Bernard Chen
Singapore
“The increase in health expenditure is as inevitable as the sun rises. The major part of this expenditure is on manpower. Doctors and nurses and other operational staff have to be paid at market level wages. They have to compete with other demands for the scarce labour resources.”
“Question No. 12, Sir. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Sir, investigations into the case are still in progress. When investigations are completed, a Coroner's Inquiry will be held during which the full facts of the case will be presented.”
“Question No. 16, Sir. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, Sir, Police is investigating the incident which occurred outside the Kallang Theatre, not at the Singapore Recreation Club, as stated in the Question. Investigations are in progress.”
“If you can license dogs, what is the difference for licensing cats? Dr John Chen Seow Phun: If something is not necessary, why do you want to create that machinery and system, just to do something which some people want. SINGLE SESSION SECONDARY SCHOOLS (Adjustment to reporting time) 5.”
“Although cat is not my problem, I am asking on behalf of somebody else. If the Minister of State is in agreement that we should control cats, why do you not license them so that at least we do not shoot the wrong cats, to begin with, and whoever is the owner will have a responsibility in making sure that the cat does not stray around, but…”
“I agree with the Minister on the need to retain flexibility. I think we should leave it to the patient. But can the Minister confirm that the rates that the patients are paying to the specialists are, in fact, market rates so that there is no subsidy by the Government on all these consultations and there is no impact on the cost efficienc…”
The complete record
Every one of 363 lines we hold for Bernard Chen, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 8.
“As a result, they suffer severe losses, and even the economic foundation of the nation is affected. Under the high-cost policy, the small businesses will find it extremely difficult to survive. For those who have to depend on these businesses to make a living they will be hit very badly. Although the Finance Minister gave the assurance that there will be ample employment opportunities, the solution to the problems faced by these people in earning a living is not as simple as that. Mr Speaker, Sir, will the salaried workers benefit by the Government's policy of increasing the operational cost to compel the enterprises to expand their scope of business, and to go for corporatisation? First of all, before they can be fully corporatised, the businessmen would surely pass the burden of the increased cost to the consumers. The consumers will be the first to suffer. What is worse is that full corporatisation may bring a situation of large enterprises dominating the market. Prices of consumer goods may go even higher. Assuming all the provision shops form themselves into a conglomerate, perhaps to be taken over by the NTUC Fairprice Co-operative, and assuming all the food centres are to be operated by some conglomerates, then once they are fully developed, like the Singapore Bus Service, prices of consumer goods will no longer be subjected to the market forces, or to be determined by the demand-supply mechanism of the free market system. Then, they will not hesitate to adjust the prices as and when they so wish, and what can the consumers say about it? Mr Chng has already spoken about the SBS, and I do not intend to spend time on it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, economic development and the changes and restructuring of the economy should complement each other. The industrial and commercial enterprises owned by Singaporeans should enhance their competitiveness so that they can venture into the international markets. By right, the purpose of economic reform such as automation and mechanization is to lower the cost, thereby increasing competitiveness. Since 1986 when the Government started to emphasize the reform of SMEs, have these enterprises succeeded in lowering their cost of operation? Are the local SMEs making better profits? Have those large enterprises which have implemented automation lowered their operational cost and increased their competitiveness? Over the years, the Government has compelled the industrial and commercial enterprises to increase their competitiveness by increasing their cost of operation, for example, foreign workers levy, and the various service charges. On top of that, the largest property owners in Singapore - HDB and the URA - have also adjusted their rentals. The cost of doing business here keeps on escalating over the years. Many hon. Members have been talking about the problems of escalating cost of doing business here. I shall not dwell on this point. Under such circumstances, the local SMEs are given no chance to catch a breath. I think it is difficult for them even to survive, not to mention stable development. If the Government continues to hasten its pace of increasing the cost of doing business here to force the local companies to restructure, then it may result in some companies, in the process of corporatisation, computerisation, automation, and owing to cash-flow problems, unstable market conditions and slow economic growth, ending up being closed down.”
“However, what worries me is that these Government companies and Government-linked companies have, all along, been given special privileges, and monopolized a major share of the domestic market. Basically, their management staff are technocrats and technical people. When these companies go international, are they able to compete agilely and effectively in the ever-changing scenes of the international market? The Government has concentrated its resources in these companies. The investments on these companies include the savings of the country and the people. These companies have also netted in a large pool of talents. In the event that these companies do not make profits as expected, would it not undermine our national economy? According to the 1986 Report of the Economic Committee and the Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) Master Plan, Government has promised to pay special attention to the development of the local private small and medium enterprises, so that more private entrepreneurs would have the opportunity to establish themselves locally, and then expand their business to compete in the international market. I believe if these indigenous industrialists can successfully find these places in the international market, they will be able to provide an economic buffer zone for our economy. Although the Economic Development Board (EDB) has been helping the SMEs in some ways to improve their competitiveness, in order to compete internationally, I believe there are still many enterprises and small businesses which are still struggling for survival. The Minister for Finance said that Singaporeans had accepted the fact that rapid changes were part of the process of economic growth and suggested that we should continue to restructure our economy.”
“Increasingly, we have and must look outwards for growth and opportunities. We should be well poised to do this. We can stay competitive and efficient, something which, without their realisation, the Government has been trying to prepare them all these years. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. 3.46 pm Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is a small country, both in land area and in population. The domestic market is limited. With the emphasis on economic restructuring in Eastern Europe, and the formation of economic groups in Europe and America, there is undoubtedly a threat to Singapore's export-oriented economy. At the same time, with the gradual opening-up of the ASEAN economies, there is a marked increase in market and investment opportunities. For Singapore's economy to go international is a necessity. As far as the economy of Singapore is concerned, all along, the resources are over-concentrated in the hands of the Government. All the Government companies and Government-linked companies are expanded in a large scale. Apart from having a fixed share of the domestic market to secure their positions, they are also developing externally. Some Government institutions which were originally meant to be serving the people monopolized the market and received substantive financial assistance from the Government to develop themselves into large enterprises. Some even expanded further to venture into the overseas markets. The infrastructure for the economy to go international has already been put in place.”
