Chay Wai Chuen
Singapore
“As a result, some enterprising businesses and grassroots people have even come up with better ideas on equipment and machines designed to suit our HDB estates, HDB rubbish chutes and our older workers, to make the equipment easier for them to handle. 3.00 pm I give this as an example.”
“Since there are so many anomalies administered by the two agencies up to now, and because so many retailers will be affected, I urge the Ministry to freeze this scheme and review the procedures and policies entirely and put up the designated land for tender to be administered by one agency.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to give more choices, in terms of compensation or alternatives and flat type allocation for those people who are affected by the Selective En-bloc Redevelopment Scheme. Children should be, as best as possible, allowed to help pay for their parents in some of these choices that they have to choose.”
“Sir, the MUP Programme has been in place for some time and it applies to units which are 17 years and above. I would like to ask the Minister why are 40-year old flats still not upgraded.”
“Mr Chairman, there is an increase in the operating expenditure of $648 million this year for the Ministry of Defence. I would like to know what is the rationale for this increase.”
“Sir, the SAF has been involved in peacekeeping missions on several occasions, in East Timor and the Middle East, typically in the area of logistics and medical services. I wonder whether the Minister can enlighten me on what kind of role the SAF can play in this area of peacekeeping missions.”
The complete record
Every one of 526 lines we hold for Chay Wai Chuen, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 11.
“These administrators who do not give full value scholarships or awards should not insist in their rules for application and awards that recipients cannot get other supplementary awards, such as the community-based bursaries from self-help groups, CCCs or charitable foundations. This rule should also apply to those community-based organisations not to stipulate such rigid rules on the applicants or recipients as if their grants are so valuable. This should also apply to the Edusave bursary awards given out by the Ministry of Education. We should not deny our students access to more than one source of financial assistance. The Government has accepted the CRC Report. I hope their recommendations should be seriously looked into with a view to assisting the poor and the elderly.”
“Why can we not just subsidise a bit more, not to subsidise the poor students, but to give more chance to the poor students to do better, without having to worry and to move upwards in jobs and career and income later? Why saddle them with loans to pay before they start to work? These are questions our young students ask and rightly we owe them a good explanation. My answer to him was that compared to what the university was in my days, more than 20 years ago, where only less than 1.5% of the cohort entered university, the figure is now expanded more than 14 times. 20% of the primary school cohort now enter the university and 37% of that same primary school cohort enter the polytechnics. The cost of running this expanded tertiary education system cannot be borne by the Government, just like when only 1.5% got the benefit of a university education. Therefore, part of it will have to be borne by the direct beneficiaries of the education system. The Government is presently fixing the cap for university education subsidy at 75%. The CRC requests for 79%. May I suggest that, to make up for this 4% difference, the Government concedes 2% and the universities and polytechnics raise productivity or cut cost by another 2%. That will be a win-win situation for everybody. More, the standard and stature of our two universities have also grown so much in the period. Facilities must be comparable to world standard and the teachers must be paid the salary competitively. Most students should be able to afford the fees charged and pay their share. But we should give financial assistance to those who need help readily. We should not make it restrictive for students to get supplementary financial assistance. The fault often lies in the administrators of these scholarship or bursary awards.”
“It was also out of brotherly love for her sister, who was single, and he was quite prepared to have his Medisave deducted, and his other siblings, and part with his own savings, but that was not enough to settle the bill. I advised him against doing so for this will create problems for him later on, for he needs the money for his own medical bills. Through the Medifund he obtained full remission of fees for his late sister. When I met him recently, he reminded me of the help he had received with thanks. I have no doubt the 3Ms work - Medisave, Medifund and MediShield - and if our needy are properly guided and assisted they need not feel so fearful when they enter a hospital. I cannot agree more with the CRC Report that hospital staff should be guided to counsel admission cases to the class ward they can afford and when there are no vacancies to admit them into the next higher class temporarily at a lower class rate, and to transfer them back to the lower class ward immediately when there are vacancies. In this way, hospitals will be able to know the intended demand for the respective class wards. And if the demand always exceeds the supply in a respective class, more beds should be built for that C ward, as promised by the Prime Minister in his National Day Rally speech. The third event, Mr Speaker, Sir, happened a few months ago at a meeting I had with a group of students in my constituency. They were recipients of the CCC and the PAP Community Foundation bursary awards. One recipient, a student, asked me: why did the Government who professes to want to help the poor and needy students make the fees so high for them? The poor students, he said, have to apply for loans or bursaries. Some have to work to support their studies, thereby affecting their performance.”
“I was very impressed by this young mother. These two incidents set me thinking quite a bit. Singaporeans are in danger of over-demanding on themselves and on the Government. I believe these two incidents can cover a good part of the cost of living issues that we encounter today. Are the couple applying for the executive apartment brash or foolhardy? On reflection, I think they are not entirely wrong. They are smart. They are reacting to an environment that is uncertain and changing. A part of the problem lies with the many regulations and conditions which are being presently imposed by the HDB. If they upgrade later, they are on a longer queue. And with prices going up, they may face disadvantage. If you take a bet on an executive apartment in Queenstown on a ballot you cannot lose. I suggest HDB ought to streamline some of the regulations on the ballot, the queue and credit access. It is a very complex exercise of moving from a regulatory paradigm which HDB has been operating to a free market paradigm which HDB has been moving to in the past few years. Part of this problem is unavoidable when you have property prices going up. Sir, with your indulgence, I will tell you the second real life event. An elderly gentleman came to see me about two or three years back regarding the medical bill of his late sister which amounted to more than $45,000 incurred during her stay in the NUH during her last days. I asked why he had put his sister in an expensive class. He said that she was admitted to the NUH and had been on medical treatment till she passed away. The siblings did not expect such a long illness and it was not possible for her to change.”
“About two years ago, a young couple in their mid-20s, both recently graduated from the local university, came to see me requesting my assistance to obtain a waiver from the HDB for the 20% deposit they needed to pay for their new HDB apartment in Mei Ling Street. They explained to me that they had just started working and it would be a few years before even they could have accumulated enough balance in their CPF (both together) to pay even for the first deposit. I asked them why they had not waited a little longer and perhaps saved more, enough to pay for the deposit, or get a HDB 3-room or 4-room apartment instead of a 5-room apartment, which costs higher. They informed me that they had actually applied for an executive apartment. They said that if they were to go for the executive apartment, it would save them the hassle and the cost of upgrading to a bigger apartment later on. I was quite surprised by the brashness of it. I told them that by their logic all those who were helping me in my meet-the-people session should be staying in private houses. At about this period, a few months earlier, a young mother staying in Tanglin Halt had come to see me about some matter. She and her husband, both originally from Indonesia and both also graduates, are settled in Singapore. They bought a 3-room flat in the resale market and stayed on with their son. Both are also working in Singapore. I asked her why she did not buy a 4-room or 5-room HDB flat since both are graduates and working. Her reply to me was that they would want to save enough first before they do so. She was very happy with her 3-room flat. Although their parents had supported them for their study overseas, not every Chinese Indonesian is rich, like those rich Indonesians.”
