Chew Heng Ching
Singapore
“Sir, in terms of sports facilities, we, as a nation, are certainly very well-endowed. We have many stadiums, swimming complexes, sports halls, multi-purpose fields, tennis courts, school fields and many, many more.”
“These jobs need not necessarily be limited to menial jobs like cleaners, sweepers and lift attendants, but could be extended to include the services of older professionals such as engineers, accountants, managers, and clerical officers.”
“For this reason, Sir, I am a bit disappointed with the Budget in that we could have done more for our SMEs, many of which have also made sacrifices in the past and are still struggling and not able to reap the benefits of economic recovery.”
“In so doing, we may have addressed the form of the issue at high cost to our charities, deterred some good people from coming forward to serve and to volunteer, but may miss out on the substance, which is the bigger picture, ie, what is the best means with reasonable level of disclosure and accountability to help meet the needs of the nee…”
“May I, therefore, suggest that the Government look into the plight of these wet market stall owners. Many wanted to give up their stalls but, with outstanding loans from the banks, they could not. Some wanted to sell their stalls but there were no buyers. And their children are not willing to take over the stalls.”
“May I therefore propose that the Ministry, in the light of this massive LUP project announced by the PM, review the adequacy and the use of town council sinking funds.”
The complete record
Every one of 653 lines we hold for Chew Heng Ching, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 14.
“There are some people who can afford to maintain their parents, but will not. The hon. Members of this House, especially the lawyers and social workers, will, no doubt, have met several examples of the breed. Right now, there is no mechanism to compel a person to support his parents. He can cut his parents off completely even though it is within his means to support them. The law provides children with the right of support from their parents. The law provides wives with the right to be supported by their husbands. But Singapore law makes no provision at all for parents to obtain support and maintenance from their children. This cannot be a satisfactory state of affairs. I propose that the Government legislate the right for parents to get maintenance from their children. A parent should be given the legal right to claim maintenance from his children. Legislation of this sort will not affect the vast majority of citizens any more than legislation requiring parents to maintain their children affects them. It is only the small recalcitrant minority who can but do not support their parents who will be affected. Such a law will be in line with our objective to reinforce and entrench good values. Contrary to what some may think, filial piety is not a value exclusive in eastern societies. It is a universal value. "Honour thy father and thy mother." The source is middle eastern albeit it rendered into English. Can any one object to having filial piety entrenched by law? What are the objections to such a law? The first objection is that there will be some who will say that it is unprecedented, that no one else has done it. They are wrong. There is a precedent. It comes from England. The English enacted a law requiring children to maintain their parents.”
“For most wage-earners, the offset package will, probably, more than compensate for the additional sales tax, if spending is kept within reasonable bounds. But there is one group in particular that will be hit by higher prices without compensating offsets. I refer to retirees. Working people will get tax cuts. Retirees will not. People who live in HDB flats will get rebates. But retirees who are living in bigger HDB flats, or in private property, benefit not a jot from the package offered by the Government. Not everyone who lives in private property is rich. The middle class lives in this shadow land beyond the warm glow of Government subsidy. Dr Wang Kai Yuen has asked who is going to bear the brunt of this redistribution of tax. I fear that most of the brunt will fall on the middle-class retirees. What then is the solution? I think we have to step back and remind ourselves that the primary responsibility for looking after retirees should be on their children. When it comes to supporting retirees, I think it is dangerous to start with the idea that the Government must do more and that the Government must give more. While it is good that the Government should be open-handed when it can afford to, Government handouts cannot be a long-term solution to anything. The onus of helping retirees to tide over GST and subsequent cost of living increases should be on their children. I hope we have not reached the stage where people feel that it is the Government's job to support the old. I am confident that most Singaporeans will know where their moral duty lies. Those who benefit from the tax cuts and rebates should pass on part of their benefits to their parents who may not benefit at all, being retired.”
