight has been done in its initial reporting of material facts or information. Subsection (l) on page 4 says: 'that it is in the public interest to cancel the registration.' But "public interest" is nowhere spelt out. So presumably the Authority in question has the right to state any particular case as coming within the ambit of "public interest." On page 5, subsection (6) of clause 5 says: 'An order of cancellation made by the Authority shall not take effect until the expiration of a period of 14 days after the Authority has informed the insurer of the order.' I do not see here any provision for appeal or a procedure for appeal against the Authority whatsoever. Sir, if you take this particular clause as a whole, then I am troubled by this question that there is no distinction made between a corporate entity as such and the owner or the shareholders of the entity. One could get a firm which is viable economically or it is profitable and it has a large number of employees and a large number of policyholders. If there were to be some violation of any or all of these provisions, the company could be closed down, just because some officer or some owner had violated some provision of this section .”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of all, we can all agree that the objective of this Bill is a very good one in providing greater protection, especially for policyholders. I particularly like clause 37 which makes provision for perhaps a greater release of insurance monies to dependants of those who die. But there are some problems that I encounter with some of the clauses, particularly clause 5, if I may make reference to it. Clause 5 begins on page 3. On page 4, subsection 6 (2)(e) says that the licence can be withdrawn if: 'the insurer proposes to make, or has made, any composition or arrangement with its creditors or has gone into liquidation or has been wound up or otherwise dissolved.' I have no difficulty with the latter part of this provision. It is only with the first part where the insurer proposes to make any composition with creditors. Sir, I fear that there may be economic circumstances where certain investments go bad temporarily or there are liquidity problems, in which case any company would be forced to make some kind of arrangement with its creditors. If this provision is stringently enforced, that will lead to the closure of the company in question. Then if we go further down on page 4 to subsection (j). It says: 'that any of the officers of the insurer holding a managerial or executive position has been convicted of any offence under this Act;'. Again, this seems to be unduly stringent and not fair to the shareholders or the owner of the company in question. To be fair, Sir, nobody who runs a company can really guarantee that his employers will not contravene some law at some stage or other, particularly relating to the business in question. So I do not see why the licence should be withdrawn in such a case.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first, I think the hon. Members in this House would appreciate what the former Finance Minister did in suspending this 2% payroll tax, and this Bill is to give effect to that. But on the other hand, I think it is an opportune time for us to examine the rationale underlining a payroll tax and what would be the impact of a payroll tax because the Bill, as it now stands, really opens the door, or open the possibility for a future Finance Minister not only to introduce a payroll tax but it could be at a rate much higher than 2%. There is no limitation on the rate now - it could be 0%, it could be 10%, it could be 20%, so we are really giving a big blank cheque to the Finance Minister. And while the present Finance Minister is quite trustworthy, one cannot be sure that in future the Finance Ministers would be as trustworthy. It is a matter of some concern to me, Sir, that some of the problems of our economy stem from the fact that labour costs have been too high and that has made our goods and services uncompetitive. If at some stage in the future, we were to reintroduce a payroll tax, this would add on to labour cost and it would clearly be undesirable. I do not think Government is short of revenue or of sources of revenue. In fact, I think the public sector as a whole has grown far too large and it is a time for cutting down and not expanding the role of Government. So I will urge the Government to reconsider this Bill at some stage and maybe take out altogether the provision for possible introduction of payroll tax. 6.30 pm”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am just a little concerned that the raising of the financial penalties to a level which is much higher than hitherto might give opportunity for the gamblers to bribe police officers, and what measures does the Minister intend to take in such cases.”
“Point of clarification, Sir. The hon. Member like other Members of this House obviously does not listen carefully to what I said. I merely reported what the newspapers said. I did not make any personal inference.”
“If you read the provisions of clause 7, you will find that if I had a company that had more than three telephones and if any of my employees were to get information on the telephone twice, or two employees get information about the Turf Club operations for a particular day then, under the law, I am liable to prosecution or my firm is liable to prosecution; all the assets liable to be seized. And I am guilty unless proven otherwise. I think something must be done to restrict the scope of clause 7. Finally, Sir, clause 10 seems to restrict the power of the President. There has been some concern in this House that we want to extend the powers of the President. So why are we reducing his power?”
