Charles Chong
Singapore
“I am interested, however, to hear what the experiences of the 28 pilot schools are and how they have found the move to FSBB. Could the Minister give an update on the pilot and how successful or otherwise this has been? Finally, Mr Chairman, I would like to address the need for support of children from disadvantaged backgrounds.”
“I know that we are very appreciative of the support provided by the Australian government and the Australian defence force. However, with the recent bush fires in the east coast of Australia, could the Minister let us know if the Shoalwater Bay training area has been affected and whether this has had an impact on the SAF's ability to full…”
“Mr Chairman, even as we aim for zero training fatalities, it inherent in the nature of the SAF that accidents will probably happen and the challenge for us then is to ensure that when they do happen, that our service personnel have the very best medical care which we can provide for them.”
“Finally, could the Minister provide details on the number of calls which have been made to the Army, Navy and Air Force safety hotlines, and whether this has increased since we have enhanced our emphasis on training safety and whether concrete action has been taken following the making of these reports? Safety Consciousness”
“Mr Chairman, a number of speakers before me have already raised most of the points which I have, so I will not repeat them and will be very brief. As Singapore's population ages, one of the issues which will be of increasing concern for our citizens is the affordability and accessibility of healthcare.”
“00 pm These days, however, the US appears to be focused on other regional matters, such as the denuclearisation negotiations in North Korea. While on trade, a comprehensive and progressive agreement for the Trans-Pacific Partnership came into force at the end of last year, with the conspicuous absence of the US, which withdrew from its pr…”
The complete record
Every one of 474 lines we hold for Charles Chong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 10.
“Some views have already been expressed on these issues by a number of speakers before me. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not intend to test your patience by repeating what has already been said by previous speakers, other than to say that I share many of the views expressed by Dr Wang Kai Yuen and Mr Mohamad Maidin when they spoke on this subject on Monday and with what Mr Hawazi has said when he spoke just before me on this issue. However, I am less impressed with what the Member for Potong Pasir had said about how things were when Singapore was part of Malaysia. I would, therefore, like to urge the Minister for Education not to confine our National Education programme that his Ministry is introducing in our schools only to young Singaporeans but also to extend the programme to cover our slightly more senior citizens who may have lived through the events but have forgotten what it was like. Sir, I agree with the Minister for Foreign Affairs that we should always keep our lines of communication open and that we should try to manage our relations with our neighbours as best as we can. We should also try to understand why some Malaysian leaders find it difficult to be friendly with Singapore. We should try to resolve outstanding issues as early as possible without having to adopt a policy of appeasement. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Malaysia's Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir, was reported to have said that it was difficult to conduct friendly relations with Singapore and gave two examples why this was so. One was the decision to eventually relocate KD Malaya, the Malaysian naval base at Woodlands, back to Malaysia. I am glad to note the Prime Minister has since provided clarification on this issue and the matter has now been laid to rest.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. Sir, before speaking on the motion, I would like to commend all our new Members of the House who have spoken before me and have delivered impressive and enlightening maiden speeches. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am sure you must have enjoyed listening to all the speeches as much as I have, and I am sure Members of the House also look forward to hearing more of such speeches. Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of the Member for Bukit Timah, Dr Wang Kai Yuen. I am delighted to note that in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Addendum to the President's Address that Singapore's Asean partners would remain central to our foreign policy, and I hope that all our Asean partners share our aspiration for a more peaceful, cooperative and prosperous South East Asia. Sir, a1though each and every one of our Asean partners is important to us, I would like to confine the topic of my speech basically to Singapore-Malaysia relations, as we seem to have problems with our nearest neighbour on a regular basis and over quite unexpected issues. Although the issues may be unexpected, the accusations and the wayang that follow are usually quite consistent and predictable. We are always accused of being insensitive to others and, if we try to be conciliatory, we are invariably accused of being insincere. This regular cycle of accusations and demonstrations organised for our benefit has led to speculation, especially among younger Singaporeans, who may be unaware of the different courses taken by Singapore and Malaysia since merger and separation as to why it is so challenging to maintain a problem-free relationship with our nearest neighbour.”
“Sir, currently, exemptions from the Retirement Age Act are granted by the Ministry of Labour on application by companies after consultation with the unions concerned. For example, exemption from the Retirement Age Act was granted to all employers of airline cabin crew men after an application was made by one airline and after the Ministry had consultations with the union of that airline. Would the Minister consider the formation of an independent committee that would consider all applications for exemption from the Retirement Age Act in order that there may be a better and wider scrutiny of the grounds for which exemption is sought? Some of the job requirements used by employers to justify for exemption from the Retirement Age Act, such as youthful appearance, appear to me somewhat subjective. I am sure that Members will agree, if all MPs have to satisfy the "good looks" requirement to be elected as MPs, as expected by one Straits Times' journalist, then I fear that many of us will be forced into early retirement. I would therefore like to urge the Minister to constitute an independent committee comprising employers, labour experts and Ministry officials that is empowered to hear submissions from all interested parties. This would provide wider and perhaps more equitable avenue for exemptions to be considered and reviewed from time to time. 1.15 pm”
“Sir, the GPC Chairman has already covered the two points which I intended to speak on. So I am not speaking.”