“Finally, Sir, I recall it was towards the end of last year when the Senior Minister urged Singaporeans to venture abroad. What amazed me, Sir, is hardly four months later, this Government has given us a well-designed package of incentives and goodies to encourage our investing abroad. Indeed, Sir, we have not only seen a leaner and trimmer civil service today, we are beginning to see a civil service more responsive to the needs of our businesses and the common folks alike. The civil service efficiency has, indeed, improved by leaps and bounds. And as Singaporeans take up the call to venture abroad, we know we can count on the civil service, and by that I also include the statutory boards, to respond to our needs even more promptly and sensitively and flexibly. Count on us as we also count on you, the Civil Service, to do the best we can for Singapore. With that note, Sir, I support the motion moved by the Minister for Finance. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. The main focus of people's attention today is the cost of living. In particular, everyone is looking at the impending imposition of GST. Death and taxes are two things that are inevitable in our life. I think GST is also inevitable. The only real debate is about how its effects can be minimised. The package of offsets and incentives that the Minister has outlined is a generous one but it will not benefit everybody. After all the hue and cry, after all the debate and discussion, one hard fact remains, and that is GST will be regressive. The person who will benefit most is the rich miser, the person who earns a lot but spends a little.”
“Savings are accumulated when times are good and to be used when times are bad. When it rains, you collect water so that it comes handy when drought strikes. You do not empty your water tanks because you see rain falling. This is basic home economics. Sadly, Members of the Opposition do not seem to understand this. They might also not see that GST seeks not to increase revenue but to reform our tax system to make us competitive and to reward the enterprising. Sir, the Minister's promise to cushion the impact of GST on Singaporeans is earnest. It is workable if profiteering can be absolutely prevented. Otherwise, there will be at least, initially, an inflationary rise. As our economy picks up momentum in the next 12 months, inflationary pressure is bound to build up. We should, therefore, ensure that the impending introduction of GST will not add on unnecessarily to this pressure. May I, therefore, suggest that the Government consider reviving the Committee on Profiteering and Inflation to closely monitor price movements, combat profiteering and educate consumers as soon as possible. Sir, the Edusave grant per child will be increased from $50 to $100 per annum so that it will, in the words of the Minister, "more than offset the GST payable on school books and other miscellaneous items". I would like to ask the Minister to clarify whether this statement is correct. Because my understanding is that when the Edusave Endowment Fund was discussed in Parliament recently, the argument then was that the Endowment Fund cannot be used to pay for school fees and textbooks. Can it now be used to pay for school fees and textbooks? Would the Minister clarify this query?”
“The Government has also emphasised that control of costs will remain the cornerstone of Government's expenditure policy. Sir, on behalf of the Estimates Committee for which I am Chairman, I thank the Minister, for he has made our task of keeping a close watch on Government expenditure easier. I am also pleased that the Social and Community Services will continue to take up a lion's share of up to 40% of Government expenditure for FY 93 to enable Singaporeans to be housed in affordable, clean environment, their children provided with better quality education as well as good basic health care for all. However, Sir, I am somewhat alarmed by the 17% increase over FY 92 in manpower expenditure. The Government has done a good job in maintaining zero growth in manpower; it has reduced some 600 posts. Taking the average salary increase of about 7% per annum in recent years, the proposed 17% increase in manpower costs would appear high. Is the Government proposing to revise the salaries of civil servants? Sir, I am not against any upward revision of salaries for civil servants. I would suggest that any increase in salary be carefully studied for its inflationary impact and the pressure it puts on the private sector to follow suit. We do not want a situation where any lowering of our tax rates to make us competitive be negated by unnecessary, unchecked increases in our wages. Finally, Sir, I come to the talk of the town - the GST. The introduction of GST is, indeed, opportune as it will be implemented at a time when the Singapore economy remains strong. I heard that Members of the Opposition are not in favour of GST. They argued that since we have large reserves and operating on a budgetary surplus every year, there is no need for GST. Sir, reserves are savings.”
“Sir, for companies in the private sector which are venturesome enough to take up the Government's challenge to invest overseas, they should be encouraged to link up with their overseas operations with Singapore in some tangible ways. The seven tax incentives given to encourage firms to regionalise, whilst good, should be made more transparent. As they are now, some of the incentives are granted on a case-by-case basis and the interpretation as to who is entitled can be very broad and flimsy, and will hardly motivate an entrepreneur at the threshold of investing overseas. It has been suggested that there should be some publicised and known criteria, and I am sure the Minister has taken heed of that. Other than putting in fiscal measures to encourage foreign investments, the objective towards greater regionalisation cannot be complete without getting Singaporeans to like an overseas posting. Therefore, we should try to create a "Singapore environment" overseas. Cater to the needs of employees' families. Look after their children's education. Make their spouses, especially their wives, feel at home while they are overseas. Recently, there was an announcement that children of overseas employees will not be required to have passed a second language for admission to the Singapore universities. This is indeed welcome news and a step in the right direction. Sir, I would now like to take the discussion back to Singapore. The Minister has promised to keep the public sector lean and trim so that a bigger share of national manpower and financial resources would be available to the private sector. Indeed, this will mean Government revenue will be kept low allowing room for further reductions of our tax rates in order to maintain our competitiveness.”