“If we look back to the past decade, economic downturn in the industrialised countries in the West had always been tempered by growth in the regional economies, except in 1985 when even our neighbours did not do well. An added advantage is that we are immersed in the same Asian culture and in many ways share the same values. In business dealings, much emphasis is placed on trust and relationships built over years of working together. Singapore has a head start on this and we should redouble our efforts in this direction. Opportunities in ASEAN, Indochina and the People's Republic of China can be tapped to our advantage. Even the Commonwealth of Independent States can offer good business potentials when the political dust finally settles. There is perhaps one obstacle, as Mr Chew Heng Ching has pointed out before the break. In our drive for more business and investment in these countries, our Singaporean managers are by and large quite reluctant to venture abroad and remain home-bound. Although quite a number of Singaporeans are now working in Hong Kong, the expansion of business will require many more. They are required in such countries as the PRC, Vietnam, Russia and the Republics, where living conditions are, unfortunately, quite far below those that we are used to in Singapore. There are valid reasons for them to avoid overseas postings, but we must find ways to encourage them to go abroad. I understand the Singapore School in Hong Kong is a very good move and very popular. The establishment of direct air links to these countries will also help. The more important thing, however, is the change of attitude of our Singaporean managers. They must recognise that it is no longer enough to operate only in the Singapore market.”
“And for schools which are not independent in the Government and aided areas, I am quite sure that the subsidy would be more than 90%. This is something that we have done for the last 20 over years and I am quite sure the Government will continue to do it. We should also acknowledge that a certain segment of our population, for a variety of very valid reasons, would not be as well endowed as their fellow countrymen. We must therefore cater for these people and make sufficient room for them to make their contribution. For those who need to adjust to new circumstances or to overcome temporary setbacks, we must do our best to help them in whatever way we can. Indeed, a key element in the Government's economic and social policies implemented in the last two decades has been to pay special attention to this group of people. We have by and large succeeded, but as the Prime Minister has said in many of his speeches, more can and will be done. The objective must be to lift everyone to his maximum potential, rather than bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator. The fundamentals of our policies are sound. They have been tested and proven correct. We should not ignore them. Let me now turn to the other comment. The Minister has referred to the changing world economy in the established countries like the United States and countries in the European Community becoming less dominant and the emerging economies, especially in the Pacific Rim, are assuming more prominence. With the formation of new trading blocs, Singapore's access to these traditional markets will become increasingly difficult. The Minister has suggested that we should look closer to home, ie, Asia and ASEAN. We should take this suggestion very seriously.”
“Subsidies will lead to inefficiencies as output is not commensurate with effort. The experience of the successful economies, especially those in the Pacific Rim, the NIEs and the Dragons, are living proof of the correctness of this approach. More telling, however, are countries that have followed the other way of subsidising the people in all kinds of activities. The sad state of affairs of these countries is an indictment against the policies that they have adopted. Even more painful is that they will have to undergo much more hardship before they can turn the economies around. Members may be aware that at present there is a delegation of Russian Members of Parliament in town. In the exchange of views, they were full of admiration of the policies that Singapore has adopted. I told them that it has taken us some 30 years doggedly following this market forces drive in order to arrive at what we have today. They were rather wistful and said that all they have got now is three months. And this is happening in a super power. We can only ignore these trends at our peril. This is not to say, of course, that we must stick to market forces at all costs. We have recognised that for health, education, we have to continue to fund the bulk of the cost of these services. Just take a small example of education. Much has been said about independent school fees. I understand that for independent schools, even when the school fees are supposedly much more substantial than Government schools and aided schools, in terms of meeting the expenditure requirements of these schools, the Government subsidy in the form of capitation grants to these schools accounts for more than 80% of total expenditure requirements.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Minister for Finance's Budget Statement for the financial year 1992 and would just like to make some comments on two areas of concern. In this year's statement, the Minister has taken considerable pains to give the background to some of the major policies the Government has implemented over the years. Underlying all these policies is the key decision to allocate our scarce resources by market forces. I subscribe fully to this very important factor in the formulation of our economic as well as social policies. With sustained economic growth over the past two decades, with the exception of a small hiccup in 1985, most of us in Singapore have come to take growth as virtually automatic. Many have indeed criticized the Government as too money minded and unduly obsessed with adherence to market forces. Success can often cloud our vision and lull us into believing that we have made it. Worse, we may come to believe that things can happen and economic growth will take place without any effort on our part. The reality, of course, is quite different. Given the scarce resource at our disposal and our virtually total dependence on the world market, we must make sure that we remain efficient always and to stay competitive. Competitiveness is dynamic. It changes not only with time but also with the way our competitors improve themselves. If we just stand still for a moment, they will overtake us. It will take us some time to catch up as they are better endowed with much more resources. Hence, in everything that we do, whether it is education, health, housing, in business and commerce, we must let market forces operate, in terms of encouraging maximum performance through a proper reward system.”
“Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Sir, may I seek one more clarification from the Minister? I made a suggestion about the uncoupling of inpatient class charges and outpatient class charges. Will he consider this?”
“They will be what you can call "ant bite" sizes. You do not like them. They are irritating, but tolerable. Sir, the lower income group will continue to be safeguarded. We believe this is the best approach. We may be wrong because certain Members may prefer that we keep the intervals longer. If we do that, then the fee increases likewise must also be larger. So I think it is a choice which is available and which we are prepared to consider. Dr Arthur Beng had mentioned about the upgrading of wards, an upgraded 'C' class ward, for example. Sir, we will definitely be continuing to upgrade the wards and even within each type of class of ward there will be new wards available that are more comfortable compared to the old wards. For example, in Toa Payoh Hospital and Kandang Kerbau Hospital, they have upgraded and they have offered these choices to patients - old 'B2' and new 'B2' that are available. Similarly, in SGH when the 'C' class wards are available, they will also be of an upgraded nature, as suggested by Dr Arthur Beng. He has suggested that we can charge a little more for the upgraded 'C' class beds. SGH will be offering better 'C' class wards and the fees of course will also be a little bit higher. Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to remind Singaporeans that whilst there are many choices available for them, it is important that they continue to use medical services prudently. They should choose wisely - the type of hospitals to go into, whether it is private or Government, and the sort of wards that they can afford. If they can afford only 'B2', please do not go into 'B1' because it will just deplete their savings very rapidly. It is very important that they conserve their savings in their Medisave funds for the future.”
“I think this is a fair system because patients are now able to choose according to what they can best afford. There is no need for anyone to be bankrupted because they only need to go to a 'C' class ward, pay $40 on the average per day. If they cannot afford that, see the hospital authorities for a complete waiver. The other question is how do we deal with the inevitable cost increases that will occur each year. Sir, the subsidies, as I have pointed out in the Budget debate, will increase on a year to year basis in line with inflation. But the incremental subsidies can only cover part of the cost increases. The hospitals must therefore increase the fees to cover the remaining cost, otherwise it will not be possible for them to maintain the workforce and to maintain the quality of care. The question is, how should the incremental subsidy that is available be used? Which class of wards should we be covering? Again, our philosophy is that we should subsidize most of the 'B2' and 'C' class increases. Sir, the last comprehensive fee revision was in 1984, six years ago. As a result of not increasing the ward charges for six years, the recently announced increases are fairly large. But I would like to inform Members that despite the fee increases the subsidies for 'B2' and 'C' class wards and patients will still increase significantly. For example, in 1989 the 'B2' and 'C' subsidies amounted to $159 million. This year, despite the increase in the 'B2' and 'C' charges, the subsidies for these two groups of wards will increase to $172 million, quite a significant increase. Sir, as I have informed the House in the Budget debate and also in our addendum to the President's Speech, the future increases in fees will be made more regularly so that we can keep the increases small.”