“Sir, as Singapore graduates somewhat reluctantly into an advanced developing country and takes on a higher profile in the international scene, it seems to attract more attention from the foreign media. However, not all reports on Singapore appear to be objective. In fact, some are misleading and malicious. I am sure the Minister is aware that to respond to every report that is critical to Singapore would be counter-productive and may convey the impression that we are defensive and thin-skinned people. Furthermore, we may risk giving undue prominence to some journalists who are really nonentities in their own right and encourage others to take cheap shots at us for the publicity that they may attract themselves at our expense. However, not to respond in some cases may cause damage to our image abroad and have adverse consequences in our efforts to attract investments and tourists to Singapore. Could the Minister tell us what is his Ministry's policy in handling false and misleading reports about Singapore appearing in the foreign media from time to time and what measures are being taken to ensure that accurate information about the country is made available overseas?”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister for Defence when was the last time the allowances paid to our full-time National Servicemen were revised and, in previous revisions, have they kept pace with salary increases in the civil service or the private sector. I would like to urge the Minister to consider pegging the allowances paid to our full-time National Servicemen to a percentage of that received by SAF regulars so that there may be automatic and timely adjustments of NS allowances in the same way that we have done in the pegging of salaries of our top civil servants and Ministers with that of the private sector. Could the Minister also advise whether his Ministry has a scheme to financially assist full-time NSmen who are sole breadwinners in their families and others who have to support siblings and other family members while serving their full-time National Service?”
“Sir, the make-up pay of NSmen performing in-camp training currently includes only salary and allowances that are subject to tax and CPF contribution. A significant proportion of the income of some categories of employees, such as airline crew members are earned overseas and consequently not subject to tax or CPF contribution. Could the Minister advise his Ministry to consider including all allowances, even those that are not subject to CPF contribution or income tax, in the computation of NS make-up pay? This would ensure that our NSmen and their families do not suffer financial hardship in addition to the sacrifices that they have to make for the defence of the country. Could the Minister also clarify if commission, profit and overtime pay that an NSman earns consistently, if he were not called up for NS duty, are included in the computation of NS make-up pay? If not, what are the reasons for this?”
“Sir, I support the amendments moved by the Minister. However, there are concerns expressed by some contractors that the new provisions which are more stringent in some areas will affect their business operations, especially in situations where contracts have already been signed and works are in progress. I would like to urge the Minister to consider giving contractors a sufficient grace period before bringing the new provisions into force. This would give everyone time to make adjustments to comply with the new requirements. Sir, new section 16C provides immunity from suits and other legal proceedings on the Controller or any person acting under his direction. Could the Minister provide clarification for the necessity of this new clause? Other than these two concerns, I support the amendments.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. Sir, I support the amendments moved by the Minister. But I would like to seek clarification on the provisions relating to the transfer of employees. Sir, I suspect that one of the three cases quoted by the Minister during his Second Reading speech may be applicable to the company I work for. If this is indeed the case, then I would like to declare my special interest. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister for Labour to clarify that the legal framework introduced by the new section 18A applies only when a business or part of it is sold as a going concern, or where there is a merger or restructuring of a business; the new law does not cover the following situations: (1) transfers among existing companies, whether within or outside the group, where no sale of business is involved; (2) where only assets but not the business of the company is sold; or (3) in situations of transfers to companies outside Singapore which would mean a change in the contract of employment, and that in all these cases, the employees' consent and agreement will continue to be required. Sir, I would be grateful to hear the Minister's clarification on these issues.”
“Sir, Encik Ibrahim has already raised the points that I intended to raise. I will not be speaking on this amendment.”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head M of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code MC 1500. Sir, food waste disposers or garbage disposers are used in households to grind food waste before being discharged into the sewerage system. This appliance was introduced in the United States in the 1930s. Its use has since spread to many countries in Europe, the Middle-east and Asia, including Australia and New Zealand. However, the use of food waste disposers remains prohibited in Singapore. If wet food waste can be eliminated from our present waste collection and disposal system, the attendant problems associated with wet garbage in our hot and humid climate, such as offensive odour, flies, rodents and bacteria, would be significantly reduced. The quality of life of Singaporeans would also be significantly improved. If studies show that the use of food waste disposers would not increase water consumption, is there any reason why our sewerage system cannot be upgraded eventually to allow the use of garbage disposers in Singapore? I would be grateful if the Minister could give us his views on this subject.”
“Sir, residents living near MRT tracks have complained of rising noise levels generated from MRT trains. SMRT has explained that this was natural because of the normal wear and tear of the wheels of the trains over the years. The SMRT, I understand, has also embarked on a plan to replace over the next few years the wheels of all its trains with less noisy wheels. The cost of this project is expected to be more than $5.4 million. However, will the noise level rise again when these new wheels begin to suffer normal wear and tear? Perhaps other more permanent solutions should also be explored to ensure that residents living near MRT tracks are not inconvenienced. Noise barriers and tunnels could be constructed over the sections of the MRT tracks that run near residential housing to eliminate the noise. If the construction of these noise levels is not feasible, perhaps the speed of the trains could be adjusted over these sections of the tracks in order to minimise the noise levels. Although the cost of construction of noise barriers may be high, the money may be well spent on a permanent solution of the problem. Would the Minister therefore consider implementing such a solution?”
“Sir, could the Minister inform us if the piracy problem in the sea lanes around Singapore has been eradicated and, if not, what are the measures that have been taken together with our neighbouring countries to ensure safety of shipping in our sea lanes?”