“The 76% rise in household spending between 1987/88 and 1992/93 therefore is to be interpreted as a preference for a higher standard of living, with the implicit higher cost attendant to it. In a free market economy, consumers and individuals decide what to do with their dollars. The State must be silent on this. In any society, there are bound to be certain groups who feel left behind because their income has not been able to catch up with the average. Under a situation of rapid expansion in the economy, it is quite natural for this group to be feeling the pinch. Here I am glad that the CRC Report devoted two chapters detailing the issues for the poor and the elderly and making recommendations for the Government to take action to assist them. Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to share some real life examples of events which I have actually come across in my meet-the-people sessions during the last two or three years which I believe succinctly encapsulate the issues we are debating, to go beyond the figures and the data to illustrate the assistance that is available and the excessive demands that are made on the Government by some Singaporeans. It is important that we get to the problem in perspective, to be aware that the public funding by the Government is reasonable generally, perhaps short only in a few areas, which the Report has addressed, and that the individual Singaporean must be responsible for his own consumption or investment decisions, whether it is buying a car or an apartment. These real events were dealt with by me personally.”
“The US leading indicators are watched and monitored intensely, and with no lapses of memory by research analysts and statistical clerks in mutual fund bodies, pension fund institutions and central banks across the world, because billions of dollars of investments are affected by the optimism or pessimism generated by these data. Therefore, the SDP-PKMS accusations must be taken very seriously and rebutted as such. The Cost Review Committee, in one of its findings, observed that the Department of Statistics' figures show that the 76% rise in the household spending between 1987/1988 and 1992/1993 had been accounted for by a rise in prices which account for 14%. The remainder 62% is explained by other factors, such as Singaporeans buying more, better quality and more luxurious brands of goods, shifts in the profiles of households towards more middle-age household purchases, which tend to have a higher spending level. In addition, Singaporeans are also buying investment goods earlier. They want an executive flat when they have barely graduated from the university and they want a car. It would not be honest for us to say that there is no rise in the cost of living in the past few years. But that is very different from saying that the rise is phenomenal and that the statistical data have been deliberately massaged. The first answer to counter the argument on the rise in the cost of living is to remind ourselves that in this period of the last seven years wages have risen by about 7.5% per annum. The CRC reported that food prices basically showed not much increase in the last two or three years, barely 1%. But there was observed a pattern of shift to higher quality goods with the implied higher cost and value.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak in support of the motion of the Member for Kampong Glam GRC. The Cost Review Committee Report covered a wide area - from food, housing, education, transport, health, the impact of the GST; and also assessed the impact on the poor and the elderly during the last 2-3 years of rapid economic growth. Sir, when the opposition, namely, the SDP and the PKMS, makes serious accusations that the rise in the cost of living has been no less phenomenal and that data in our statistical series have been massaged in order to hide the phenomenal rise in the cost of living, it is important that the Government must establish the truth, in order to separate the facts from the pervasive falsities that of late have emanated ceaselessly from the SDP. Billions of dollars of investments are involved by many research analysts and investors when they study statistical data which come out from countries. And in Singapore, I am sure tens of billions of dollars of investments are invested by MNCs and international fund managers. Such decisions are made by relying a great deal on statistical data on output, employment, prices and others. Statisticians the world over observe certain accepted standards in obtaining such data. And billions of dollars of investment decisions are made based on the forecasts or projections of such data. Policymakers from governments establish monetary and fiscal policies or central bankers weigh interest rate changes or money market operations or intervene in the foreign exchange markets in reaction to scenarios enjoined by these data. These, in turn, affect cost of borrowings for businesses and individuals, access to credit facilities, affecting investments and jobs in the economy.”
“Sir, listening to Mr Chiam, I would imagine that his constituents would have to wait a little bit longer going by the age of flats to do upgrading. The PAP is a very fair Government. The oldest high-rise public housing block in Singapore which is called Forfar House, or the locals called chiap see lau, is in my constituency of Queenstown and, until today, they are still waiting for upgrading. So that shows that the PAP Government is actually very fair. I have made various proposals and counter-proposals to the Minister. But, somehow or other, it does not fit the scheme, how to upgrade this stand-alone block of sold flats in the midst of several seven-storey rental flats in the location that has been designated for relocation and redevelopment more than 10 years ago. So far, the flats in Forfar House are not in the upgrading announcement although they are the oldest high-rise flats in Singapore. Many of the concrete and the pipes inside the flats are corroded. I urge the Minister to allow the appending of Forfar House together with the latest precincts for upgrading in Queenstown. For example, the last announcement was in Tanglin Halt. Although the distance may be a little bit further away, I urge the Minister to consider attaching it to a precinct a little bit further away for upgrading so that there are some economies and some externalities involved in doing this upgrading. With this magnanimous decision, the Minister would have shown his helicopter vision by cutting the Gordian knot that has caused these old residents there waiting and waiting for so long.”
“Chinese society has lasted for thousands of years. Their population is the largest. Hence their medical practice is entirely relevant.”
“Sir, although Chinese medical practices are not in the mainstream of modern medical development, I believe that traditional Chinese medical treatment has relevance in Singapore, and I dare say, in the future. The Chinese have been treating their ills for thousands of years through a body of medical knowledge that has a different frame of reference from the modern western medicine. However, this is not to say that they are no good. Chinese medical practice is holistic and treats for the cause, and not just the symptoms. It is a very useful supplement to Western medicine. For a good section of our population familiar with Chinese medicine, the proper organisation and development of Chinese medical training in Singapore is to be welcomed. I believe that Singaporeans can lead the way to integrating Chinese medical practices together with Western medical care, especially in the outpatient category. It can provide a good alternative for a good section of our population. For example, a free Chinese clinic run by my grassroots for two years has built up a record base of 1,000-plus. It only runs two nights a week and handles about 30 cases each night. I urge the Minister to take further steps to enhance the status of Chinese medical practice and help in its development by giving it all the necessary resources to enable Chinese medical practice to spearhead the drive towards alternative medical care. I believe health care is social-bound. You can have the most sophisticated scientific medical knowledge but the development of health care services in a society is bound in a complex mesh with the economics, politics, and the social realities. Health care service is not just about what is technically possible, but about what is socially efficient.”