“Or should we focus the available subsidies on the lower income group that uses the 'B2' and class 'C' ward? Sir, the Government policy is that we should focus our available subsidies on the group that requires help, that is, the lower income group who uses the 'B2' and the 'C' class wards. It is only right that the financially better-off who are using the 'A' and 'B1' wards pay for the cost of the services that they use. They should not deprive the lower income group of the available subsidies. If Members do not agree with this approach that we should help the lower income group and let the higher income group pay for what they use, we can debate this if Members move the necessary motion. The Member for Kampong Glam, Mr Loh Meng See, yesterday said that those who can afford should be made to pay more. Sir, I agree with that philosophy. We will therefore be gradually reducing the 'A' and 'B1' subsidies that are still existing at the present moment because the subsidies that are available to them now are at the expense of the lower income earners. We will continue to keep the 'C' class subsidy at about 80% and sustain the 'B2' subsidy. For the poor, those who cannot even afford to pay the highly subsidized 'C' class rate, the waiver system will still be retained. So for the poor, there is 100% subsidy. The NCMP, Dr Lee, again just now criticised the waiver system that it is not workable. I hope he was here yesterday to listen to the Member for Jalan Besar GRC, Mr Peh Chin Hua, who described how two of his constituents who could not afford were able to obtain waiver for the operations that they required. Our system of subsidizing the lower income group on a differential basis, that means 'B2' having a lower subsidy than 'C', gives Singaporeans an wide range of choices.”
“In the USA, basic hospitalization cost for each day of stay in an acute hospital is between S$2,000 and $4,000, and this does not include stays in intensive care units. In Singapore, in the Government hospitals it costs about $400 a day for us to look after a patient in the 'A' class wards and about $210 a day in the 'C' class wards. So in comparison we have managed to keep our services more efficient and also less costly than elsewhere. However, because of the highly labour intensive nature of hospital services, the overall cost will always be very sensitive to the national wage changes in Singapore. If salaries go up, I think it is difficult to tell the hospital staff that they should be earning less than their colleagues, their friends or relatives who are working in other sectors. For example, if the salaries go up by 10%, because manpower costa make up 70% of operational cost, automatically the overall cost of operations will have to go up by 7%. So it is very closely linked to the wage situation in Singapore. The question is, in view of this situation, who should pay for the hospital bills and who should bear the cost increases that occur from one year to the next? It is very easy to say, "Of course, well, let the Government pay." But, unfortunately, there are only finite financial resources available for subsidies to the Ministry of Health. The question is how to distribute the available subsidies. Should we distribute subsidies equally to all patients? That means a patient going to an 'A' class ward will receive the same amount of subsidy as a patient going to a 'C' class ward. We can do that if Members feel that that is equitable. What it means is that 'A' class fees will become lower and that 'C' class fees will have to go up significantly.”
“Sir, I would like to respond to some of the points raised by Members on the cost of health services. Quite a few Members have touched on this issue and I think it is only proper that I share with them some of my views. Sir, the concerns of the MPs and of the general public on the high cost of hospital services are understandable. The Government is also concerned and that is why we have focused a lot of effort on looking into how hospital operations can be made more efficient and cost effective. Over the last 10 years, the costs of hospital operations have been going up by an average of 10-12% a year. As the hospitals are managed centrally from the Ministry, it is very difficult for them to respond to changing conditions and to innovate. We have therefore moved to provide hospitals with autonomy in management by restructuring them. In this way, they will have a better chance of developing more cost effective systems, and I think they will have a far better chance of keeping the future rate of cost increase to below the 10-12% that has been experienced in the past decade. Sir, the question is, should hospital services be expensive? Is there a way to make them cheaper? The problem is that hospital services are highly labour and skill intensive. We need trained nurses, doctors, therapists - a whole spectrum of skills. As a result, manpower costs make up 70% of the total operational costs. The hospitals also require very expensive medical equipment and products. With improving technology, these products tend to become more expensive over the long term rather than less expensive. Consequently, hospital services are costly to operate anywhere in the world, not just in Singapore. Let me give Members an example.”
“Fortunately, the President assured us that all Singaporeans, whatever his income, will be deprived of their basic medical treatment and the Government will also lighten the burden of the poor people in the upbringing of their children. I think the Government should further clarify these new concepts to win the confidence of the people when these processes of autonomy, restructuring and decentralisation are carried out. I believe such exercises are sound in principle. However, on health care and education, the Government should continue to look after the interest of the people in order to keep the close rapport between the Government and the people. The reason why Singapore could overcome all difficulties and successfully develop into a modern and prosperous nation is that there is a close relationship between the Government and the people. People love the Government and are attached to the Government and therefore have given their wholehearted support to Government policies, and also because of their self-restraint and self-discipline. If such a relationship is weakened or undermined, if we are faced with crises in the future, those who are able to emigrate will leave while those who are not able to emigrate may not give their continued support for the Government. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) 3.30 pm Resolved, That the proceedings on the item under discussion and the remaining item on the Order Paper today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS Debate on the Address Debate resumed. The Acting Minister for Heath (Mr Yeo Cheow Tong): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to participate in this debate.”
“However, in the last few years, with the setting up of the Government Parliamentary Committees, the Feedback Unit and the NCMP system, Government powers have been gradually decentralised so that MPs and professionals and even the man-in-the-street are able to contribute to the process of government. This decentralisation of powers is in keeping with the present world trend and it will help to further stabilise our society. Other examples of decentralisation include the setting up of town councils, school autonomy and restructuring of hospitals. There is social and economic significance in these measures because they mean that the various organisations would develop according to market forces so that they are not hampered by central planning or command type of economy and the consumers can have more options. They can decide what to do according to their means. However, we would like to know the limit of such decentralisation. What will be the functions of the Government? Are there any changes in their functions? What will be the relation between the Government and the people? When power is decentralised and with the autonomy of the various organisations, we should not make economic factor the only factor in any decision making. Otherwise, the relation between the Government and people will be that of monetary relationship. If that happens, the gap between the rich and the poor will widen. This is the anxiety of the lower income group because they fear their expenditure will increase. Their burden will increase and they would not be able to share in the fruits of prosperity.”