“Sir, could the Minister provide us with an update of the development plans for Changi Airport Terminal 3 and also on details on the measures being taken by the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore to ensure that the services and the infrastructure of our Airport remain ahead of demand as well as ahead of the competition. There appears to be already an acute shortage of aero-bridges during the peak periods at both Terminals 1 and 2. Although more aero-bridges are being constructed, it is not uncommon for passengers arriving at Changi Airport to be transported standing up in buses to the Terminal building of the world's number one airport. Sir, I notice that on page 172 of the Budget book that no provision has been made for the financial aid to CAAS for airport infrastructural development since financial year 1993 when approximately $338,000 were spent. Could the Minister let us know if there will be sufficient funds for CAAS to accomplish airport infrastructural development for financial year 1995?”
“Sir, in December 1994, the MRTC invited systems suppliers to propose two LRT feeder systems as pilot projects to extend the reach of MRT to Bukit Panjang and Buona Vista. The Minister for Communications in a Ministerial statement in this House on 14th March informed us that a feasibility study is also being done for an LRT system to serve the Marina Centre area. If these pilot projects are successful, could the Minister tell us which other areas will the LRT be extended to and when? What criteria would be used to determine which area would have the LRT system before others? Could the Minister also give us details of the service standards that would be expected of the LRT operator and the anticipated fares that would be charged compared to the present bus and MRT fares? Would there be any Government grant for the LRT operator? Or, is the operator expected to run the system as a profitable business? Finally, with implementation of the LRT system, would areas that are still waiting for the MRT system, such as Braddell Heights, Punggol and Changi Airport, suffer a delay as a result of possible diversion of resources to the new system?”
“It will not silence the cynics. It will only give ammunition to those who say that we are being run by a group of very highly paid people who do not understand the concerns of the average citizen. This is what is going to happen. May I say once again that if we are interested in private sector comparisons - the directors do not set their own pay, the shareholders set the pay - put it to a referendum.”
“I think it is important enough that the shareholders of Singapore Incorporated should have something to say to this. May I suggest, not just a Select Committee, that this is important enough to go to the public on a referendum. Talking in this House, in a sense, is preaching to the converted, because all of us know what kind of sacrifices are made. But for the average person, there is a certain amount of resentment. From my conversations with various people, there is enormous resistance to the idea of paying so much. The danger of creating the impression that the top slice of the Mandrinate is promoting itself and paying itself is that you create cynicism about the leadership. You create cynicism about the people who are governing and running the country. This cynicism is not healthy at all, because it may translate into a backlash against meritocracy. The idea that everyone is equal is very seductive, enormously seductive. And if the average person feels that it is a small group at the top that are paying themselves very well and picking the same type of people, scholar-types, good 'O' levels, good 'A' levels, paying themselves, you might get this kind of backlash against meritocracy which would be disastrous for all of us. So if you really want legitimacy for this kind of thing, may I humbly suggest that we have a referendum. Then we will settle the question once and for all. Give people a series of alternatives, but at least the problem will have been debated, the people will have chosen, the matter will have been solved, hopefully. If this White Paper is reasonable, then I think we should have some faith in the common sense of the average Singaporean. If most people consider it unreasonable, then to put it through Parliament will not silence the grumblers.”
“In the public sector which does not demote and does not fire, does not sanction people for inefficiency, you get the tendency for people to cruise after they reach a certain level. You get a situation where someone has reached Superscale and thinks, "OK, I am happy now. I don't have to do anything more. I really don't want to be a Permanent Secretary. It is all right. I do the bare minimum so as not to be sacked." The deadwood will accumulate. Do we have any assurance that this deadwood will not be there forever. I think I would be much happier with this if we could have some assurance that if there are going to be increases in public sector pay, there will not be indiscriminate increases so that every Superscale H officer gets it regardless of whether the fellow is still performing or whether he stopped performing years ago when he reached Superscale H. A large proportion of any increase will have to be performance related, so that if a person thinks that he can stop and start cruising until retirement, his pay will be cut. There should be no such thing as deadwood taking advantage of the fact that in the public sector, people very rarely get demoted, very rarely get sacked, for inefficiency. They get transferred to places where they cannot cause trouble, but they still draw their salary. That is the problem. One final word about all this. Since we are so keen on private sector comparisons, may I point out that the board of directors of a company does not set its own pay for obvious reasons. It does not set its own pay. The prerogative of setting the pay for the board of directors belongs to the shareholders. The principle in this White Paper is a very important one because it sets the tone for our public service, for our Ministers, for years to come.”
“Calculate an index based on the salaries of, say, the top 50 CEOs in Singapore, the top 100 professionals, or whatever you like. Call that base 100. Calculate the index every year. If the index goes up by, say, 10% next year, then move your salary up from the base of $600,000. But do not peg it at an arbitrary proportion of what you think the private sector would get. I am not an economist. I do this just off the top of my head. It may not be practical. It may not be acceptable. This is the problem. We do not have enough information. It would be valuable if we could see what sort of alternatives and if we could have figures to show us what these alternatives are. When we talk about the public sector pay, not Ministers' pay, one of the problems with public sector pay, being pegged at private sector rates, as has been pointed out by many of the hon. Members from the private sector, is that the public sector does not function exactly the same way. If you want private sector pay, you should be subject to private sector discipline. A CEO in the private sector is running up a sand dune. If he stops running, he starts sliding back. There is no such thing as sitting down and watching the world go by. A public servant is more like climbing a tree. Once you get to a certain branch, you could sit down and you could admire the view. And unless you do something really stupid, nobody is going to push you off the branch. That is the problem. The trouble is that people do know Superscale officers. I know several. I am sure everybody knows several. There are many Superscale officers who are worth every penny we pay them and more. But there are also some Superscale officers who do not deserve even the money that you pay them.”