“We heard this morning of how Pan-El got so heavily involved in forward trading,and the stockbrokers are heavily involved in it to the tune of $600 million, and the whole system was on a point of collapse, but for Government intervention. The whole economy could collapse if one were to apply these principles or allow these principles to be operated without check. But then, Sir, laws when they are instituted must be obeyed. But we find that people will obey those laws which they construe to be just and not unjust. If I were a gambler, I would find it very difficult to obey the set of laws that are being promulgated here today. Because, as the Member for Queenstown and others have asked, "Why is it right for the Government to run gambling institutions, and why is it wrong for private individuals to run gambling institutions? Why are licences not given to private individuals and firms that want to run these shops? Why not give them the licences?" These would be questions that they would pose to the Government. I think this must be resolved because people have a grievance against the Government. If the Government were to close the Turf Club and the Singapore Pools tomorrow, then people will obey the law. They at least feel that they can obey because it is a just law. I have complained of this double standard, and just because the Opposition Member uses the term, it does not mean I would not use it. Yes, there are double standards, and I think the Government better wake up to it. Now clause 7, if I may refer to some details of the Bill. I am afraid, Sir, that sometimes in our zealous attempts to overcome problems, we might go overboard and innocent people and firms might be caught in unfortunate circumstances.”
“Yes, I will. A gambler is one, first of all, who has a short-time horizon. He is impatient to get some gains. Moreover, he is one who is prepared to incur high risk in the hope of very high returns. If one were to use this definition of "gambling" and a "gambler", one would find that Singapore is full of them. In fact, I believe that part of our economic difficulties stems from the fact that we have produced a very speculative environment in Singapore. If one wanted to, Sir, one could spend one's whole life-time gambling in Singapore, quite legitimately. There is the stock exchange, as the Member for Queenstown mentioned, there are the commodity markets, the futures markets, FOREX trading that one can engage in, many, many forms, including Singapore Pools and Toto, the Turf Club, and so on. One does not have to go to an illegal betting shop in order to gamble. But what does this do for us here in Singapore? I think it is bad, economically, because people are not putting their funds into productive investment. People want quick returns. They are willing to incur high risk in order to get it. So there is something fundamentally wrong with the attitude of the Singaporean. And something must be done in the educational system. I have complained, Sir, in this House that we have all kinds of campaigns run year after year. But so far there has been no campaign against gambling. I do not know of any attempt in the schools to teach students the consequences of gambling. Are parents making the effort? But how could they, if they themselves are gambling on the stock exchange?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to give my qualified support to the three Bills in question. Other hon. Members have spoken of the bad social effects of gambling. In fact, Sir, there was a report in the newspapers recently about the aftermath of the introduction of the California State Lottery. It was found that some months after the introduction, the grocery stores in California reported a serious drop in their business. In other words, one can infer from that that many people were saving on their grocery bills in order to indulge in their gambling passion. But so far nobody in this House has defined what is meant by "gambling" and who qualifies to be called a "gambler". Although many Members have claimed that they are non-gamblers, but if one were to look more carefully at the definition and some of the activities of hon. Members, one would find that there are many more gamblers than they would like to admit.”
“Sir, a few supplementary questions. From the Ministerial Statement and the Minister's reply, it is obvious that there are three sets of problems that we have to contend with. First is the regulation of the Stock Exchange, and hopefully the new Bill would take care of the problem. Second is foreign manipulation, and here is the difficult part because most people who buy stocks for speculation do not bother to have them registered at all. So going to the Registrar of Companies to find out who owns what stock is a waste of time. The third part which needs attention is the disclosure by company directors to their auditors and to the authority in question. Obviously, the difficulty in the case of Pan-El stems from the fact that forward trading was not reported to the auditors at all. I do not know the law at all, whether they are liable to criminal prosecution, but obviously there is a loophole there that needs to be closed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a number of questions by way of clarification. Firstly, why was the new Securities Industry Act not introduced much earlier, especially in the years when we began to launch Singapore as a financial centre? Secondly, the Hon. Minister pointed out that foreign ownership of Singapore shares amounts to only 8% or less than 8% of the total shares. Is this direct ownership, or does it include indirect ownership through holding companies? The question is very important. Thirdly, Sir, he mentioned the combined Singapore-Malaysian capitalization of $70 billion. What should be of concern to this House is the way in which the capital markets of the two countries, Singapore and Malaysia, are so heavily integrated, and obviously the crisis that he alluded to, the Pan-El case, had its genesis in manipulation by somebody in Malaysia. What is there to prevent future occurrences of this sort?”
“Sir, may I ask the Hon. Minister whether there are normal channels of appeal for such cases, and whether the officer in question has made use of or exhausted all the normal channels of appeal without going outside?”
“The relevant question, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is whether someone trained in agriculture, who bears one of these new titles, can now treat a dog or a cat which is sick?”