“Sir, presently, there is a group of ambassadors who are resident in Singapore but are ambassadors to certain other countries outside of Singapore. This group of roving ambassadors has been at it for several years. I wish to ask the Minister for the evaluation of the Roving Ambassadors Scheme. Will it be extended or curtailed? Are there any plans to rotate such ambassadors because, as I understand it, some of them have been at the same job for many years?”
“Employers will also gain if the Government is also pitching in for the skills training and retraining of our workers. The beneficial effects of a trained worker, after all, would not only be a gain to his current employer but also to the overall economy. Finally, Sir, I support the motion in the name of the Minister. Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.50 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.20 pm to 3.50 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.50 pm [Mr Speaker in the Chair] ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT Debate resumed.”
“In the case of the MRT, the Singapore Government paid for the full cost of building the MRT before passing it to the SMRT to operate the system. SMRT does not have to pay back for the fixed capital cost of the MRT such as the land and building cost. Does it mean that we will have to pay for MRT when SMRT is privatised? How would this affect SMRT fares? The same, I understand, for Government privatised hospitals. Do we have to add land and building costs of the hospitals so that the hospitals could have a competitive rate of return on equity? The third issue I wish to raise is on the Minister's comment that we need to educate and train each Singaporean to his maximum. Also, he mentioned the crucial importance of human resource capital in our continuing growth. I fully agree with him. I notice that there were no incentives for training and retraining in this give-away budget. I consider further training and assistance for retraining of our workers, especially the older ones, to be extremely important. While our younger people are well trained by international standards, especially those with at least `A' levels, our older workers and others in their 30s, 40s and 50s but without the required `O' levels or graduates from the NTCs need more training and retraining. Presently, the assistance for training of workers is largely drawn from the Skills Development Fund, which is a tax on the employers. Despite a cut in the corporate tax rate, the Government, I suggest, can make a more substantial and significant contribution in our workers' training by perhaps offering a 1% co-payment with the employers on SDF's contribution. This would be a good gesture and an incentive to our workers, and that the Government takes this training and retraining efforts very seriously.”
“The people will also understand, over the longer term, truly and more deeply that the Government is the trustee of the people's money, and that the transfers of this money from the public to the private accounts are fully transparent and for the record. Through this, I believe the people will become more educated in the true meaning of responsible public finance of the Government and the good points in working together with Government and employers for more good years, as true and equal stakeholders in the economy. This will also help establish in the minds of the people clear and undeniable history of the Government and the economic record. As true stakeholders, this is an added reminder for the support of good government. The second issue I would like to raise is the Minister's mention of the need for Singapore Power to have a competitive return on equity and the need to correct distortions in the factor prices. This was made in support of MTI's decision to raise tariff rates over the next few years, thereby delaying the listing of SP. I find this statement a little puzzling, coming from the Minister for Finance who is usually very clear and tight in his arguments. If we need to price all the factor inputs such as land use, buildings, loans for equipment, etc, and factor them in to derive a profitable equity rate of return, then why were the implications of all these not pre-alerted, so that no undue expectations were raised in the first place. This is not the first time that a Government agency has gone public or privatised. I consider this to be quite basic. I remember several years ago, as mentioned in the Presidential Address to Parliament, plans were already afoot for the corporatisation of Government agencies that would go public.”
“Rather, such transfers are made through asset enhancement schemes, such as Share Ownership Top-Up schemes, transfers of Medisave and these are all made into the saving accounts of CPF. So this kind of transfer is quite different from the transfers of consumption expenditure. There is an axiom I wish to suggest to the Minister which I will call the law of the fiscal jungle. It is that what you give will never be remembered and what you take will never be forgotten. This is the third year the Government is transferring money to the people through the asset top-up scheme and rebates. Before long, the people will take these things for granted and expect these top-ups and transfers to be automatic every year. Who is adding up all these transfers and asset top-ups which can be sizeable and range in varying amounts up to $50,000 in cases of purchasing for flats in special cases? With so many bright people in the Ministry and the NCB, I am sure a simple statement can be given every year, which could be an addendum to the CPF account holders or the NRIC accounts, to give a list of such asset build-ups, such transfers or grants from the HDB, to Edusave, to Medisave and SOTUS, so that everyone is clear about these asset enhancements and transfers that they have enjoyed this year and over the past years. I feel this is important to do. After all, the Government has given billions over the last few years and, hopefully, more billions in the years to come. Such accounting of this in the private balance sheets of individuals is necessary.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak in support of the motion in the name of the Minister for Finance. I distinctly remember last year there was a huge sigh of regret reported in the papers when there was no cut in the corporate tax rates, and there were so many comments last year that there should be one for the business community. This year, with this generous budget and a cut of 1% in the corporate tax rate, the news I read from some business quarters again was that it was no big deal. This typical kind of response from a certain sector of the business community is to be expected when businesses are, generally, in some quarters not doing too well compared with the heady ones a year or two ago. With events developing in China and Taiwan, record unemployment rate and financial difficulties in Japan, coupled with the stalled growth in the United States and rising unemployment in Europe, the scene is building up to one of cautious optimism for the Asian growth locomotive. Yet it is to be admired that our Minister for Finance has the means and wherewithal to literally give money to everybody. Generally, the tax and the fiscal scene in Singapore is developing to one where tax measures have been used to effect certain strictly non-fiscal outcomes, eg, COEs to maintain car or vehicle growth. Another feature is emerging that the Government is passing back by direct transfers to the citizens a part of the surplus revenue. In many countries, the term "transfers" in national income accounting is the umbrella for all sorts of welfare assistance and unemployment benefits. In Singapore, there are negligible amounts of such welfare transfers.”
“The SDP leader who aspires to enter Parliament, and you call this party the loyal Opposition, did not even utter a squeal to dissociate the SDP from this castigation on one of the fundamental pillars of a democratic state. He was there agreeing with them on many things and presumably in his own telling words - "testing the limits". The pillars of democratic representative government, namely, Parliament, the Government Executive, and the Judiciary must be sacredly guarded and protected. One can at least understand if fugitives from justice attack the pillars of our democratic institutions. They have their own agendas and they have their own scores to settle. But when our own Opposition leaders join in the chorus in search of political capital, Parliament here must draw the line. For if the sacred democratic institutions are being slandered freely, the public here and the overseas investors who have access to all these news and reports through the media, may think that loyal Singaporeans have nothing to say. I must thank the two hon. Members of Parliament for bringing to the House this motion for debate. The SDP members in order to be credible must make their reply more substantive than was said just a moment ago. What the SDP does outside Parliament in endorsing the attacks on our judiciary must also be accounted before Parliament. Otherwise, the rule of law is a sham. Parliament is not a charade. It is supreme. And those who aspire to reach it should have a healthy respect for it. And those who are in it should sacredly guard it. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion in the names of the two Members.”