“Let me just get a bit of information, if I may, from the Cabinet. How many Ministers feel that on $600,000 a year, they cannot live a decent lifestyle? That they cannot pay their mortgage on $600,000 a year? Any Minister having difficulty buying a car on $600,000 a year? How about paying for their children's education? They cannot afford a holiday abroad? I do not think any reasonable person can say that $600,000 a year does not give him a decent lifestyle. So if we start from the premise that $600,000 already is a good figure, does it really matter to any Minister that his peers could be earning twice or three times that? Does it really matter? This is what I am asking. Because if it really matters to someone, should he really be a Minister? Should he just go out into private practice and satisfy his craving for material things? I am not sure we are doing the right thing by encouraging this constant comparison with other people. You know that if you go into certain jobs, that there is a trade off in terms of pay. But if the pay is high enough, the trade off in terms of lifestyle is not so great. I listened to Dr Lee Tsao Yuan's speech with great interest because she provides an alternative to the benchmarking here. I do not think many people will quarrel with the principle that Ministers' pay should go up and down with the private sector's pay. That public sector employees' pay should go up and down with the private sector. I think what bothers most people, what makes it difficult for people to accept the recommendations of the White Paper, is the level at which these salaries are pegged. If we say that $600,000 is a fair figure, let us use that as a base.”
“I know how hard they work. I know how hard the elected politicians work as well. When we look at something like this, we are asked to make a decision on the basis of incomplete information in a sense. Because we do not really know what other possibilities there are. Why the top 24 people? Why were these 24 people taken? It is an arbitrary figure. Why the top 15th person in that cohort? It is an arbitrary figure too. I think the approach taken by the White Paper is to look at how much the top professionals earn and say that Ministers should earn just as much. I am not sure that that is the right question to ask. Is it really the right question to ask yourself how many people are earning more than you in your cohort? I am not really sure that that is the right question that we want to ask. I think the right question that we should ask is: Are we paying enough to our Ministers and to our civil servants so that they can maintain a decent, comfortable lifestyle? When you talk about sacrifice, there is a world of difference between the lifestyle of a person who earns $50,000 a year and a person who earns $250,000 a year. But there is not that great difference in quality between someone who earns $500,000 a year and $750,000 a year. Because once you get beyond a certain absolute level of pay, the extra money that you get is just savings. Unless you have extremely extravagant tastes, how many cars can you drive? How many houses do you want? How many country clubs do you want to join? So really the question I think that we should be asking ourselves on the present salary that we are paying Ministers is: are they really being asked to compromise their style of life? We look at the entry level for Ministers, in round figures, $600,000 a year.”
“And you cannot rely on pure altruism to get people to take on the very, very onerous duties, as Mr Chong has pointed out, of being an elected representative and being a Minister. I think it is unrealistic to expect that. In a country with 250 million people, maybe you can find enough altruists. In a country of 2 1/2 million people, I think we are putting too much in faith in altruism to expect people to come forward, if they are expected to make big sacrifices. Where I part company with the White Paper is on the question of what is a big sacrifice and what is a competitive salary. How much should be paid? If we look at the White Paper, the first question that comes to my mind is: Who drafted this? Can I take it that it was drafted by civil servants? Am I right? Is it drafted by civil servants? Because if it is drafted by civil servants, then we have a bit of credibility problem, have we not? If we look at page 13, last paragraph, for example, it says that "A good Administrative Officer will easily rank among the top 15 in his cohort in terms of ability." Who says so? Is it the civil service that says so? Is it the Administrative Service that says so? Is this a statement of fact? Or is this a statement of ideals that we are trying to achieve? I think a lot of people would be much happier with the White Paper if we knew that this White Paper came from an objective external source and was not just what the civil service thinks they should be paid. I think that is the nub of many people's concern with this kind of thing. Of course, there would be people who would begrudge salary increases because of envy, because of political ideals, or because of idealism. But I am not one of them. I do not envy the Ministers their pay, I do not envy them their job.”
“Our Ministers, on the other hand, carry heavy responsibilities, some of which have already been highlighted by the Prime Minister. They are also held responsible for their decisions. In many cases, they have to carry more than one portfolio. In one case, where there is no portfolio, the Minister is responsible for all the workers in Singapore. They are also not exempted from constituency and municipal responsibilities in their wards. And they must face the electorate every four to five years. Perhaps if some way could be found to lighten their burden, then we may create a situation where the talented and the honest would want to get into Parliament as Ministers and not as Nominated MPs. I, therefore, feel that we should consider not only the monetary issues if we really want to solve the problem of ensuring that Singapore always has good Ministers and that the electorate would be sophisticated enough to continue electing them into office. Until we can find such a solution, we should not add financial sacrifice as another obstacle in the way. Sir, I therefore support the principles set out in the White Paper. But I hope that it can be further refined before it becomes policy. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is nothing more likely to bring out the basest instincts of greed and envy than knowing what other people earn. How much to pay has been a thorny issue not just for politicians but for the private sector all over the world. I was listening very carefully to what the Prime Minister said and I found myself agreeing with most of what he said. Most, but not all. It is true you cannot have cut price governments. Cut price government is incompetent government.”