“They are actually workers because they are working outside the prison and not inside the prison. If they could get benefits of workmen's compensation when working outside, then by the same rationale those working inside the prison should also receive similar benefits. I would like to ask the Minister whether there is such a legislation. If not, whether he can provide such a legislation so that they may also benefit. Moreover, employers will also be required to insure them against any industrial accident. This is the first point. Then since they are recognized as ordinary workers, if any accident should take place, or if there is any matter involving a worker's benefit, could any trade union have the right to represent them in a claim for any compensation or benefit? This is a fundamental question. What problems they face outside the prison may not be the same as those obtaining inside. Maybe the food in the factory is not too good, or such like problems. Can the unions do something on their behalf? I would like to ask whether such prisoners will have the right to claim equal treatment as ordinary workers outside. We should not neglect them just because of their prisoners' status. So I would like to ask the Minister whether in the proposed legislation there is any provision enabling trade unions within certain degrees to represent them and claim benefits for them. If they are union members, then it is a different matter. Further, if the employers would support the unions in their recruitment of membership drive, whether the unions can accept such workers as members?”
“I understood the Minister to say that the rest of the wages, after paying for their food and travelling expenses, will be put into a compulsory savings account from which members of the family may be able to withdraw. I would ask that consideration be given to letting the family have the whole of the balance of the wages. I know of cases where the families have been very badly hit financially and embarrassed by finding the breadwinner in prison, suddenly. What is the objection to letting the family have the rest of the earnings without them having to make an applica- tion for every specific need? Would the Minister consider that? Maj Fong Sip Chee (Kampong Chai Chee)( In Mandarin): Sir, the Bill has just been briefly explained by the Minister. This scheme will enable our prisoners to be trained to make a living when they are released from the prison and return to society. So it merits our support. But there are a few points to raise. In the past, the Minister has been a Minister for Labour and, therefore, he is quite familiar with this type of Bill. Since the Bill will allow the Minister to stipulate regulations to enable prisoners to go out to work, it is really too good. But the question is, if he goes out as a worker, what kind of worker do we regard him? I am not joking. Maybe some people will say that he is a captive labour. If he is getting the same rate of wages as other workers, that means we are recognizing the labour and effort that he is putting in. What the Minister has neglected is the welfare benefit that such kind of workers should get. If there is any industrial accident, I would like to ask whether this kind of workers could get any benefit or compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.”
“Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I welcome the Bill and give it the support from my Party as well. May I ask the Minister a few questions, particularly regarding the terms and conditions of the engagement of prisoners? I see under the Bill that the Minister will prescribe, by regulations, the terms and conditions of engagement of these prisoners at their places of work. May I ask whether it is the intention that the Prison authorities should find the work for them? Or is it proposed that the prisoners themselves may apply for work at factories or at places of employment of their own choice? Is it the intention that the prisoners will be allowed to contract with the employers directly and secure the best bargain for themselves? Or will all this be regulated by the Prison authorities? Secondly, Sir, about the wages paid to the prisoners who partake in this scheme, I understood the Minister to say that they will be paid market rates. Again, are these market rates to be fixed beforehand by the Prison authorities, or would they be a matter of negotiation in each particular case, ie, with each particular employer? Because if they are fixed beforehand, then they cease to be market rates. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I ask about the retention of part of the wages by the prisoners? The Minister has said that they would be allowed to retain part of it for the payment of food and travelling expenses. May I ask for what food consumed are they expected to make payment? Is it for the food consumed in the prison, or is it at the work place only? Finally, about the availability of the wages for the families of the prisoners.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think hon. Members would surely welcome this Bill as part of the effort to rehabilitate our prisoners. And as the Minister puts it very well, we seek to have a balance between the deterrent or punitive aspect of prison and the need for rehabilitation of prisoners. I also welcome the information he provided to this House in respect of the education, training and counselling that prisoners receive. Sir, l need a few points of clarification on this Bill. As the Minister said in his speech, the scope for the day release scheme seems to be much more restricted than the Bill allows for. In other words, as I read the amendment Bill, it seems to allow any category of prisoners to be released, subject to the discretion of the Minister. I wonder whether that is his intention. As long as the Bill allows this, would the Minister consider allowing long-term prisoners to be put on this scheme to work outside, other than the last 12 months of their prison sentence? The fact that they are serving a long prison sentence means that there is considerable disorientation. And if these prisoners have shown that they are capable of good conduct over the years in prison, then surely they would be deserving of an earlier involvement in such a scheme. I would also like to seek assurance from him in regard to those prisoners who are denied access to this day release scheme. What avenues of appeal are available to the prisoners? Lastly, Sir, there is the question of employment of ex-prisoners. What measures has the Government taken to help these ex-prisoners reintegrate into society? For example, are Government jobs open to ex-prisoners who have shown good conduct, who have managed to get further education and training while they were in prison?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to ask some points of clarification? Firstly, the assumption of this Report is that having the cablecar system is desirable and that the costs of diverting the vessels which are too high are minimal; now how true is this? Secondly, are there any suits in the courts outstanding against the PSA or relevant Government authorities for the loss of life and limb? And thirdly, is any insurance scheme being proposed for the cablecar network?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, would the Hon. Minister consider the views of Members of Parliament? And if any Member of Parliament were to object, would these devices be introduced?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what moral right does the Government have to profit from gambling when it denies private individuals the right to profit from gambling?”