“One man, the teacher, who knows the student and has contributed much to the field over decades, wants to honour his student; the other not knowing even the subject wants to embarrass him. If one is really interested in scholarship (or liberal arts education, as they say), and one wants to study a subject, do you not have to get some experts who have studied the subject, across the spectrum of views, to give you a good perspective of what you are supposed to be searching for? Was this done at the so-called "alternative panel"? Who were on the panel? Fugitives from the law. At least I know that when the NUS or the NUS Society organises a discussion panel, they are more democratic and more sensible. At least I know Dr Vasoo and Mr Davinder Singh get invited to be on this panel sometimes. And what a spectrum of views do we have in this "alternative panel"? Two fugitives from the law. This alternative panel and the lobby to disrupt the proceedings were organised by someone who was only barely reading up on the subject of Singapore, and the panel of discussion comprises two fugitives from the law. Does that constitute a serious alternative view? The purpose of the alternative panel was of course not scholarship or study but to provide a vehicle for two persons with their own axes to grind and mechanism to undermine the government of a country whose democratic approach to government is not in accord with the civil beliefs of Americans. The end was not scholarship or clarifying democracy in Singapore, but political ploy. It was no alternative, and no panel. And along the way comes the leader of an Opposition party who aspires to be the alternative government. The alternative panel comprising the fugitives from justice attacked the independence and integrity of our judiciary.”
“But having found the ground different, with rows and rows of empty chairs, and white patches of turfs dotted by a few half perplexed students, that regard for our PM was high, naturally he must show the other face. Mr Speaker, Sir, following the events at Williams College on TV, I was very much struck by the dissimilarity in character of two Americans. One was Dr George Crane, the lecturer, who Dr Chee found "definitely not vicious" (one should be a little careful coming from Dr Chee). He was so worked up on Singapore, and I read he is an expert on China. He has not even been to Singapore. He has been reading up on the subject lately and I believe a lot from some of the garbage on Internet. I am not sure what he has to say on Deng Xiao Peng. The other was Professor Henry Brutons, who was the teacher of our Prime Minister. He was proud honouring his student, and he was proud of his student. I heard him say so on TV. He has been to Singapore, Malaysia in the 70s. He has worked as economic adviser to developing countries in the past - a man who has been in the thick of development economics in developing countries even in the 70s. The difference between the two scholars struck me. One, Dr Crane has heard many things about a subject which he has not studied. It is not even his field. He has not even seen the country or the people, or their culture, or their way of life, or even appreciated their problems. He has not even talked to the leaders of the country. The other, Professor Brutons, when he was younger, was already in the sun, working as a consultant to struggling economies, teaching them the doctrines, his beliefs and analyses, which were not necessarily received wisdom at that time, and working with the peoples in the countries of his study.”
“In a letter to the Straits Times on 27th September, Dr Chee as Secretary-General revealed repeatedly his double faced profile. He says, and I quote - he is speaking in the context of challenging the PAP to debate him: `Singaporeans are not interested in what Americans think of us. What we want is a public debate between the Government and the Opposition before a Singapore audience on issues that concern us.' I wish to correct his twisted logic a little. What he meant to say is that the SDP, or he, thinks that Singaporeans are not interested in what Americans think of us. What he said is of course not true. If what he said is true, why go all the way to the United States to appear before an alternative panel in the public, in full media coverage? And there when attacks were made on the integrity of our judiciary, all he could say is, "No, you don't get fined for chewing gums", and "no, it is not as bad as the Soviet Union". Beyond all this debate, there are important reasons why I believe it is not true that Singaporeans are not interested in what Americans think of us. The US is one of the largest investor countries in Singapore. American businesses and MNCs are a significant factor in investments in the Far East. The US is also a significant military power in the Pacific. The US is a huge market and the US is a technological power. It is because we value what Americans think of us that we are concerned about the half-truths, and the falsehoods and the lies that are perpetrated by the pundits and the fugitives from justice with axes to grind and with their own agendas. Dr Chee knows very well what the Americans think of us matters to us. Hence, he pitched for it.”
“The SDP leaders, especially the ones seated in this House, would be grossly derelict in their duties to Parliament and to Singapore if they do not defend their other party leaders for what they did. They should explain to the House their party's action. And the party leaders of SDP flew all the way to the US for a chance to join in this "alternative panel", paid for by some Americans. I am really surprised that the Secretary-General of the SDP could say that he accepted the paid tickets with honour and pride. If he had gone there to promote Singapore, one can at least understand. What we are seeing here is a leader of an Opposition party, with two other senior party executives, stooping to pick up the tickets and fly 14-16 hours to good old Williamstown to take part in an "alternative panel", together with fugitives from justice in Singapore, and there endorsed the attacks on our judiciary. How can the leaders of the SDP in this House take this sitting down? Luckily, it was our Prime Minister who won the show at Williams, in spite of all the lobbying and the organisation to disrupt the proceedings and embarrass the honoured PM. Dr George Crane was the leader of this lobby group against our Prime Minister. He has never visited Singapore. And as our friend Dr Chee says, that having been there and having spoken to the people there, it was clear that the students in the faculty bore no anti-Singapore sentiments. Was he not disappointed? Surely he had expected otherwise. It is the same old twist and turn of words and face as in the Flor Contemplacion case when having poured oil on burning fire, the same two-faced person turns around and says: Is there anything I can do to help?”
“When challenges are made to the independence and the integrity of our judiciary, it must be the duty of Members of Parliament to bring it to Parliament so that this matter could be debated by all Members who after all represent the people of Singapore. For Singapore, as truly in a representative democracy, the legislature, that is, Parliament, the Executive, and the Judiciary have solemn duties and responsibilities to perform in order for representative government to work, and manifestly seen to work. I have just said that in the Flor Contemplacion case, it was the two Nominated Members of Parliament who tabled the motion. When the Opposition party was decrying that Singapore's machinery of justice was on trial and the leader of the SDP wrote to the head of state of government, at that time the two Opposition parties were busy issuing statements to the press, pouring oil over fire, and what were the Opposition Members doing in Parliament? Majestically silent. I raised the question then: why did the Opposition party members in Parliament, as representatives of their parties and representatives of the electorate, not bring up the serious matter regarding justice system in Singapore for debate? Surely a charge on our justice system merits debate in Parliament. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very glad that this motion has been tabled for debate. This time, it concerns the independence and integrity of our judiciary. When attacks are made by fugitives from our justice, especially when leaders of a political party which is represented in Parliament, partake in the process where the attacks are made in full public forum and the international media, it is the duty of Parliament to debate the matter.”