“If civil service officers aspire to have equivalent salaries to that of the private sector professionals, then they must be prepared to accept the same competition faced in the private sector. Private sector professionals face not only competition from other private sector professionals, but also from officers from the public sector trying to move into the private sector. In many areas, they also face international competition in the form of expatriate professionals. While I support that civil servants should be paid competitive salaries compared to the private sector, I also feel that they should not be insulated from the competition faced by their private sector counterparts. On the subject of Ministers' salaries, I think a different approach other than just salaries may have to be considered as well. I notice with interest the increasing number of applications we have been receiving for NMPs since the scheme was started several years ago. While there has been no overwhelming rush of high calibre people with integrity, clamouring to get into Parliament as Ministers or as elected MPs, we do not appear to have the same problem with NMPs. I am aware that NMPs are not in Parliament for the sake of money. The amount they receive may make even an elected Backbench appear to be slightly overpaid. So it is something more than just salary that attracts them into Parliament. Perhaps, it is the lack of onerous responsibilities that are carried by the Ministers or even the elected MPs in their constituencies. What could be more attractive than to be able to take part in the decision-making process, but not be held responsible or accountable to the electorate for these decisions. Whatever the attractions, money is not the main issue.”
“But, unfortunately, this may not be the case. The White Paper does mention very briefly that salaries should never be the motivation for persons to become Ministers. However, it did not address non-monetary measures that could attract more talented people into Government. If the objective of the White Paper is to consider ways to ensure that Singapore will always have good people in Government, then it is equally essential that the non-monetary aspect be considered as well. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on civil servants, the White Paper mentions that the Administrative Service is the premier service in the civil service. It goes on to mention that the PSC, in recent years, has been recruiting only 10 to 12 officers per year from a cohort of 40,000 to 50,000. This statement implies that only the best 10 to 12 from each cohort are selected for the Administrative Service. I would like to ask if indeed the best of each cohort were chosen, or was it the best 10 to 12 of only those that applied to join the Administrative Service that were chosen. The Prime Minister has already pointed out several examples where outstanding `A' level students did not apply or decline PSC scholarships. If that was the case, then in all probability there may have been better ones from each cohort that have slipped through the net. The Administrative Service should, therefore, not limit itself with promotions from just within its ranks. The best, as defined mainly by academic results at the beginning of their careers, need not necessarily remain the best after 10 years in their careers. The civil service should consider taking in mid-career officers at every level not only from the public sector, but should also consider those that have established good track records in the private sector.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate on the motion moved by the Prime Minister. First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the newly appointed NMP who spoke before me on a very well-delivered maiden speech and I am sure Members will look forward to hearing more such speeches. Sir, I support the principle that competitive wages must be paid to Ministers and civil servants if the Government has to compete with the private sector for talent. However, I am not completely convinced that just by paying higher and higher wages we will always be assured of competent and honest Government. The title of the White Paper "Competitive Salaries for Competent and Honest Government" appears to imply that we will get competent and honest Ministers and civil servants if only we pay competitive wages. Even the World Bank Report quoted in the White Paper, and repeated by the Prime Minister, that Singapore bureaucrats are perceived to be the region's most competent and upright because they are paid the best, appears to be an over-simplification. If that was indeed the case, then I think we should not limit Ministers' salaries to just two-thirds the average income of certain professionals in the private sector. Neither should we limit the salary of Superscale Grade G officers to the 15th position of private sector professionals. Why not be doubly sure of getting good Government by doubling the incomes of Ministers and civil servants compared to the private sector? With the budget surpluses we generate in most years, we can well afford to assure ourselves of good Government for several hundred years or more. The problem would easily be solved if money was the only issue involved in getting good people into Government.”
“Question No. 1, Sir. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Mr Matthias Yao Chih) (for the Acting Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, the piece of vacant land fronting Block 322A, Jurong East Street 31, is safeguarded for a swimming complex and an indoor stadium. The development of the sports facilities will be undertaken by the Singapore Sports Council. VACANT HDB FLATS AT BLOCKS 1 TO 7 IN SEMBAWANG ROAD ESTATE 2. Mr Cheo Chai Chen asked the Acting Minister for National Development why the vacant Housing and Development Board flats at Blocks 1 to 7 near Sembawang Community Centre are not sold or rented.”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Mr Peh Chin Hua( In Mandarin): Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head I of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code IE 3100. Sir, I think public transport is very important to the ordinary citizens. The Public Transport Council has cut down on bus services to the public. Why is it that so many bus services have been cancelled? He says that so long as it is profitable--- 5.50 pm”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head I of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code ID 1500. In view of the limited time, I will just take my first cut and ask one question. I understand that the PSA may be contemplating a tariff revision in the very near future, most likely an upward revision of its rates. Could the Minister enlighten us on the rationale for this tariff revision, its possible impact on local traders and the competitiveness of our port?”
“Even after granting exemptions, the Minister for Labour should require the companies concerned to provide re-training for their retired workers who are below 60 years, so that they may find alternative employment or be re-deployed in other suitable areas within the company, wherever possible.”
“If the Ministry of Education feels that legislating compulsory education is unnecessary due to the small number of children involved, then it should at least investigate every case where a child of school-going age is not registered for school to ascertain if there is any valid reason why his parents have not done so and counsel them accordingly. I noted in the President's Address that the Government will intervene and give everyone equal opportunities and a fair start in life, and to provide a safety net of last resort to the small minority who need it. The Ministry of Education should therefore ensure that each child is at least brought to the starting line by their parents. Finally, Sir, the legislation that has been passed last year to raise the retirement age to 60 years. I was glad to hear that even this retirement age will be gradually raised to 67 years. Minister Lim Boon Heng has given some very valid reasons and figures yesterday to substantiate why workers should continue working beyond 60 years to ensure a comfortable retirement. However, I am aware of a number of applications that have been filed by employers to the Ministry of Labour for exemption from the retirement age law. Sir, at this stage, I would like to declare my interest as a union official representing members whose employer has applied for exemption from the retirement age law. I would like to urge the Minister for Labour to carefully review each one of these applications and grant exemption only after being convinced beyond any doubt that such exemptions are indeed warranted.”