“As the President said in his speech, this will be the watershed in our political development and that we have prepared for this for a long time. Mr Speaker, Sir, the undesirable factors in the old Asian culture have made the leadership transition a painful process. It sometimes results in upheavals. Although we are an Asian nation, the leadership transition has been well-planned and smoothly carried out. This is something that Singaporean should be thankful. In the past few years, our political leaders with Mr Goh as their head has been running the country. They have been involved with major decision making. However, the style of the new Government will be manifested only after the leadership transition is completed. As the President said in his speech, this consultative style of government will be the hallmark of the new leadership. As described by the Member for Fengshan, this 'Big Brother' style of governing the country will be supported by the people. I hope this new spirit will be practised at all levels in the Government departments and statutory boards and eventually this spirit will filter down to the private bodies and civic organisations. Mr Speaker, Sir, what we want to build up is a non adversarial society and that the interest of Singpore should be above everything else. Only then can we achieve greater success in our next stage of nation building. The consultative style of government means that powers will be decentralised. In our initial stage of nation building, powers were centralised in the hands of Ministers.”
“It could be because they feel that Singapore is not having the right environment for them to develop their children. It could well be that education has been an impediment, that they cannot get to the university or polytechnic, that they have got to go elsewhere. In other words, the key factor of migration would seem to be one of their children, whether it is bringing them up or to ensure that they can prosper and have a career in Singapore. The answer would appear to lie more in whether we can convince them to stay, firstly, by providing a safe and healthy environment for the family as we are doing, good rewarding job careers which we are also assuring, but more important, I think, to provide the kind of education that they can have their children go through, instead of sending them abroad. Once you send them abroad, it is quite likely that few of them will come back. l would like to think that education is not an expenditure per se but is an investment. If we can reorient ourselves in this regard, then perhaps we may be able to convince our population and the children that come after us that it is a worthwhile place to stay and to make a stake. Whatever we say about national identity, ideology, ultimately it boils down to the simple fact whether our people are proud to be part of Singapore and to be part of the system and to work to make it excel. Hence, education, I think, may well be the key answer to our problems. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Tang Guan Seng) (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to support the motion tabled by the Member for Tanglin. The First Deputy Prime Minister will be taking over the Prime Ministership at the end of the year.”
“In spite of all the training that we can give to them, ultimately how people perform in various situations depends on their attitude towards work, whether they are prepared to work hard, strive for excellence, whether they see a stake in nation building and feel that they are part of it and therefore they should contribute to it. Or whether they are prepared to go up and down with the country's performance in good times and in bad. This attitude has to be in inculcated early, not only at the university or at the polytechnic but right from the primary schools and going on to secondary and pre-university. By the time they reach the university when they are given a choice to either stay here or going abroad, it may be a bit too late to impart that kind of attitude. It is quite well known now that there has always been complaint about the generation after ours. They seem to be more cynical and some even bordering on anti-establishment. Why is this so? Is it because of the youthful enthusiasm that they want a better life that they like to argue? Compared to the past generation, the question seems to be "what is in it for me", rather than in "what we have to do". And it is this kind of attitude perhaps that we have got to modify or change for the better. At the end of it all, if we were to develop our manpower resources and to ensure that we have got all the skills available, we must look hard at one key question, ie, whether our people, especially the generation that comes after us, are they prepared to stay in Singapore? I have talked to many people who have emigrated and come back for a visit. Their answer invariably and overwhelmingly is that they migrate because of their children.”
“My question is whether it is sufficient, given the large number of 'A' level graduates that we have. The Government has said that by increasing enrolment, standards will not be compromised. Given the large number of 'A' level graduates that we have now, are we satisfied that we are providing every place to all students who can qualify? Or is it the case that because we do not have enough places, these 'A' level students are forced to go overseas? This is a subject which I will touch on a bit later. In terms of polytechnic education, again, the number of applicants apparently far exceeds places available. In 1989, 16,000 applicants went for 8,700 places (one in two). This year, I understand, the ratio has increased somewhat, despite the introduction of a third polytechnic. The large number of applications shows that Singaporeans are prepared to acquire more skills if they are given the opportunities. And if we are talking about imparting skills at various levels and different sophistication, I think we should seriously look at whether in fact we should provide more places, without necessarily sacrificing the standards. The third level is VITB. There are enough places made available in VITB but it seems that VITB has an image problem. The general population always tends to think that it is the last resort. If you cannot get into the polytechnics, at the worst you join the VITB. I do not know whether this is a fair assessment of VITB. But perhaps the VITB may need to think how they can convey their services and their standards more effectively to the students. I think providing places is one answer. The more difficult question lies in how we can develop the correct kind of attitude in our population.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as we progress economically and socially as a nation, we will continuously be faced with one serious constraint posed by the way we manage our manpower resources. I am speaking both in quantitative and qualitative terms. With regard to the numbers, we can draw a few lessons from our previous attempts to manage our resources for economic development. There have been many debates on how we can meet our needs of labour force by increasing the import of foreign labour, and we all can agree that there is a limit to which we can import these workers, because they have to be balanced against the social cost that we have got to pay. Despite the liberalisation introduced by the Government lately, we are fast reaching a limit. The population policy which the Government promotes is rather long term in nature. It will take another generation before we can see the numbers coming in. There was also a suggestion that we could slow down economic growth to keep pace with the limited manpower resources that we have. But the economic machine cannot be just turned on and off or slow down as we please. Hence, the Government was right that we should progressively and actively move towards higher skilled and more capital-intensive industries. This again introduced a shortage of another kind, that is, skilled manpower shortage. I would like to say a few words about the education of our workforce. In order to meet the needs of these more sophisticated industries, we must train more and more people and impart more and more skills to our workers and managers; in other words, improve their productivity. This can be done at various levels. At the university level, I welcome the Government's intention or decision to set up a second University. It is a right step.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for the reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“And the various cost increases applied in the domestic economy similarly will have a direct impact on the tourism sector in terms of affecting the restaurants and the other services provided. In the previous past when we addressed this question, the Minister had said that it is the responsibility of the private sector to take the ups and downs - in good times they make money; in bad times, if they lose, that is the way business is. While I agree to this as a general policy, I think in the time taken to adjust themselves to these ups and downs, there are actual real costs incurred to the country. For example, if the rates are too expensive for the tourists to come in, then the country will suffer in having a downturn in the sector until such time when the private sector or the public sector catches up with the demand. I believe that if the Government can work out some arrangement with the private sector, we can minimize these losses to the economy by having a proper balance between demand and supply. It may be difficult for the Government to acknowledge that it helps the private sector to make more money. But if in doing so, the private sector contributes to the economy, I do not see there is any objection. The tourism sector is important to us, and will be important to us, in the coming years. I hope that the Government will attempt to find a proper balance between supply and demand for this sector, so that the whole economy can benefit from it.”