“The Minister has suggested that GLCs and statutory boards should link up and work with the private sector. Indeed, this is the most sensible approach because it avoids the dreaded scene where two or more Singapore corporations compete with each other overseas. They should therefore pool their financial and manpower resources together for better gains and for mutual benefit. But I would go further to suggest that we let the GLCs and the statutory boards play the role of a "big brother". Because they are well represented and well respected in this region, they can help establish linkages. Let them open the doors of the many contacts they have established to our own private sector. It is equally a fact that the private sector is rich in entrepreneurial expertise and business mind as our GLCs and statutory boards are strong in cash. Therefore, let the private sector go into commercial, manufacturing and services activities. Let the GLCs and statutory boards help these foreign countries build their infrastructures, such as industrial estate development, telecommunications, sea and airport development. Let each sector lead and flourish in the business or undertaking that it is best suited for, and be able to achieve the best gains yet with consummate ease. Let the two sectors complement each other, let them work hand-in-hand. Only then will the vision, succinctly put by the Minister, of local companies and their foreign operations becoming a major contributor to our national wealth and standing strong as a second pillar of the Singapore economy be realised.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Budget '93 is indeed a "Bonanza Budget". The Hon. Minister plays Santa Claus with his bags of goodies containing such incentives and perks that virtually satisfy every Singaporean. Whilst it looks into the plight of the lower income by giving them rebates on property rentals and HDB service and conservancy charges to cushion the impact of GST, it also lowers direct taxes for individuals and corporations, and introduces other incentives galore to encourage enterprise, to stimulate local companies to venture abroad as well as to attract offshore activities to Singapore. For all these, Sir, for his setting a far-sighted and comprehensive direction for our economy, the Hon. Minister must be saluted. But, Sir, even as we are slowly ascending the highs of a recovering economy, with the Government timely rewarding us with a most palatable budget, I find it necessary, amidst this euphoria, to sound a word of caution. Our economy remains dependent on the performance of the economic giants. Japan, Australia and most European countries are still waddling to find a way out of their economic cesspool. And we have yet to see the full impact of President Bill Clinton's austerity measures on the US economy. Sir, whilst the announced budgetary plans would help us regain much of our competitive edge, I would like to urge Singaporeans to continue to work hard, be realistic in their expectations, be prepared to respond to the call for overseas postings as we restructure our economy in an increasingly external dimension, to overcome the problems of a small domestic market and a limited resource base. We know for a fact that Government-linked companies (GLCs) and statutory boards are strong and cash-rich.”
“Clause 23 (section 328) Sir, the passing of this amendment will ensure that all employees will be guaranteed payment of retrenchment benefits ahead of unsecured creditors. Sir, many a time, when a company goes bust, the employees are left high and dry with little more than the wages payable under the existing law in the Act. This amendment will therefore be a boon and indeed a timely one in the light of an economy which is maturing. I just have one comment. I wonder if the total amount of retrenchment benefits payable to an employee should be pegged at $7,500 as the maximum. It seems fair to fix the amount at five months' salary, but does not seem quite fair to try to limit the amount to $7,500. It seems to penalise the better-paid employees. Therefore, will the Minister explain why is the maximum set at $7,500 and no higher? Sir, the GPC has also approached the Resource Panel for comments on the Bill. We have conveyed the comments by the Resource Panel directly to the Minister and the Minister has given the assurance that he will look into the comments.”