“Sir, another subject which was mentioned in the President's Address is that of the sale of hawker stalls and HDB shophouses at a discount to sitting tenants, in order to help hawkers and small businessmen to own, rather than to rent, their commercial properties. This is indeed a commendable measure to assist hawkers, shopkeepers and to protect them from rent increases. The consumers also benefit. The shopkeepers can no longer use the excuse of rising rentals to raise prices. However, Sir, measures should also be taken to discourage these new owners from immediately selling or renting out their premises that have been bought at a discount to other hawkers and shopkeepers, presumably at higher rates than that charged by the HDB or the Ministry of the Environment. Several shop tenants have complained to me that a few of the new landlords are charging them higher rentals than what the HDB used to charge. Fortunately, according to HDB, only 4% of shop tenants have resold their shops and another 8-10%, according to estimates by the Federation of Merchants' Association, have rented out their premises to others. However, if this practice becomes widespread, then the objectives of selling market stalls and shops to sitting tenants would not be achieved. On the subject of education, I am gratified to note the many improvements to be phased into the primary, secondary and tertiary education system in Singapore. However, I would like to have seen some regulations formulated to ensure that every child that is able to benefit from education is indeed registered for school and given an opportunity to develop his or her potential.”
“This proposal should be considered, in addition to the reverse mortgage proposal, to give retirees and older Singaporeans a choice of either staying in their current homes for sentimental reasons or downgrading into smaller units and selling off their larger homes to families who need more space than them. Mr Speaker, Sir, we should also be aware that, despite the valiant efforts of the Ministry of Community Development and the impassioned plea made by the NMP, Dr Toh, yesterday, for single Singaporean girls to accept any reasonable proposal of marriage, there would be more Singaporeans than in the past who will remain single. This is a trend that we must strive to reverse, but it is also a reality that we have to accept. Currently, singles can only purchase smaller resale flats outside the central area. These smaller flats are really meant for the lower income families. There are also many restrictions and conditions to satisfy before they are eligible to purchase flats directly from the HDB. There may be valid reasons why these conditions have been imposed. However, we should review the housing policy for singles in the light of changing circumstances and cater for their housing needs as well. Making it difficult for singles to obtain public housing may not necessarily make many of them change their mind about marriage. Even if they did get married for the sake of housing, they may be getting married for the wrong reasons. The HDB in its development of future housing estates should not confine itself to building only the larger 4- or 5-room units for families but should also consider higher quality 1-, 2- and 3-room units to cater for retired couples and singles, should there be a demand.”
“One of the measures mentioned in the President's Address is the revision of the CPF Minimum Sum scheme to ensure that members will have sufficient money to meet their daily expenses when they retire at 60 years or beyond. The reasons for this have already been well explained in this House yesterday. I support the objectives of this scheme. However, I am relieved to note that the Government does not intend to raise CPF withdrawal age beyond the current 55 years, although there are some very compelling reasons to do so. I would like to urge the Government to explore other measures, in addition to increasing the CPF Minimum Sum, to ensure that Singaporeans will have sufficient funds to see them through their retirement years. One worthwhile suggestion, that of a reverse mortgage on housing, has already been put forward by Members. I understand that the HDB would be seriously considering this proposal. Alternatively, the HDB should also consider building higher quality 1-, 2- and 3-room units for retirees and older Singaporeans who no longer need to live in larger 4- or 5-room HDB units or even private property after their children have grown up and set up their own homes. These retirees can then sell the larger units or private property and move into smaller but higher quality HDB units that would suit their new situation. In this way, some of the assets tied up in property can be converted into cash when they retire. Regulations such as a 30-month debarment period and the resale levy should be reviewed for this category of people.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. Speaking on this fourth day of the debate, especially after so many outstanding speeches have already been made, is not an easy task. However, I would like to address several issues raised in the President's Address. First of all, I would like to address some of the points raised by the Member for Nee Soon Central. The Member stated his disappointment that the Government has failed to safeguard the democratic system and went on to advise how to set up a better political system. I would like to urge the Member, first of all, to take care of the problems in his own political party before giving advice to the Government on the political system. The Member for Nee Soon Central also urged the Government to allow in more foreign workers in order to bring cost down. Sir, the only thing that would be kept down, with the introduction of more foreign workers, is wages of the Singaporean workers. Finally, the Member mentioned that Singaporeans are forced to take air-conditioned buses, against their wishes. I would like to inform him that I have received quite a number of requests from members of my constituency to upgrade the bus services to air-conditioned buses to improve their comfort, and so on. So it is not really accurate to say that all Singaporeans have been forced to take air-conditioned buses. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to support the motion moved by the Member for Kampong Glam GRC, Mr Loh Meng See. I note that the Government is concerned about the problem of our ageing population. And it is indeed commendable that measures are being taken now to address this future problem.”
“Can the Minister of State explain if there is any urgent need to convert existing surface car parks for recreational space or greenery which is in ample quantity in Pasir Ris already?”