“Taken by themselves, the increases may seem rather low. But taken together, this could have a drastic effect on the business climate. While we recognise that some cost increases are inevitable, hopefully by looking at the total picture, we can even out the increases, balance the pluses with the minuses and in doing so, maintain a reasonable rate of increase, if at all this is necessary, so that those of us in the private sector can carry the our business profitably, which in turn, of course, will reflect the benefits to be spread to the rest of the country. Sir, may I comment on the next topic - tourist development - which is also in a way related to my remarks just now. We all recognise the importance of tourism as a sector of the economy. But over the last 20 years we have not been able to overcome this perennial problem of ups and downs in demand and supply. For example, two years ago, the then Chairman of the Tourist Promotion Board appealed to the Government and the private sector that it was time for us to think about having more hotels. And I recall that he was almost laughed out of court, because at that time the occupancy rates of hotels were averaging about 65-70%. Yet, scarcely two years later, we find that now our hotels are overflowing. And in the past months, I understand one could not even find a hotel room, unless one is prepared to take a one-star hotel. There is some danger in this shortage because in times of shortages of hotel rooms and other facilities, rates will go up as operators take the opportunity to recover the losses suffered during the lean years. This of course will in turn dampen the influx of tourists, especially those organised by tour groups which take hotel rates and other things into account when they formulate the tours.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head V of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, one of the key factors of success in the Government's anti-recession programme in 1985 was to make it easier for the private business to carry on their operations by reducing the costs of doing so. As we have seen, the results have been quite gratifying and in the last few years we have high economic growth. But with high economic growth comes the familiar situation again of having the demand for the factors of production being outstripped by supply. We all know about the familiar labour shortage and, in the recent past, rental of office space, rises in hotel charges, utilities, and this has also been affected by a number of levies that have been made by the Government. The Finance Minister in his Budget speech earlier in the month has mentioned that we are still competitive vis-a-vis our competitors in other countries. I think we could probably say this for the export sector but the same cannot be applied to the domestic economy where the provision of services is affected by cost increases of all types, especially when we ourselves are now developing ourselves into a centre for services, including financial, infrastructural and tourism. The 1985 recession was a result of high cost increases in these factors of production over a period of several years. In fact, the increases occurred over a period of two to three years and in different forms. By the time we recognised the totality of these increases, it was too late, and it took us quite a while to come back to square one. I would like to know whether MTI has enough resources to monitor the impact of these increases, especially those imposed by the various Government Ministries and statutory boards.”
“I think the Minister for Finance needs a 7-day week to answer all these questions which he has not answered. I withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $267,871,330 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $278,881,500 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head R -”
“I would like to ask the Minister whether our financial centre policies have taken into account these developments in the region.”
“This is a slightly different topic - on the development of Singapore as a financial centre. In the past few years we have seen some very new and rapid developments in the changing financial scene of the world. Japan has emerged as a very major financial centre surpassing even New York and London. In fact, nowadays businessmen look more to the Tokyo Stock Exchange rather than to Dow Jones. And together with the rapid development in the region, for example, Taiwan and Korea, the financial profile of the world appears to have changed somewhat in the past few years. The emphasis is now increasingly towards the Pacific rim. A third factor that affects this is what will happen to Hongkong post-1997? With Hongkong as one of the major financial centres in this region, will it stay the way after 1997 or its role will be taken over by financial centres such as Singapore and Taiwan? These developments will seem to give us an opportunity to review the focus of Singapore's role both as a global and a regional financial centre. Are we gearing ourselves to meet these changing needs of the region in terms of services that we are providing, whether we need to look more towards the region rather than to the world as a whole, and whether there are any ways in which we can enhance the complementarity amongst the financial centres in ASEAN, for example, or to a larger extent, in the region. Because as each major financial region competes for business, we in the South East Asian region and in ASEAN in particular, will have to work out our own responses if we are not to be left behind. We have to meet the challenges posed by Japan, the US and by 1992 a unified European community.”
“The question I would like to ask is, of the scholars trained in the past decade, what would be the proportion that eventually stay in the public service and what is the proportion that has left the public sector to join the private sector. Scholars represent the cream of our manpower, and I think a judicious balance should be struck by having some of them placed in the public sector and others in the private sector. Mr Chairman, with your permission, can I ask also speak on the second amendment?”
“And there were instances where civil servants were nominated as directors of private companies for them to get a taste of what private business is like. I would like to ask whether in fact this is still being pursued. As enforcers of rules and regulations, civil servants are in a rather important position in the sense that policies and regulations by themselves appear to be rigid. But implementation of these policies have to be flexible, depending on the nature of the problems encountered. Whether civil servants are trained to develop the kind of flexibility that will enable them to meet the changing and varying requirements of the customers, being the private sector, is another question I would like to address. The third point I would like to raise is that the civil service is, together with its statutory boards, a very major employer in the Singapore labour force. We are all aware of the increasing shortage of skilled labour at all levels. The perennial question that comes to mind is whether the allocation of this scarce manpower between the public and private sectors is relevant to the times that we are in and whether the allocation is optimal. Of course, if we go by market forces, then whoever pays the most will probably get the greater number of these senior executives. There has been comment that the public sector is paying its civil servants very well, which is something that I do not object to myself. But I think there needs to be also a judicious balance to ensure that not all the skilled manpower stay in the public service and that some of it should go to or stay with the private sector. This is a difficult question, especially in regard to the scholars that the Government produces from year to year.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head N of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Mr Chairman, I would like to make a few comments on the manpower development in the civil service. With the increasing complexity of the Singapore economy as it underwent very rapid economic development in the past two decades and also with the onset of increasing competition from our neighbouring countries and from the world, there have been rather dramatic changes in the way both the public sector and the private sector have to work in the future. For example, the public sector in providing the various infrastructures and basic services have to take into account the varying and changing needs generated by these rapid developments in the world. The public sector is also responsible to ensure that the correct climate is available for the private businesses to carry on. The private sector on its own has also to look to the public sector some time or other to see how they can improve their businesses by having changes made in some aspects of public policy that affect their way of doing business. The civil service, being the main custodian of policies and enforcer of regulations, will therefore have to adapt itself to these changing requirements. The question I would like to ask is really how has the civil service responded in the training and development of its senior executives to meet these changing requirements of the Singapore economy. For example, in the past there had been cases where civil servants were given appointments in the private sector to enable them to gain some experience so that on return to the civil service they could at least from their own perspective see the problems and opportunities faced by the private sector.”