“Sir, the ROC supplies very important information to the public, indeed, and these are information which is more often than not piously relied upon. While I support this amendment, I wish to ask the Minister what measures are there in place to ensure that ROC staff act in good faith. Will the Minister assure the House that ROC staff will continue to be alert in their work and that ROC records and standards will not be compromised with the passing of this amendment? Clause 18 (section 154) Sir, this clause confers a discretion upon the Court as to whether a person will be disqualified to act as director on conviction of offences in Singapore. I would like to ask the Minister to explain if this also applies to offences committed outside Singapore, say, in Malaysia. If not, why not? Surely the standard of fraud outside of Singapore cannot be any less reprehensible. Clause 22 (sections 216A and 216B) Sir, I think the Government is to be lauded for seeking to rest in the shareholder the right to vindicate the company. As in now, if the Board of Directors and/or the majority shareholder refused to act for the company, there is nothing that the individual minority shareholder can do. Lest the jubilation of giving this right of the shareholder to sue the company be carried to one extreme too far, the legislation must be guarded against encouraging frivolous and petty applications by minority shareholders to put unnecessary pressure on the Board of Directors in the process. Will the Minister therefore assure this House that the amendments, as contained in this Bill, are adequate to ensure that this will not happen?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Finance and Trade and Industry welcomes the amendments proposed in this Bill. Sir, we feel that as the world economy matures, and hence keener competition within and outside Singapore, rules will have to be revised to keep abreast with changes. We therefore support the amendments. We also feel that since the amendments, particularly those relating to the Central Depository System, are quite technical and complex in nature and have an impact on a large section of the business community and the public at large, we recommend that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee. Sir, I have some comments on other clauses of the Bill. Clause 4 (section 12) Sir, this clause states that government companies that are classified as "exempt private companies" shall not disclose to the public any document or information relating to their activities in the "interest" of the public. The amendment could be perceived in the eyes of the prying public, few as they may be, as imposing a shroud of secrecy on what ostensibly is just another "exempt private company", except that it is now owned by the Government. It is therefore opportune perhaps for the Minister to explain and to illustrate with examples the possible "public interest" factors that would make disclosure of these companies undesirable. Clause 6 (section 16A) Sir, this clause confers immunity on the employees of the Registry of Companies (ROC) for information supplied to the public. To err is human, to forgive divine. It is quite another thing to guarantee in writing that when one acts in good faith, one need not fear punishment if one makes a mistake.”
“Sir, would the Minister say that the problem is now well under control?”
“And with this possibility in place, we could immediately enlist him for the job when the need arises. Sir, I support the motion moved by the Leader of the House, mainly because we could use the NMP scheme to bring into this session of Parliament other talented men and women in our society. For example, I feel a need to have a representative from the employers' organisations, one from the clan associations, even a representative to help voice the needs and concerns of the fairer sex, and even a specialist in the arts. Sir, I believe these people could fill a niche, contribute and enhance the quality of debate in this House in areas that our existing MPs may not be too familiar with. They will certainly be an asset to the House and help generate new ideas to the Government in the implementation of the many programmes in the Next Lap.”
“But I would urge these people to look at it from a broader and national perspective, as a natural desire to find and put up the best men for a difficult and, if I may say so, an unenviable job. These men would be a valuable asset to the nation. Sir, I am saying this to safeguard ourselves against a day when we may have difficulty finding, as what some of my colleagues said, a Law Minister or a Finance Minister from amongst MPs, because this is a very highly specialised job. The NMP scheme allows us to tap talent and to appoint well-qualified persons to the job. Sir, this concept of putting a non-elected man into Government is not new, neither is it novel. The Secretary of State of the United States is appointed. Dr Henry Kissinger was a top calibre man. Mr James Baker is of no lesser light. They are good examples of men of exceptional capabilities, testimony of a system that has succeeded in identifying talented men and women and installing them in positions which they would not otherwise be interested, because of the need to go through a political avenue. Sir, lest it be misunderstood, I do see enough good men and women in this House now who are of ministerial calibre or potential office holders who can even become Finance Ministers, contrary to what Mr Chiam said. I do not propose that we get an NMP to be a Minister now. But I do propose that the Government has this possibility built into the concept. We do not need it today, and we may not need to use it at all. But like the saying goes, it may be too late to start digging a well when one gets thirsty. Worse, not one, but the whole entire nation is thirsty. We might need the expertise and services of a maestro, a specialist, one day for a very specific task in Government.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Members will recall that this issue of Nominated MPs was keenly debated about three years ago in this House when the Bill amending the Constitution to provide for the appointment of non-elected MPs was read and passed. Consequently, we saw the nomination of Mr Leong Chee Whye and Prof. Maurice Choo to this House. Though their presence in the House was shortlived, I believe they had contributed many a lively debate in the House, with indepth analysis of issues and timely reminders to the Government about the impact and repercussions that its policies might have on the governed. Contrary to what Mr Chiam See Tong has said, I believe they make good sparring partners, much to the love and disappointment of PAP MPs as to Opposition MPs, because they were non-partisan. By their show of knowledge and substance in Parliament, they had dispelled the last lingering doubts that NMPs are simply tools of the PAP, lame ducks that only quack when asked to. Sir, at the debate on the Bill in November 1989, I said that if we did not have good MPs, we could not have good Ministers, Ministers of State and Parliamentary Secretaries. Although we were reminded by the then First Deputy Prime Minister in this House that it was not the intention of Government that NMPs should be eligible to become Ministers or other office holders, I feel that this preclusion from holding office should be re-examined. We should provide for a scheme where NMPs could be office holders. It is a form of safeguard or insurance for the future. Sir, I am aware that my proposal to the Government appears a radical and controversial one, as some people will quickly call it undemocratic.”