“Sir, the main objective of the introduction of centralised refuse chutes for garbage disposal in the more recently constructed HDB apartments must surely be for improved efficiency and higher productivity of refuse collection by the Ministry of the Environment. However, my observation of refuse collection at some blocks in Pasir Ris and Tampines, where centralised refuse chutes are being used, reveals that refuse collection is somewhat below expectation. Apparently, refuse collection by the Ministry of the Environment did not take place in some areas for several days at a time. This was especially so during the festive periods in December last year and in January this year. Fortunately, contract cleaners from the Town Council in charge of that area were able to remove and dispose of accumulated refuse so that the inconvenience to the residents was minimised. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on the cause of this apparent lack of regular refuse removal during the periods mentioned and on the measures his Ministry intends to take to alleviate this problem.”
“Sir, before asking my questions, I would like to declare my special interest as Vice President of the SIA Staff Union and as a panel member of the IAC. Sir, would the Minister not agree that recent criticism of an IAC ruling by the Singapore National Employers Federation creates a dangerous precedent whereby unions in future may also be encouraged to criticise IAC rulings should these rulings go against them, and this leads to a long-term erosion of respect for the IAC?”
“However, if intelligently selected, Nominated MPs can play an important role in providing a voice for more segments of our population that are not represented, or that are under-represented, in this Parliament. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.”
“In an ideal situation, elected MPs are also expected to put sectional interest aside and speak up for national interest. In reality, does this happen all the time? I recall that when the House discussed the restoration of CPF cuts during one of the Budget debates, it was not too difficult to predict which MPs would speak up for the workers and which MPs would speak up for the employers. Should the House decide to discuss language and culture, I think it will be even easier to predict which MPs would jump up and speak passionately on these issues. In striving for the ideal, we should never let wishful thinking blind us from reality. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the question of minority representation in Parliament should have been resolved with the introduction of the Group Representation Constituency system. However, examination of the composition of the Seventh Parliament would reveal that, despite the GRC System, a segment of our population had no representation in Parliament. There was no ethnic Eurasian MP in our last Parliament. It is my hope that this shortcoming will be put right during the Eighth Parliament through the Nominated MP scheme. Examination of the composition of this Parliament will also show that there are only two women Members out of 81 Members in this House. But surely this is a gross under-representation of a major segment of our population. Hopefully, in a small way, we can reduce this inequity by adding a few more women Members in this House through the Nominated MP scheme. Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I feel that a total of six Nominated MPs may not make a significant impact among 81 elected MPs. Nominated MPs are also not likely to be able to topple the Government as their powers are limited on certain issues.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. Sir, I support the motion moved by the Leader of the House. The subject of Nominated MPs was thoroughly debated during the last Parliament, both during the Second Reading as well as the Third Reading. In addition, a Select Committee hearing was held when the subject was discussed by members of the public. At the end of the day, the Seventh Parliament accepted the need for Nominated MPs. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, many of the points raised then have been raised once again today. I shall try my best not to go over the previous arguments other than to state that, since the Nominated MP scheme was adopted, the situation in this House has not changed that significantly despite the presence of a few more Opposition MPs. In the last Parliament, there were two Opposition MPs, one elected and one Non-Constituency MP. In this Parliament, the number of Opposition MPs has increased to only four out of a total of 81 Members. However, the presence of these four Opposition MPs and the alternative views that they have expressed in this House so far have really not been so significant that should cause anyone to want to review or withdraw the Nominated MP scheme. Sir, I would like to comment on the point raised that MPs elected into Parliament should represent national interest and not sectional interest. In an ideal world, only candidates that represent national interest should be elected into Parliament. However, the sad reality is that candidates can and some even do get elected into Parliament by just concentrating on majority interests with little regard for minority, or national, interests. In our first-past-the-post system, a candidate needs only one vote more than the 50% to be elected into Parliament.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for his answers and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“However, before speaking on Singapore's Air Services Agreements, I would like to declare my special interest on this subject as an employee of Singapore Airlines. Sir, in recently concluded Air Services Agreements with other countries, we appear to be giving away more liberal traffic rights to other carriers than what we receive for Singapore carriers. It also appears that despite this very liberal air policy, Singapore carriers still face apparent protectionist measures taken by other countries. Could the Minister comment on this issue and let us know what advantage our liberal air policy has on air carriers in Singapore and also on the country as a whole?”
“It may mistakenly convey the impression to our people that we are already the best that we can be. However, more significantly, it may make us more prominent targets for protectionist measures taken by the less competitive and the more envious, who may perceive us to be bigger competitors than what we actually are. Perhaps the Minister could give us his views on this subject. Sir, with you kind permission, could I now take my second cut?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head I be reduced by $10 in respect of Code IA 1500 of the Main Estimates. Sir, I note that the Minister for Communications on 20th February this year released figures to indicate that our sea port is the world's No. 1, three times over. The figures, announced by the Minister, showed that the Port of Singapore Authority (PSA) was the world's No. 1 container port. According to the Minister, Singapore is also No. 1 in terms of gross registered shipping tonnage, and yet again No. 1 in terms of the number of vessel movements. Sir, we have just heard the Minister reminding the House a few moments ago that Changi Airport is also No. 1 in the world. I would like to ask the Minister how important or necessary is our apparent obsession with the No. 1 position. I do not think many Singaporeans would dispute the fact that in order to survive and to prosper, we need to constantly strive to be better. However, this obsession with the No. 1 position, in some cases, may be completely unnecessary. For example, being No. 1 for rules and regulations and fines is definitely unnecessary. In other cases, being No. 1 may just not be good enough. Although the Singapore worker has been rated No. 1 in the world for more than a decade, it does not mean that we have arrived. In fact, there are still many areas that must be improved, as pointed out by my hon. friend, Dr Ow Chin Hock, a few days ago in this House. Sir, if in striving to be the best we can be, takes us to the top position, should we not enjoy being No.1 in the world a little more modestly and quietly? Blowing our own trumpet, whenever any survey, no matter how insignificant, rates us as being No. 1 in the world, may not have very many beneficial effects.”