“Because it is in the implementation rather than the conceptualization that all the problems that we have discussed so far will surface.”
“There is nothing wrong for the church, for example, to sympathise with the poor or the downtrodden if in actual experience it is in fact the case. And in those countries, especially those in South America and, until recently the Philippines, it is hard put for anybody to separate politics from religion in that regard. But in Singapore, surely we are far removed from that kind of situation and there is no reason why the principle of liberation theology should have any application here. The critical point made by the First Deputy Prime Minister is also of relevance. If we were to agree or allow liberation theology in its present form to be promoted in Singapore, regardless of the situation we are in, what of other religions and their own brand of theology which may also infringe on interference of politics but in which the countries of origin may be different? The teaching of Islam, for example - should we allow them to transpose their theology based in the Middle-East and apply it here? The critical point here is the Government has to be secular, has to be impartial. And the best way to ensure this is to keep out of it, and all the religious communities in Singapore have to recognise that they are allowed free rein in their own confines. And if they were to step out of their confines, then they must choose to propagate their ideas in a proper forum, whether it is politics, religion or social action. In this, I think there is no compromise, and a separation of politics and religion must be paramount. I hope that in the course of deliberations in the Select Committee, we can find ways of implementing the policies that we are supporting in this Bill.”
“The interpretation of religious principles and in certain areas politics and religion are very complex. There are no clear winners but there may well be a lot of losers in the process. As the present Bill puts it, the Presidential Council is advisory in nature. One cannot help wonder how it is going to conduct its proceedings, especially when we are talking about a Council of quite a large representation of people from different walks of life and different religious faiths. I think it may be advisable for the Government to consider whether some clearer ground rules can be laid for the Presidential Council to deliberate cases brought to it by the Minister. Otherwise there would be different opinions and at the end of the day there will be no clear direction as to the interpretation of various issues emanating from the Council. It is a difficult subject but perhaps in the Select Committee stage we can hear representations from the various religious groups and also from the Government as to how best this can be tackled. I only need to emphasize again that it is better for the Presidential Council to determine the merits of these cases rather than leaving it to the Government to judge matters on which there are religious implications. On the matter of politics and religion, I support fully the sentiments expressed by the Minister in his speech and also the comments made by the First Deputy Prime Minister. Our situation in Singapore is very different from those prevailing in other countries. In particular, as a Catholic, I have also been exposed to the teachings of liberation theology. But liberation theology originated from countries far different from what we have in Singapore today.”
“Sir, I support the Bill as introduced by the Minister. I think we all know that we need religious harmony. In fact, all major religions preaches harmony. All major religions extol the virtue of tolerance and charity towards one another. But the reality is otherwise. In almost every country in the world today we can see, instead of harmony, disharmony among various religious groups. As a Roman Catholic, I have also been the subject of disharmonious accusations by other religious communities in Singapore. This is not news. I think we have to look at what is presented in a theoretical basis and what actually exists. The sad fact that we have in Singapore today or indeed in other parts of the world is that religious harmony does not come automatically. More often than not, the other way is the natural course of action. It is therefore incumbent upon the Government in governing a country that the anti-harmonious tendencies must be curbed and that it does its best to preserve religious harmony in all ways possible. This is the reason why I strongly support the setting up of a Presidential Council to help the Government in promoting religious harmony because it is difficult for the Government to arbitrate and to interpret the very fine points amongst various religions, whether it is conversion, evangelization or otherwise. It is a matter that best be left to the religious leaders who, as it were, should set their own houses in order. The Government is in charge of secular matters and it cannot favour one or the other. Hence, the formation of a group of people comprising the religious leaders of the major religious factions in Singapore may well be the best answer although it may not be ideal to solve this problem.”
“Question No. 2, Sir. Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I note that the Member for Potong Pasir is not here but I will answer the Question. The conditions in the TOL for State land do not require the Government to pay any compensation to the holder of a TOL on State land. However, the Government offers, on compassionate grounds, ex-gratia payment and priority for alternative accommodation to alleviate the hardship of those affected by clearance. The assistance offered is subject to the following conditions:- a) The occupiers must be in physical occupation of the land before the eligibility cut-off date. b) Their approved improvements or structures on the land must be erected before the eligibility cut-off date. In all cases, payment is made in accordance with the prescribed rates and guidelines of the resettlement policy. ANG MO KIO HOUSING ESTATE (Centre for TL2) 3. Mr Lau Ping Sum asked the Minister for Education if he will consider providing a centre for TL2 in one of the secondary schools in Ang Mo Kio Housing Estate.”
“For most of us who are elected, we should and must derive a different sense of satisfaction from being an elected MP, the satisfaction of being of service to the people, something which the Nominated MPs would not be able to claim. At the same time, the role of Nominated MPs is also restricted and they would not have the same kind of influence and prestige that the elected MPs would have. As elected MPs, I think we should not grudge the presence of Nominated MPs if they can contribute to improving the quality of debate in this House. Ultimately, whether the Nominated MPs are better than the elected MPs or vice versa depends, firstly, on ourselves, the elected MPs, whether we do our jobs properly, whether we serve our constituents to the extent that they know that we have done a job effectively and are worthy of being re-elected. And, more important, on the Nominated MPs themselves. Are they men of integrity known to be leaders in their particular fields, whether they are capable of independence of views, whether they are prepared to take on the Government and offer alternative or constructive views, whether they can remain non-partisan? The implementation, the shape of the administration and the procedures will be debated in the Select Committee. Overall, if the proposal can result in improvements, I think we owe it to us and owe it to Singapore that we give it a try, for nothing harmful can come out of this proposal. There could be improvements. It may not be to the extent that we wish in the initial years, but we can make corrections and adjustments as we go along. On this note, I would like to support the First Deputy Prime Minister although I know there will be many others whose support may not be so forthcoming.”
“But as the First DPM pointed out just now, opposition MPs by virtue of their positions are constrained to be anti-government, anti-establishment, for it is their prime responsibility to bring down the Government so that they can be the Government themselves. But what we look forward in this House is a situation where we can have constructive and alternative opinions which will then enable the Government to go along and arrive at a consensus in terms of policy implementation. Perhaps at this stage I can make a suggestion that instead of defining the number of Nominated MPs to be six, we could conceivably consider whether it is possible to follow the same system as the NCMPs, in the sense that if there are more opposition Members elected during the elections, there can be a corresponding reduction in the number of Nominated MPs. Because I do not think we can rule out a situation where in the years to come there could be people among the Opposition bench who have the kind of intelligence and calibre that Singaporeans look for. I believe one issue that is bugging a lot of MPs at the moment, especially Government MPs, is that the Nominated MPs would appear to come in rather freely and without any problem. In other words, they can come in and express their views. They do not have to do all the donkey work that the elected MPs have to do, to look after the constituency and to go into the hustings every now and then. Are they therefore in a privileged position? Are they first-class and elected MPs second-class? I think the elected MPs come into Parliament for different reasons. If we had been afraid of doing the constituency work, serving the people, we would not be volunteering ourselves.”