“This is particularly so for those who were Chinese-educated in the earlier years, and because of their lack of proficiency in the English language may again run the risk of being denied entry into a university. This is unfair to them. I feel that the establishment of the Open University is meant for the working people who did not have a chance to go to the university in their younger days. Therefore, we must also consider the large group of Chinese educated people. They should be given the opportunity to pursue university studies in the language that they are proficient in. At the same time, the setting up of a Department of Chinese Studies in the Open University will also provide an opportunity for teachers who teach Chinese as a second language, to further their studies and produce better qualified Chinese language teachers for Singapore. This will not only benefit the existing Chinese teachers, but also serve to improve the standard of teaching of Chinese as a second language. It will also provide an opportunity for the working people who are interested. This will not only be good for the country but also good for the individuals. So I hope the Ministry will give this suggestion its due consideration. In addition, if it is possible, I hope that the Open University may even consider conducting some courses, such as Chinese History and Business Management, in the Chinese language for the benefit of the Chinese educated.”
“I therefore have this advice to the Ministry of Education. By all means, start the Open University, but better to progress slowly, rather than to rush into producing many graduates. I think the essence of this Open University should be on quality and not on quantity. I therefore agree with what Mr Lew Syn Pau has said that the entry criteria should be reasonably high, so that the right type of Singaporeans are enrolled in this university. Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar GRC)( In Mandarin): Sir, I am disappointed that the Department of Chinese Studies is not one of the first to be included in the Open University. In Singapore, there are a lot of people in our population who are purely Chinese educated. Like those who are English-educated, they did not have the chance or financial means to go to the University during their younger days. Therefore, when selecting the subjects to be offered in the Open University, due consideration should be given to the needs of these Chinese-educated people of the past. I understand that the Singapore Chinese Teachers' Association has, in conjunction with the Xiamen University, China, conducted some external study courses with Chinese as the main medium of instruction. Some 300 Singaporeans were attracted by the opportunity given to them and enrolled for the courses. Regrettably, the external degree obtained through these courses has not been recognised by our Government. Therefore, I would suggest that our Open University should give priority to the establishment of a Department of Chinese Studies to enable members of the public who are knowledgeable and interested in the Chinese culture to pursue their studies in this field.”
“Sir, the Government, in a move to provide more opportunities for Singaporeans who have missed the chance earlier to acquire a degree, has proposed the setting up of an Open University. This is, indeed, a welcome move as the development of our human resources must continue to remain at the forefront of our developmental effort to prepare for the challenges that will face us in the Next Lap. Sir, I noted that a grant of $11 million in the Ministry of Education's budget has been set aside to finance the Open University. This sum is not small. I am for more university graduates in our economy. I have said it before, I wish to say it again, we should not raise the expectations of Singaporeans aspiring to be university graduates. I hope the Open University will conduct courses which are practical and relevant to the economy. 3.00 pm The Ministry of Education has indicated that, for a start, two types of courses will be conducted, namely, the humanities and the sciences, and these courses are targeted mainly at teachers who do not have university degrees. I think this approach is good, as a targeted audience or group has been identified early before the courses are designed and conducted. Sir, I mentioned that degrees or courses conducted at the proposed Open University must be relevant to the economy, as otherwise the graduates will not be able to find jobs relevant to their training. We have to take a cautious approach here. If many graduates from this Open University have problems looking for jobs, it may give the impression that this Open University may be a second class university, and this is something which we have to be cautious about. We should avoid this happening or else it will be a waste of state resources training Singaporeans to obtain second class degrees.”