“Sir, would the Hon. Minister agree with me that this introduction of what may be called "electronic vice" will lead, among other things, to (a) financial ruin of many families; (b) erosion of work ethics in Singapore; and (c) the encouragement of speculative as opposed to productive investments?”
“The question, Sir, is whether the Hon. Minister is prepared to be flexible, should the situation turn out to be such as not to enable the taxi drivers to pay all the tax that he wants to receive.”
“Sir, I think my question was not answered. Would the Minister of State consider opening an avenue, that means, having letter writers made available to people who would like to write letters?”
“Sir, would the hon. Minister of State consider a proposal to enable people who are illiterate to express their views in some way? Because these people cannot write letters and therefore they have no means of putting forward their suggestions. I am concerned particularly, Sir, about the bottom 15-20% of the population.”
“Sir, would the hon. Minister of State inform this House about the rate of flow of the suggestions or complaints to the Feedback Unit? In other words, I would expect that there was a great influx at the beginning and, maybe, tailing off. Is there such a phenomenon?”
“Sir, would the Hon. Minister agree with me that when the resale levy was first imposed, it was really a response to what may be described as the "politics of envy"?”
“Sir, would the Hon. Minister agree with me that this resale levy is really a capital gains tax? And since we have no capital gains tax in any other sector in the economy, this is an anomaly.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, would the Hon. Minister inform this House whether there have been cases of evasion of the levy by under-declaring the actual transaction price?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, am I correct in drawing the following inference from the Minister's figures? Of the total proceeds of $228.3 million from the sale of flats at Potong Pasir, $176.6 million is actual construction cost, $23.3 million constitutes the infrastructural, professional, administrative and financing costs, which make a total of almost $200 million, which leaves $28.4 million for imputed land costs. And this figure of $28.4 million, compared with the actual conservative market value or cost of the land of $255 million, is only 10% of the actual market value? In other words, the Government is, in effect, subsidizing 90% or more of the land cost itself.”
“The child is not a citizen but one of the parents is a citizen. So would the child be on a Dependant's Pass or on a Special Pass? Because I have come across cases where they are here on Students' Passes, for example.”
“Sir, on a point of clarification. If I heard the Minister correctly, children, one of whose parents is a Singaporean, would be on Dependant's Pass and therefore they would not come under the ambit of this Bill. But I have come across cases where there is a child, one of whose parents is a Singaporean, but who is on a Student's Pass. What happens in such a case?”
“Members are willing, they could come up to the University and study the first course in economics and then they will realize some fundamentals of economics: that in any year you create a basket of goods and services which has a monetary value, and if you save some of that and later take some of that money and spend it, it is not going to cause inflation. It is only when you get the Government to subsidize PUB, bus fares, housing, ad nauseam, then you are going to cause inflation. As I said, Sir, we have much to be thankful for. In fact, if there is any worry about inflation, it ought to be this. If we were to elect a government that is irresponsible, wasteful, corrupt, then by the year 2000, even if you were to withdraw the $9.5 billion from your CPF, you will find $9.5 billion of worthless bits of paper. So that is the real lesson for us. With that, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 4.00 pm The sum of $34,811,460 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $44,391,900 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.”
“Sir, at the end of the day, after a long debate, the surest protection for our workers is an economy with full employment and without inflation. Because as long as there is a plentiful supply of jobs, if any employee feels aggrieved or discriminated against, he can move to another job and he can better his prospects in the process. Sir, Members have voiced a lot of concern about inflation in this House today. But if the truth should be made known, the real causes of inflation reside in these factors. Firstly, low savings rate. Countries with very low savings rate are very prone to high rates of inflation. Secondly, high government deficits spent wastefully on subsidies of various kinds. And, thirdly, in an effort to finance the heavy government deficits, large sums of money are printed. The M1, M2, M3 figures go up. Those are the real causes of inflation. And we can be thankful, Sir, that in Singapore we have avoided both unemployment and inflation. Sir, if one were to simply take the 1984 figures for the CPF, $5.4 billion was credited to the accounts of members. $3.5 billion was withdrawn, of which $2.7 billion was for housing. In other words, $3.5 billion was withdrawn last year out of a GNP of $38 billion. Let us put it roughly at 10%, without inflation. By the year 2000, if the Member for Potong Pasir's figures are correct, $9.5 billion withdrawal out of a GNP of probably $95 billion by the year 2000, again a figure of around 10%. So there is no reason why CPF withdrawal per se should cause any inflation. In fact, Sir, if hon.”