“There are people in Singapore who have the ability to contribute constructive views, specialist views, but are constrained in one form or another from participating in the elected process. This constraint could be business, family, and a whole host of other reasons. It will be a pity if we were to let this pass by without having an opportunity to tap their expertise and their contributions. As we progress into the 1990s, our problems are going to be more complex, more involved, and the more views we have in contributing to effective solutions, the more important it is for us to have these views expressed publicly. I think at the moment, as the First DPM pointed out, there are certain perceived disadvantages of Government MPs - I refer specifically to PAP MPs - for being unable to take issues with the Government. In the last year, in particular, there have been a few major Bills coming before this House where PAP MPs expressed their views rather vehemently, strongly, against the Government. But in the end they all have to eat humble pie. Because of Party discipline, they are forced to vote in line with the Government. In fact, some constituents have complained to me. It seems a rather difficult situation, is it not? You can breathe fire and brimstone, but at the end of the day you go quietly and cast your vote the right way. I think the credibility gap is there and given the Westminster system that we are running, it will be very difficult for Government MPs, whether they are PAP or otherwise, to go too strongly against the Government in terms of making constructive views known, as long as they remain members of the Party. It can be argued, of course, that NCMPs, and indeed opposition MPs can fill the role.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill moved by the First Deputy Prime Minister. Before we get into the details of the Bill, we have to ask ourselves one fundamental question, and that is whether the proposals contained in the Bill will result in an improvement in, firstly, the deliberations in this House and, in general, to Singapore. We have 81 Members in this House. The question to ask is whether these 81 people represent all the views, constructive or otherwise, that we can garner, or whether we could benefit from having more views expressed in this Chamber. The proposal of Nominated MPs will result in the injection of additional views and opinions which will complement the present elected and Non-Constituency MPs. If there is an improvement to the discussion and debate, then we should not, as elected MPs in this House, object to any improvement that may be brought into this House by these MPs. With due respect to my colleagues, I do not think that we in this House can claim to represent to know everything there is need to know in Singapore and that we cannot benefit from views, especially from specialists, professionals, in their own fields and endeavours. We in Singapore are also faced with rather reluctant politicians. I think in the past 20 - 25 years, I am quite sure that my fellow colleagues will agree with me that a running topic is always, "Why should we become politicians? Why should we invite trouble on to ourselves?" And many MPs, past and present, have at one time or other expressed that they are actually reluctant MPs, because the demands made on elected MPs are tremendous. The sacrifices made by elected MPs are also very substantial.”
“Sir, I would like to beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Ministers make personal and family sacrificies and take political risks, whereas high rank civil servants do not have to. A Permanent Secretary is what the term implies-his post is 'permanent'. In the past 10 years, how many Permanent Secretaries have resigned to join the private enterprises? And, how many Permanent Secretaries have been sacked for being inefficient in implementing policies?”
“Moreover, to use this method to attract "highly paid personnel" may not achieve instant result. These so called "highly paid personnel" in the private enterprises could very well wait until they have achieved success in their careers and when they have accumulated substantial wealth before going for "high price evaluation". This would also be unfair to many of our present Cabinet members who have sacrificed their own careers and families to come forth and serve the country. To go a step further, when spotting talents it should be realized that to some people, money does not take the prime position in their values. Such people do not conscientiously go for "big money raking" professions. These people very often are wrongly regarded as without "bargaining" qualities. This kind of criterion for judging a superior or inferior horse should not only be considered further but also be deemed as contradicting the core value of "placing the greater self over the smaller self". Confucius said: "If you judge a person by his appearance, you may miss the true person". I do not know, to judge a person by his pay, what talent would we miss. Therefore, there must be certain balance between "monetary rewards" and "public service". The second point, about giving "performance bonus", it is also not a wise measure. All policies should be formulated by collective decision of the Cabinet members, they shall bear collective responsibility for them. Minor issues like the bonus should not be allowed to cause differences among Cabinet members. That would not benefit our country. The other major question is, why should the Ministers' salaries be linked up with the salaries of top civil servants? The Minister is the formulater of policy, whereas the civil servant is the implementor of the policy.”
“There is an ancient book quotation saying that "When a country has many judicious and able persons around, it will be conducive to the good government of the country." In principle, to give commensurate reward to those for their effort and dedication in governing a country, is, I believe, acceptable to many people. Only few people want a horse to serve well but not allow it to eat grass. Ours is a small country with scant talents pool. The present remunerations of Ministers fall far short of those paid to managerial and executive personnel in the private sector. So I agree to what the First Deputy Prime Minister has proposed-raising the salaries of the political leaders. But giving "commensurate" remunerations must call forth "commensurate" capability and virtues in return. From Ministers down to Political Secretaries, is everyone of them definitely up to expectation? Or is there any one in the midst not up to expectation? This is what the argument is about. The picking of talent and employing the able is a profound skill and art itself. To spot a good champion steed that can run a thousand miles, one needs to be as discerning as a Bo-Le. To take a drop-out horse for a champion steed, one cannot convince people. To regard a champion steed as an inferior horse is equally regrettable. I agree to salary increase for Ministers and other political appointees, but I am against make-up pay for them. The use of make-up pay to attract highly paid personnel in the private sector to be Ministers, I think, is based on the concept of "opportunity cost". But in actual practice, the use of opportunity cost to calculate salaries for the Ministers may give rise to certain problems. If a Minister's present pay is higher than his "opportunity cost", should he return part of his salary?”
“We are foruntate to have among our first generation leaders people who are capable of both creating and governing country. Our first generation leaders have both revolutionary zeal and governing ability. In those earlier years, they even risked their lives and future to achieve independence, monetary rewards were further from their mind. They have brought about our nation to the present stage with results everybody can see Now the first generation leaders have passed their batons to the second generation leaders who should also be the cream of our nation, elites who could administer our country with ability, efficiency, integrity and dedication. They are also engaged actively in the process of recruiting and cultivating out third generation leaders, but they have met with various difficulties as mentioned by the First Deputy Prime Minister. In prosperous and peaceful times, many professionals and management personnel would not like to enter the political arena because with the private enterprise they could enjoy more remunerations. Moreover, they need not sacrifice personal and family interests or risk political risks and uncertainties. The Prime Minister had on the 7th of May 1979 also menntioned in the Parliament about increasing the Ministers' salaries from $2,500 to $4,500 a month. At that time he said that ".... Singapore cannot for the indefinite future, rely on people who are willing to make inordiante sacrifices, particularly when it is at the expense of their families ... No group of men ... are as crucial to Singapore's continued security and prosperity as the eleven who form the Cabinet ...". These words are still valid today! Ruling a country by the judicious and able has a bearing on the well-being and future of the country.”