“If indeed it can follow the route or the path taken by the Central Provident Fund (CPF) which became a statutory board some years back, then I am confident that it can provide a more efficient and professional service to the tax paying public. I would like the Minister's comments on this observation.”
“Sir, because of the tight labour market situation, the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) faces problems in recruiting and retaining staff. As a result, a backlog of tax cases collected and not assessed has actually built up. I would like to ask the Minister how serious is this problem. Would he be able to give us an indication of the magnitude of this problem? Would he able to tell us how much tax revenue has actually been outstanding because of this manpower shortage problem faced by IRD? And how much additional revenue in terms of interest income foregone arising from this revenue not collected? Sir, presumably, the solution lies in giving the Commissioner for Inland Revenue full autonomy and greater flexibility over personnel matters. Indeed, the policy announced in the last Presidential Address to decentralise the personnel functions of the civil service to the respective Permanent Secretaries will actually help address this problem of shortage of manpower. In this case, I presume that the Commissioner for Inland Revenue will also be given this power to hire and retain staff by paying market rate salaries. Sir, if this decentralisation process is successful, it would mean that IRD could actually solve its problems without converting itself into a statutory board, if indeed the shortage of manpower problem is the main reason why IRD is considering converting into a statutory board. Perhaps the Minister may wish to enlighten the House the full rationale behind trying to statutorise IRD. Are there other reasons, besides personnel, which prompted the Ministry to consider making IRD into a statutory board? Sir, I am not against IRD becoming a statutory board.”
“Sir, I raised an observation in the debate on the Budget Statement on Tuesday, 10th March, that the civil service appears to be understaffed by about 10%. The Minister has not responded to this observation. I would like to raise this subject again under this cut. I would like to bring the House's attention to a chart on page 19 of the Budget document which shows the manpower strength in the civil service -- approved establishment versus actual strength. If one studies the chart, one will notice that every year the actual strength is below the approved strength by about 10%, and this went as far back as FY 86. My question to the Minister is: Does it mean that the standard of our public service has suffered all these years because of this under-strength problem? And if not, and if the contrary is true that indeed the level of public service has remained as good as before, then my question to the Minister is: Why the need to retain so many unfilled vacant posts all these years? Should not the zero-base manpower exercise conducted after the last recession have actually deleted all these posts? This will make our public sector services even more efficient and keep Government expenditure even lower and also divert our financial resources to more productive use elsewhere within the public sector. I would like the Minister to comment on this observation.”
“Under this scheme, car drivers can buy a time-based parking card. This means that public car parks would need to install a parking meter at the entrance or at some point in the car park to show the duration a vehicle has parked in that particular car park. Sir, I am not sure whether this system has been implemented anywhere else in the world, but the principle behind it is sound. This may be a long term solution to our car park problems - problems relating to shortages of manpower, car park attendants and problems relating to people who have, for some reasons, exceeded the time limit by just a few minutes shown on their coupons. Would the Minister consider these two suggestions?”
“Sir, often when one's vehicle parking has exceeded the time limit shown on the parking coupon beyond a grace period of 5-10 minutes, one ends up paying a fine of $30 or so. This has caused much unhappiness among a group of Singaporeans who receive these summonses. Sometimes this group of people are late in getting back to their cars due to factors beyond their control, like being held up in a queue in a bank, being held up in a queue in a Government department renewing their licences or paying their charges, or being delayed at a business meeting. Sir, I have two suggestions to propose to the Minister to consider to overcome this problem. One, a short-term solution and the other, a long-term solution. 4.15 pm Sir, I would like to suggest that the URA and HDB be more flexible towards those motorists who exceed the parking time by, say, within half an hour after the expiry of the time shown on the parking coupon. For these cases, by all means issue them a summons to say that they have exceeded the parking time by X minutes and that they are required to go to the nearest HDB or URA kiosk to show them the summons, tear a ticket in front of the attendant to cover the X minutes that the parking has exceeded, and if they fail to do so, say, within 24 hours, by all means impose the fine. Sir, I find this arrangement will go a long way to help those people who are genuinely held up for various reasons and could not make it back to their car on time. A longer term solution would, of course, involve some capital investment. I think using car park coupons not only causes unhappiness among this group of motorists, it is also generally more labour intensive. A more efficient way is perhaps to implement a scheme along the same principle as the time-based telephone card system.”