“He can make his point after I have spoken. Mr Ling How Doong: If he does not allow me, good.”
“Sir, I am glad the Leader of the Opposition does not doubt the quotation. I hope he understands the quotation. I am very glad, Mr Speaker, Sir, that at least we have this motion for debate in Parliament today. Just now, Mr Ling himself said that in May he mentioned something in the House that reinforces the stand of the SDP in the justice system of Singapore. At that time, two Nominated Members, Dr Kanwaljit Soin and Mr De Payva, moved the motion in Parliament regarding the Flor Contemplacion case. What did Mr Ling say in Parliament? That they wanted the case to be clear, to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Was there any doubt that the justice system in Singapore is fair and transparent and just? Well, maybe not to the SDP. During that period, the Chairman of SDP wrote to the President of the Philippines expressing regret over the situation. If we read the context of the case, are we not justified in thinking that the Leader of the Opposition doubts the justice system in Singapore?”
“My point is that as the Leader of the Opposition party who was there at this gathering and who took part in the proceedings, he claims that he does not know what Mr Francis Seow talks about with regard to the judiciary. I suppose he is not even aware what we are talking about today. Dr Tan Cheng Bock rose ---”
“Sir, my point is that as the Leader of the Opposition party which is represented in this gathering at Williamstown --- Mr Ling How Doong rose ---”
“Sir, I have with me here a copy of the full speech of Mr Francis Seow at Williams College. With your permission, I will tender the speech through Dr Ow who will hand it to Mr Ling.”
“`The appointment of judges, including that of Chief Justice, is the prerogative of the PM who selects them from among members of the bar, needless to say those chosen are required to be politically correct. Lee once boasted that the persons he appoints know what is expected of them. He appointed as Chief Justice of Singapore, a banker, who had not practised law for two decades, whose superior claim to this illustrious position was that he was a faithful crony. Thus neither a wink nor a nod is necessary. Reluctant litigants in Singapore can therefore expect short shrift from justice in any legal proceedings involving the Government .... confident that these judges know on which side of the judicial bread is buttered. Lee uses the courts as a legal weapon with which to bankrupt or cripple the Opposition.' Mr Speaker, Sir, such damaging statement made by a fugitive from the law in Singapore, and there we have this illustrious gathering of the SDP with their senior members, and the Chairman of the SDP claims that he does not know what Mr Francis Seow says at this gathering in Williamstown. Mr Ling How Doong rose -”
“Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate in the names of the Members for Leng Kee and Toa Payoh GRC. Listening to the leader of the SDP, Mr Ling, making his rebuttal just now with regard to the motion before Parliament today, I was a little bit disturbed that even at this stage his defence of the action of his political party, which he leads, is of such muddled and twisted logic. He claims that he does not have with him, or he asks of the Minister to let him know of the speech that Mr Francis Seow was supposed to have made at Williams College. I will read to Members what Mr Francis Seow at Williams College said with regard to the independence and integrity of our judiciary. In the course of the speech he mentioned, and I quote: `The judiciary in Singapore is neither independent nor free. It is pliant. It is corrupt. It is beholden to the Prime Minister and the establishment, judges in Singapore are invariably leaning over backwards in favour of the Government and of the establishment and award them grotesque sums in damages for so-called defamation. The record quantum of damages awarded to the SM LKY [by which he meant Senior Minister LKY] and his son Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister in waiting and Mr Goh Chok Tong, the seat warmer Prime Minister in the recent International Herald Tribune libel case, is a good case in point. It is renowned among Singaporeans that the rule of Lee has displaced the rule of law in Singapore.' Mr Speaker, Sir, a statement such as this, so glaring and so slanderous, cannot escape the notice of the Leader of the Opposition. I will go on from here to read further in the course of the speech what Mr Francis Seow has said with regard to the corrupt judiciary in Singapore, which he claims.”
“So when we handle diplomatic matters, we have to be very cautious and careful. This is the point that the SDP is making and it is our main criticism of the Government. The Chairman of our Party has already stated categorically just now in this House that we have never expressed any opinion on the judgement of our courts. We did not say it was right or it was wrong. Neither have we said we do not support. Our main point is that we hope the Government would pay attention to diplomatic tact in handling international relations. The point that we must note is that we are a small country. We cannot afford to be arrogant. We must be humble and tactful in handling differences and go through diplomatic channels to resolve disputes or differences of opinion with other countries. If it is said that the SDP is speaking up for foreigners, then I would like to take this opportunity to assure all the Members of this House that we have all along been standing on the side of the people of Singapore, and their interest. Our main concern is Singapore, our nation and our people! However, we must also respect the other countries. This is because it will be in our interest to respect our neighbours as well as all the other countries in the world. 4.20 pm”
“Some of them have even used unreasonable arguments to mislead the Singapore people into believing that SDP is taking the side of a foreign country. As a matter of fact, in upholding the independence of our judiciary, we are in full support. However, the SDP feels that the Government lacks flexibility in its dealings with the case of the Filipina maid. There is a Chinese saying: "If you cannot tolerate a small matter, then you will spoil the big matter." When the President of an ASEAN country has petitioned to us for a stay of execution of a Filipina maid, we should give it our serious consideration. This involves the long-term benefit of Singapore. We cannot just think only of our short-term interest but we should also consider our long-term interest. In the event that this matter has resulted in a war between Singapore and the Philippines, then what good can it be to Singapore? If the relationship between Singapore and the Philippines remains bad, then would it not affect our trade and other business activities? Would it have any adverse effect on our future generation? All these are matters that we should pay attention to. A Minister once pointed out at a public gathering that if we had allowed a stay of execution for Contemplacion, then our own citizens will also ask for similar treatment. I think he had said it too late because the Government had already created a precedent. In the case of an American, Michael Fay, we had already yielded to the pressure by the United States of America. In ancient China, an Emperor of the main Kingdom in China gave away his daughter in marriage to the Leader of Xiongnu, an enemy tribe in the North. This was diplomacy in the interest of the people of China.”