“Certainly, we want to attract people who are prepared to contribute their energy in the service of the country and who are truly concerned for our country and our citizens and who are prepared to make the sacrifices. I am confident that our leaders who have come forward to serve the country and the people, are persons who have committed themselves totally to serving the interests of the nation. Otherwise, they would certainly have not been so willing to make the sacrifice. With the talents and capabilities that they possess, they could enjoy a much more comfortable life outside politics. They are willing to sacrifice because they believe that they have a duty to look after the welfare and well being of all Singaporeans. On that note, Mr Chairman, I fully support the salary revisions for our Ministers. Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee)( In Mandarin): Mr Chairman Sir, at first I had wanted to talk about the salaries of civil servants. But now I would like to touch on the salaries of the Ministers and other political appointees. Both concern money. First, let me say that I agree with what the First Deputy Prime Minister has said for the increase of salaries of these political appointees, from the Political Secretary to the Prime Minister. Since the Second World War, various countrie have become independent, but after independence, their economies and their societies have not necessarily taken off the ground and make any progress. On the contrary, some countries because of their religious and racial problems, their people have been split and embroiled in turmoil and misery. So from this we can learn a lesson. Those who could create a nation, and achieve independence mightnot be able to govern or manage a country. A revolutionist might not be a good 'governor' of a country.”
“I believe the present package given by the First Prime Minister is the best under the present circumstances and I would like, once again, to compliment him on bringing up a very sensitive issue. He can be assured that he will have my support. The Chairman: Mr Chew Heng Ching is not here. Encik Othman. Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Marine Parade GRC)( In Malay): Mr Chairman, I support the Government's decision to revise the salaries of Ministers and other holders of political appointments. I feel it is important for us to pay our Ministers salaries comparable to the salaries of those holding key positions in the private sector. Only in this way would we be able to attract our top talents to enter politics and take part in the leadership of the country. In fact, even with the salary revision, we may still find it difficult to attract capable and honest persons who have successful careers in the private sectors to enter politics and lead the country. Nevertheless, I hope that they would be prepared to doso because the success and future of this country depend on the availability of competent and honest leaders. With this salary revision, we would minimize the disadvantageous that they have to suffer. There are other sacrifices which will have to be made by them, like the loss of privacy, something which is beyond measure. I agree, Mr Chairman, that our leaders must be persons who have a strong sense of public duty and who genuinely and sincerely committed to serve the nation and the people. We must not use monetary incentives alone to attract them. But what I would like to point out here is that unless we offer them reasonable salaries, our task would be even more difficult.”
“I would like just to comment on two particular items mentioned in the First Deputy Prime Minister's statement. First is performance bonus. Perhaps we should not equate Ministers with civil servants. Ministers' appointments are political appointments. It carries with them different risks, different benefits. Civil servants' jobs are permanent. Their salary depends very much on their performance. The judge of a Minister or political office is with the people. If the Minister does not perform well he will be voted out. It may be a bit difficult to give a ranking of Ministers' performance. I do not know whether other Ministers feel the same. But it may be better in the interest of unity in the leadership and collective responsibility that performance bonus, if it should be paid at all, should be paid to all, as in the case of Judges. The second point which I would like to make is on make-up pay. Having listened to the First Deputy Prime Minister on the difficulty of getting young executives to run for office, I can sympathize with him that we must find a way of redressing the tremendous gap between the private sector pay and what he is likely to get in office. But I would caution perhaps that we should set a limit to this make-up pay. The rewards in the private sector can be in various ways and it also depends on time. Profit-sharing, for example, fluctuates from year to year. Therefore, it may not be feasible to match the total remuneration of a person. It may just happen that it happens in a good year, whereas if you wait for one more year, the next year may be a bit less expensive. I think the concept of make-up pay is a bold and innovative one. But I think we should also allow for some cautionary step to ensure that the system will not be abused at a later stage.”
“Even a Minister's salary of about $28,000 a month has not gone anywhere near the salary of an average CEO in a manufacturing industry; it is, in fact, less than half that of the top CEO in that category. So we are not talking here about enriching Ministers and other political office holders. We are, in fact, talking about removing one disincentive which deters potential office holders from running for office. There are many disincentives facing a person before he chooses to run for office, least of which are family objections, the loss of privacy and so on. The increase in pay, as suggested in today's statement, is just to remove one small irritation and, if I understand the First Deputy Prime Minister well, it will enable him to persuade potential office holders to come in and give them one excuse less. I wish the First Deputy Prime Minister well but I am afraid that the present pay increases as recommended will only go just a small way to help him to recruit new talents. The shortage of labour in Singapore, as we can see now, extends not only to industries and services but also to political offices. I think the problem that is afflicting the First Deputy Prime Minister is the same problem that is afflicting us in the private sector. In the private sector, we are facing a severe problem of trying to get young executives to stay with us. They are all anxious to move ahead and they do not seem to be satisfied with the progress that is being afforded them. The First Deputy Prime Minister will find it even more difficult to attract this category of people unless some of the disadvantages are removed and I hope that the present pay increases, especially for the category of Ministers of State, will go some way to help him in this regard.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head N of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, may I first congratulate the First Deputy Prime Minister for his stirring speech on the subject of pay increases for Ministers. Judging the emotion and feeling behind it, I get a clear feeling that it comes from the heart. Indeed, the question of pay increases for political office holders had arisen in 1985. On 22nd March 1985, in a wide-ranging debate in Parliament, the Prime Minister in fact made two points which remain valid today. First, the difficulty in attracting fresh talents to political office. Even in the days of 1985, before the recession, the attractions of private sector had prevented many potential office holders from coming into the political arena. The second point that the Prime Minister made was that in looking at the increase in salaries for Ministers, we should be honest and not hypocritical. It is good to score a political point by saying that Ministers can work a full day's job and not getting a full day's pay. I have also in the same session mentioned that the jobs of Ministers are much more onerous than those of the top civil servants under their charge. Having been an office holder myself and now in the private sector, I can well appreciate that if we want a job done well we must get the best men for the job and pay the going rate. The proverbial statement of "you pay peanuts, you get monkeys" is the kind of situation that we have to face. Having said that, if we look at the First Deputy Deputy Prime Minister's proposal today the pay increases recommended are, in my view, but just one step in closing the gap between the political office holders and those of their counterparts in the private sector.”