“Not so long ago, the Straits Times also reported on the role of employers in the training of their workers. Out of nine sizeable companies, only one company has attained the required standard, ie, 4% of their payroll. So on the average, our employers do not spend enough money on the training of workers. They spend less than 2% of their payroll. We must put in more effort to encourage more employers to invest more on the training of their staff. Whatever it is, the People's Action Party together with the people of Singapore has achieved great successes. Nobody can deny that. But I feel that however good a government may be in a democracy under the one-man-one-vote system, the most important thing is that when we plan our action, we must also learn from the Japanese businessmen to understand the needs and aspirations of the people. For example, in the upgrading of HDB flats, the Government is spending a lot of money and the people only need to pay 10% of the cost. Many will benefit, but I think the most important thing is to solve their problems of leaking roof, leaking toilets and spalling ceiling first. These are the actual and immediate needs of the people that we must understand and attend to promptly. So we should not create a society where money is in command. We should not over-emphasise material pursuits. We must have care. We must have compassion in our society. Then, even 100 years later, our Singaporeans will still be proud of our country. 4.12 pm”
“In other words, compared to the American workers, we are 69% below their level. In the case of textile workers, in the United States, it is US$39,000. We are only US$9,800 and so on. So in such a situation we are not able to have higher pay. I will give a simple illustration. In a biscuit factory, the biscuit manufacturers here cannot sell their products at a higher price than those made in Switzerland because the quality of their biscuits is lower than the Swiss. So we must train our workers to produce better and higher quality biscuits, so that they can earn higher wages, and that needs training and education. When it comes to the construction workers, in Australia, they can lay 650 bricks per day. But in Singapore they can only lay 500 bricks per day. It is a question of training and the workmanship of the Australian bricklayers is even better. So we need training. We must have good architects, to produce good designs for the buildings, but you also need good bricklayers. So when bricklayers are trained properly, we can have good housing. We know that in some Housing Board flats, the staircases are crooked. So we must know the frame of mind of these people. We must make them feel proud of what they do, and that is a very important challenge for our future institutes of technical education. They must not only teach them the skills, they must also teach them the proper attitude, proper moral values, so that they will have higher morale in what they do. In the past, the Government has introduced various training programmes through the National Productivity Board and the VITB. Unfortunately, according to Asian Business, among Hong Kong, Malaysia, Taiwan, Indonesia and Singapore, we spend the least money on training of workers.”
“I think the Senior Minister has stated some time ago in the past that in Japan the experts who can slice the raw fish well and who can cut the fruits well, are very proud of their skills. I remember that when I visited a technical institute the lecturer told me that the problem does not lie in how you teach English or Mathematics, but how to cultivate the right attitude. The students there seem to have taken a pessimistic view of their future. So how do we make those people who are not among the brightest to feel proud of what they can do? I think it is through education that we may be able to change their attitude. The Member for Bukit Gombak mentioned just now that about 400,000 people are in the low-income group. Here, I would like to correct him. In our labour force, we have about 260,000 in the work force earning below $600 per month. 55% of them are women, some of them are part-timers, some of them are casual workers. And 73% of them have below 'O' level or primary school level. So if you want to improve the lot of the low-income group, then just venting their grievances alone is not enough. I would appeal to the Government to look seriously at this problem, especially when we are changing our VITB institutes into institutes of technical education. The substance must be improved and upgraded. In other words, when we spend so much money on independent schools and to build more and better universities, we must also pay attention to adult education and to those who have already entered the labour market, in other words, the ordinary workers. We must also invest in their training and education. Why is it that they cannot get higher pay? For example, in the food industry, the value-added per annum in the United States is US$83,000. Singapore is only US$25,000.”
“Profit is not a dirty word, of course, but we have to explain how we earn our profit. We must explain to the people that profit is not made from the people of Singapore, but is made from outside the world. It is a difficult task, but when we over-emphasise the material aspects of living, people will make comparisons. I have already stated that the purchasing power of the people has increased, but the people start comparing their material lives. So I would suggest that in our economic report, we must not only deal with cars and television to represent our achievements, we must also give indications on how many books our people have read, how many cultural activities our people have taken part in. What about crime rate? We may feel proud of our low crime rate. When you are in a foreign country, once it gets dark you would not dare to go out. But here, in Singapore, even after 12 midnight, I feel safe to drive home alone, without fear. So when we use statistics to talk about the standard of living, we should not confine ourselves to material statistics only. We must also use spiritual and cultural statistics as a measure. It is only then that we are able to bring up a generation of Singaporeans who can be more rational, more cultured and more cultivated. The Government should spend more financial and human resources to help the cultural groups in Singapore so that they can organise more activities. The next point, Sir, is that we should not blame others when they become rich or when they are better off. So long as we have done our best, we have done our very best to earn an honest living, and to contribute to society, then we should be proud of ourselves. This may be an old theme, but it is not an easy one to implement. We must respect each and every occupation.”