“This can be clearly seen from feedback in the local mass media. The people of Singapore must be commended for not reacting emotionally when various accusations were thrown against Singapore in anger at the Government for proceeding with the execution of Contemplacion. The Government of Singapore had also acted rationally despite pressure and objections from the people and the mass media of the Philippines. The Government's reaction to the Philippines' criticism was also presented in clear detail when it was called for. Sir, arising from the Contemplacion case, I would like to make a suggestion. I would like to suggest that the privileges offered to Contemplacion when she made her confession, ie, the presence of a representative or witness who could assist or advise, be made a practice in all investigation cases. This could help in making police investigations more transparent. This could also avoid any accusation of unfair treatment of accused persons. Alternatively, the confession of an accused person can also be fully recorded on video tape. Although we acknowledge that everyone would be accorded his or her rights under the law and be treated fairly, this process will make the whole thing transparent. It will also make it more difficult for any accused person to rebut a statement or confession made in the course of investigations, when the confession is raised during the trial. This will save the court's time in trying to resolve cases before the court. Mr Cheo Chai Chen (Nee Soon Central)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, although my Party Chairman, Mr Ling How Doong, has already clearly stated, again and again, our stand on the Flor Contemplacion case, Members of the ruling party still do not understand.”
“She was given the chance to defend herself when she was tried, but did not raise any evidence or statement against the charge of murdering another Filipino maid, Della Maga, and the son of her employer, Nicholas Huang, throughout the trial. Indeed, Contemplacion confessed to the murder before the start of the trial. Contemplacion was not only given her rights under the law and was treated fairly when she was interrogated by the police, she was also given privileges with the attendance of an officer from her country's embassy before her confession was recorded. In my opinion, the police had conducted its investigations into the Contemplacion case thoroughly and fairly. She was given a treatment no less fair than should be given to a Singapore citizen. In regard to the Singapore decision to proceed with the execution of Contemplacion despite new evidence and appeals by President Ramos, I believe the stay of execution would not have any positive effect and would only raise false hopes that could lead to more tense reactions among the Filipinos when the hanging was eventually carried out. As pointed out by the Minister for Law and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Prof. Jayakumar, in terms of law, a full investigation has been carried out and no valid evidence, old or new, has been found for the Government of Singapore to stay the execution. If Singapore had agreed to the stay of execution without any valid evidence, this would lead to a precedence that could affect the integrity of the judicial system and the Government of Singapore. The people of Singapore generally have shown that they have no doubts at all that Contemplacion was given her rights under the law and was treated fairly when she was interrogated and tried.”
“Even the Asian Wall Street Journal, which is well known for its critical review of Singapore, and not necessarily a friend, wrote an editorial called the "Philippine Farce" on 13th April 1995. Declaring that they have not been uncritical admirers of Singapore justice, they said that it would have been perfectly within the rights of Singapore to refuse to cooperate with what has clearly become a judicial circus (referring to the Gancayco Commission of Inquiry). It calls the work of Mr Gancayco "sloppy and a setback", very strong words from a liberal international business newspaper for a former Supreme Court justice of another country. With your liberty, Sir, I would like to refer to the same editorial. It ended with a lament that President Ramos' public standing had plummeted in the week when the Commission revealed its findings. The editorial ended with the following words, and I quote: `We suspect a good part of that fall [this fall in his public standing at that time] is accounted for by people who are beginning to wonder if he [Ramos] will ever stand up to the yahoos and the opportunists who are now so clearly making the running in the Contemplacion matter.' If I had the time, Sir, I would write to the Asian Wall Street Journal and I will point out that the yahoos and the opportunists also attempted to make a run, where else but in Singapore. Same principle. Same game. Same type. Encik Imram bin Mohamed (Nominated Member)( In Malay): Mr Speaker, I would like to place on record my support for the Government, the police, the courts and the Cabinet for the capable handling of the Flor Contemplacion case, based on law and the Constitution of Singapore. I am of the view that Contemplacion was given a fair trial.”
“Is not the Bangkok traffic jam proverbial? On CNN, they even show you the special pot you can carry along, and how to use it in the vehicle when you are stuck for hours in the jam. I saw it when I was in a foreign country. Is it not true that MPs in many countries peddle their influence for personal gain? Is this not undesirable? Is it not true that the ills of American society are subject to world wide criticism, and what is wrong with bringing up these examples by our leaders in communicating with our people? American leaders and opinion makers talk about anyone they like or dislike. Again, Dr Beng has given us very good examples from William Safire. The SDP should not be too quick to pinpoint that the Flor Contemplacion outcry was directly related to the offence of people by comments made by our leaders. It is too simplistic a connection, but of course, like all things in politics, there is always reason when the SDP wants to make this imputation. Firstly, the SDP really believes this connection to be true, which reveals its simplistic and infantile perception of political problems in the Philippines and in international relations. Secondly, the SDP is purely capitalising on the situation by posing to volunteer help to resolve the dispute, but really wanting to embarrass our Government leaders, and attempting to make political capital out of it. The unpardonable sin for the SDP was that it was too quick to slam our Government in chorus with people on the street in some foreign country, even as Singapore lives and property were in danger. I must commend Mr Chiam, the Member for Potong Pasir, for his courage yesterday to stand up for Singapore. I hope he can get the message to his political leaders in the party.”
“Another ASEAN leader who has been giving his points to many countries is the highly regarded Malaysian political leader, Dr Mahathir. I will not go into what he has said. Would you have political leaders who are frank and honest and direct with you, or the type who will just play to the gallery and ride on the coat tails of public outcry fronting leveraged politicos from some foreign country? When the Senior Minister addresses overseas forums, he is firstly invited there as a senior statesman. It would be a waste of time for him and for the people who pay heavily in time and money to attend if he were to express the usual diplomatic platitudes. It would not be in his character. More important, it is that he says what he thinks, and any one of them can disagree with his remarks, such as by writing more letters to the press. When the Prime Minister addresses crucial issues to Singaporeans, he uses real life examples. Naturally, these examples must include examples from other countries. Naturally, sometimes, these examples can be embarrassing but they are given not to embarrass but to illustrate. For example, I have not come across any one in Singapore or overseas, except some inveterate diehards with their own agenda, who is so proud of what sometimes happens in the Legislative Yuan of the Republic of China (ROC). Even if we pretend and do not talk about it, these scenes are seen worldwide in the family sitting rooms by millions on the TV screens. But never have I seen a Speaker of the House made more undignified. The New Zealanders would be the first people to admit that the welfare system has been a burden to their economy. And they are the ones now who are taking drastic steps to do away with the crippling effects of this welfare system.”
“From time to time, our leaders make statements about other countries, bringing them as examples in talks or speeches to our people. For example, the Prime Minister's annual National Day Speech to Singaporeans is a special occasion when our Prime Minister speaks directly to the people. Our people look forward to this address every year. Surely, it is right for a leader of a country to talk frankly to his people, and to avoid the pitfalls drawn from the experience of other countries. These are not examples from fairy land. These are real life examples of countries very close by. This is one of the features of our good Government. The Hongkongers, the British, the Australians, New Zealanders, the Thais, the Americans and the Taiwanese make comments on Singapore and Singaporeans and on Singapore leaders every so often. One only has to travel to these places often enough and pick up the papers to see them in the editorials, in their news columns and the bylines. Naturally, by now they are quite careful with their comments when it comes to specific names because they have learnt dearly to take responsibility for their statements. But the general swipe, whenever there is an opportunity, is always fair game with these papers or opinion makers. Yesterday, Dr Arthur Beng gave numerous examples of what William Safire had said about Singapore. We are a very small country. Singapore is an open economy with telecommunications, sea and air links with almost anywhere. We cannot be like ostriches in the sand. An invaluable benefit of good Government is to have good leaders tell the people frankly and honestly the problems and issues straight from the shoulders, with no need for placebos, but with plenty of examples of what it can be and how bad it could go.”
“This was the point raised in the statement to the press which they made on 23rd March. How can the community of nations move forward to do anything? Diplomats will always be going around in circles from morning till night and nothing would have been done. Fortunately, diplomats have already found the solution long before the SDP urges more diplomatic light, and that is the rule of law among nations, and the respect for the judicial system of the respective country where the crime is committed. This is a fundamental tenet in international relations among nations, and Mr Low should know about this. The SDP also charges that the Singapore Government failed in its diplomatic tact when our leaders make comments about other countries. How this relates to the Flor Contemplacion case beats me. Presumably, the SDP is saying that the Philippine people are hurt by some of these comments and the anger in some quarters over the Flor Contemplacion case reveals the hurt by these comments. First, I would like to debunk this specifically. The Senior Minister was invited to speak frankly at the Philippines Business Conference in 1992, and with his penchant for sharp analysis and language, he made some points on democracy and development and the formula it should take. Mr Lee gave it frankly and fearlessly, straight from the shoulders, a style anyone having an audience with him must be familiar with, even over lunch. Contrary to what the SDP thinks, most Philippine papers welcome Senior Minister's remarks. Examples have been given by my colleague, Mr Koo, a moment ago. In ASEAN conferences with some Philippine parliamentarians, I have also heard of some of their admiration for Senior Minister's frank and direct remarks. They told me he said what they cannot say.”
“It is rather sad that the SDP, proclaiming itself ready to assist and urging restraint and diplomacy by both governments, should focus more than half of this statement in attacking our Government leaders for comments on some of the problems in the other countries, which have often been matters reported by the media on various occasions. The press statement by the SDP reveals that they are really more interested in making capital out of the situation. When our flag was being burned, the SDP was more interested in trying to embarrass our own leaders for its own selfish political gain. Mr Chiam, the SDP Member for Potong Pasir, said yesterday that he was pro-Singapore. Unfortunately, his party did not show itself to be. This really shows the low tackle of the SDP. Like the pretentious white knight, it went hook, line and sinker, because it could not resist from capitalising on the situation by embarrassing our Government with tenuous examples pasted together by the sleight of hand. Dr Chee and the SDP were quick to pontificate out in the press statement that "two very different sets of reaction in the two countries to the same set of circumstances attest to the fact that perception, more than knowledge of facts, is the cause of the dispute." So the SDP thinks that more diplomatic light than political heat should be generated. The President of the Philippines responded to him by switching off many of the political lights. At the end of the day, I hope the SDP realises whether it was the diplomatic light or the political heat that was the driving factor. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are almost 200 nations in the world. If everytime anything has to be resolved in the international community, then by the count of the SDP there must be 200 perceptions to consider.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I find the comments made by the Chairman of the SDP a little bit too late. Were they concerned with a rational examination into the issues at hand in the case, as they purport to make out, or were they only trying to make capital out of it, when the going was thought to be good? Surely, if the Singapore "machinery for justice is on trial", as alleged by the Workers' Party, the matter calls for urgent debate. And they were silent when their voice was to be heard most urgently. What they did not do spoke volumes. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is fortunate that our Government was able to rebut point by point every issue brought forth by the Commission of Inquiry in the Philippines, and the comments made by the specific Members, as reported in the press. I must say that the rebuttals made by our Government can be seen by one and all and gauged for the seriousness, the comprehensiveness and the professionalism with which they have brought to the matter. Yet, there are none so blind as those who will not see. The SDP issued a press statement on 23rd March 1995 while the going was hot, signed by their ever-ready Secretary-General, where it volunteered itself as the white knight, "ready to assist in any way it can to help resolve this problem." I wonder what can they do. Its response was to call on the Singapore Government to exercise greater political and diplomatic tact when it comes to making comments about our neighbours in the international community. And it went on for more than half a page with a litany of charges against the PAP leaders for the sins of commission in comments made at various times as reported in the press.”
“Why were the Opposition Members so silent at that time in initiating this debate on the issue in the highest institution in the land, when they and their parties' executive committee through their Secretary-Generals were issuing so many statements and letters to the press almost every other day at one stage?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me this chance to speak on this motion in the name of the two hon. Nominated Members of Parliament. I find it fitting that Parliament should be the place where our two non-elected, non-partisan hon. Members should bring to the attention of the House the concern they feel in regard to the efficacy of the Government in handling the case, and the confidence, both domestic and international, in our criminal justice system. Mr Speaker, Sir, it troubles me to think that the Opposition Members were so silent in initiating debate in Parliament, while the SDP and the Workers' Party were busy at work issuing statements capitalising on the case as it unfolded in the days of April before the Philippine Senatorial election, through their two Secretary-Generals, Dr Chee and Mr Jeyaretnam. The SDP Chairman took upon himself the onerous duty of writing to the President of the Philippines in his capacity as unofficial Leader of the Opposition and Chairman of the SDP. Sadly, it is to the indefatigable Dr Soin, woman affairs champion on this side of the House on the Backbench, and veteran unionist, Mr John de Payva, both Nominated MPs, that Parliament has to lean in order for the issues to be brought forth for debate. Why has the unofficial Leader of the Opposition and Chairman of the SDP, so moved by the gravity of the Flor Contemplacion case on 10th April to write to the President of the Philippines, not brought the matter to Parliament for debate himself? Surely the refusal of the Government to stay the execution of Flor Contemplacion and the confidence in our criminal justice system are grave issues for the Opposition. The Workers' Party even suggested bringing the matter to the World Court.”
“Sir, I urge the Government to work out a new scheme of retraining of skills for our workers. I believe we are still running the BEST and WISE schemes. These skills programmes basically train our workers in language and numerate skills for them to be able to undergo training. As our economy restructures, our workers need to be able to move into the new areas of industries without being rendered obsolete with new skills required. For example, more skills at handling automated processes or handling computer-aided processes are important. Many of these workers that we have now may well be in their 30s and 40s. I urge the Government to work out a new retraining of new core skills programme for our workers. They may be working at a job presently not related to the workplace environment of the 21st century, but it is best to use our SDF money to prepare them. Yesterday, we have heard from the Member for Tanjong Pagar GRC why the START programme is a non-starter for practical reasons. We do not have to wait until the retrenchment time for money to be spent for retraining of our workers. We should realise that our workforce is not as literate and numerate compared with the other NIEs, especially at the older cohort level. So this makes it all the more important for us to develop this retraining of core skills programme for them.”
“Sir, we are informed that labour productivity grew by a healthy 5.3% in 1994 but, as mentioned by Dr Ow, this is lower than the 6.7% in 1993. Presently, in the survey report on the Singapore economy, the Government tracked labour productivity figures - output divided by labour units employed and the unit labour and unit business cost indices. Figures on productivity are very important especially so for an economy that is operating at full employment and also in the process of restructuring. The estimates on labour productivity are very important especially when compared with changes in wages. One important input that is not taken into account in these figures on labour productivity is the contribution of the capital input. This is particularly so when we have big capital investments in plants, petrochemical, oil refineries, etc. Also when a company upgrades and puts resources into new plants and equipment, the result is higher output. But this output is not all due to labour but to a combined input of capital and labour. Capital must also earn a rate of return comparable to its marginal cost. For such a combined input, productivity data can be obtained by a total factor productivity index. This gives the output attributable to a weighted combined input of capital and labour. It will give a better idea of contribution by capital and labour and separate out the two. This will also give a better reflection of the contribution of labour and capital separately towards productivity. These indices should not be constructed and evaluated at too aggregate a level but should be at sectoral levels by types of industries or across industrial sectors. Will the Minister consider giving us total factor productivity index in future economic surveys in Singapore?”
“Will the Minister consider administering some of these capital assistance schemes to approved business consultancies, just as the Local Enterprise Finance Scheme is administered through financial institutions?”
“3 of 1995, page 675, the sum of money administered for the whole of 1994 was quite small, ie, only $5 million out of an allocated sum of $20 million under EDAS Phase 1, a mere 25%, and $20 million out of $56 million allocated under EDAS Phase 2, 36%. In any case, these figures of 1994 were actually much smaller than the preceding year of 1993. Are we running down these schemes? I am also concerned whether we are reaching down to the SMEs in a timely and practicable manner, especially now with the EDB also taking charge of the regionalisation drive. It may be worthwhile considering how such assistance schemes can reach out to more users in a more user-friendly way without straining the manpower resources of the EDB. The Minister for Finance has in his Budget reply mentioned that the EDB has granted assistance to local industries over the years through the Capital Assistance Scheme and the Local Enterprise Finance Scheme and the Industrial Development Scheme. The outstanding loan under these various capital assistance schemes was $855 million in 1994 as against $803 million in 1993. These figures are found in the Annual Report of the EDB. These are loan schemes on preferential interest rate. The interest rate subsidy varies over the term period of 10 years. In some years in the past, recipients of these schemes were actually receiving negative subsidy interest rate when interest rate in the market charged by banks was low. However, based on the 3% subsidy and the risk premium rate estimate, the total assistance of $855 million works out to only an assistance amount of about $25 million over a period of ten-year term period, which is small beer even for small industries.”
“Sir, first on R&D activities. Our economy spent about $1 billion in 1993 on R&D activities, which is about 1.12% of the GDP. Most of the grants are administered to the private sector, for example, R&D Assistance Scheme and the Research Incentive Scheme for companies. We also have an Innovator Assistance Scheme. Most of these schemes are administered by the National Science and Technology Board. R&D spending is important for our economy to develop new products and processes in the special niches of industry. They expend large amounts of public funds. In order to ensure that the money is spent to beneficial result, will the Minister consider providing information on periodic reviews of the research spending to see how this money spent is being translated to the bottom line? This is not too difficult, especially as more than 60% of the expenditure are industry related in the private sector. The second point is on Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs). They play an important part in our economy, as mentioned by several Members in the House. They constitute one-third of the total employment in the manufacturing sector and SMEs constitute 44% of employment in manufacturing, commerce and the service sectors in our economy. Also, SMEs contribute 27% of the value-added in the manufacturing, commerce and the service sectors in the economy. I am aware that the EDB administers several programmes such as the Local Enterprise Finance Scheme, the Technical Assistance Scheme, the Upgrading Programmes for Local Industries. However, looking at Command Paper No.”
“Sir, once again, the Minister is pleased to report another surplus of $7 billion before transfer to the various funds. This represents 6.8% of the GDP in 1994. For 1995, it is expected that the surplus will be $5.75 billion. Looking at the Singapore economy over a period of 35 years, one can say quite certainly that budget surplus years are good years and budget deficit years have been bad years for the economy. One can therefore only fault the Minister at one's peril over the budget surpluses. The Minister has also quite correctly said that the budget surpluses have been the result of good economic growth. However one defends this, one cannot run away from the fact that too high budgetary surpluses over an extended period must represent a net withdrawal of private sector funds which otherwise could go to raise private sector's disposable income. When the budgetary surpluses are persistently large, as in the last few years due to higher collection in revenue and statutory charges and fees, over an extended period private sector demand and investible resources must be affected. The dynamism of the private sector economy can be affected which, over time, can affect the growth and efficiency of the overall economy. True, the overall national savings rate and reserves can go up or remain high because of this diversion. But at the time when we are hearing so much about private initiative and effort in the free market, the Government should consider moderating the high budgetary surpluses and allow more private sector decision-making in the economy.”
“Sir, I share the views expressed just now by Dr Ow on the discrepancy in the estimates on the GST collection and offsets. The Minister attributes this over-shooting of the estimates to the strong growth of the economy. However, the economy only grew by 10%. And if you take consumption tax revenue, it can be estimated from the national account figures by multiplying the total consumption by 3%. This total consumption figures are found in page 104 of the Economic Survey of Singapore. Can the Minister explain why there is such a big discrepancy in the initial figures given to Parliament on the estimate on GST revenue? He explained yesterday that only private consumption expenditure was used in the estimation of the revenue from GST. Can the Minister explain why Government consumption expenditure was excluded in the first estimate, since Government spending is an important feature of the economy? This discrepancy is interesting to me because given the usual thoroughness of our officials, it could imply some discrepancy in our national account figures. The Minister has also said in his reply yesterday that private consumption expenditure may have been under-stated. As total consumption is an important component of our national income accounting, does it also mean that our national income accounts have also been under-stated? Is the Singapore economy much bigger than what has been revealed so far in our Economic Survey? It would be interesting to know from the Minister whether this GST exercise will also be used to benchmark our national income accounts and whether any adjustment in our national income accounting is necessary.”