“Sir, the Government has announced in the last Presidential Address that it would privatise some Government agencies and statutory boards, particularly those whose activities are commercial in nature, and at a rate which would not disrupt the financial and the stock markets. Sir, Singaporeans have this fear that whenever the word "restructuring" or "privatisation" of a Government department, agency or statutory board is mentioned, it means more money. It means higher cost of public service. This fear is not unfounded. Take the example of restructured hospitals. When NUH and SGH were restructured or privatised (to us these two words actually carry different meanings, but to the men-in-the street, they mean the same) a few years ago, they saw hospital fees and charges being increased. 1.30 pm More recently, it was announced that Telecom will be privatised. Unfortunately, this coincided with the implementation of the time-based telephone charges. And now public utilities. Many are saying that after the PUB is privatised, utility charges will be increased. Sir, many Singaporeans still do not see the benefits of privatising public services. They are of the general opinion that since the Government has performed such a good job rendering these services in the past, the Government should continue doing so. I would like to ask the Minister to perhaps, once again, explain fully the rationale behind privatising some of these Government agencies and statutory boards, including highlighting to Singaporeans, the men-in-the-street, how they will benefit from this exercise.”
“Sir, in the Next Lap, one of the objectives is to give every Singaporean the opportunity to develop his or her potential. In line with this objective, the Government will step up the enrolment of the two existing universities as well as introduce an Open University. Indeed, more polytechnics will also be built. Up to 60% of secondary school students is expected to make it to the tertiary education, including some 15-20% who will actually make it to the university. Sir, if we consider this number of graduates, including polytechnic graduates who will eventually further their studies at the university and obtain a university degree, and also degrees obtained through the Open University, the number of Singaporeans with university degrees will actually be very large in the years to come. 1.15 pm Sir, my concern is whether there are enough jobs in our economy to absorb this many number of graduates. Are we producing more graduates than the needs of the economy? If not, we should perhaps lower the expectations of these young Singaporeans who aspire to pursue a university degree. Sir, I would like the Minister to enlighten the House whether the Ministry of Trade and Industry does indeed project short, medium and long-term manpower needs of the economy. Will he be able to tell us in three, five and ten years the number of university graduates, the number of polytechnic graduates, the number of technical workers, the number of skilled workers and white collar workers that the economy needs to achieve the many objectives in the Next Lap.”
“Yes. Sir, I think much has been said about the widening gap between wages and productivity growth in the last two days' debate. This widening gap is certainly a cause for concern, as expressed by many fellow Members here. There could be various reasons. Many have interpreted that they were due to employers trying to hoard workers, paying them more in the present tight labour market situation with the hope that when the economy recovers, they have the manpower resources to meet their economic needs. Others attribute the trend to declining productivity gain due to the poor attitude of some of our workers. Sir, I would like an official explanation from the Ministry of Trade and Industry, on what causes this widening gap between wages and productivity growth? What are the implications, and whether the Ministry is taking corrective actions to reverse this trend?”
“Sir, I have three amendments under this subhead. Can I take them together?”
“One will note from this chart that the budgeted strengths of the civil service and statutory boards in the last three financial years were about 105,000, 100,000 and 99,000 respectively. But the actual strengths were 97,000, 89,000 and 88,000. There is always this gap between the budgeted and actual strength. What this chart shows is that we are on the average about 10% under-strength in the delivery of our public services. Indeed, the 10% under-strength goes beyond the last three years. My question to the Minister is: Does this mean that the standard of our public service has suffered all these years because the public sector is understaffed? If not, and if the contrary is true that indeed the level of services has remained as good as before, then my question to the Minister is, why the need to retain so many unfilled, vacant posts all these years? Shouldn't the zero-base manpower exercise conducted in recent years have deleted these posts? This will, if it is done, make our public sector services even more efficient and keep Government expenditure even lower or direct financial resources to more productive use in the public sector. On that note, Sir, I support the motion moved by the Minister for Finance.”
“The subsidy given must also be capable of being withdrawn without difficulty and pain to the public when changed circumstances call for its withdrawal. And lest it be wrongly assumed that a precedent has indeed been set to use our reserves for subsidies, Singaporeans must again be told by this House that the subsidies are taken from current operating surplus. I urge the Minister to continue with this guiding principle of using current operating surplus to finance any schemes to improve subsidies to the people, and not tap the accumulated reserves of $55 billion which should rightly be set aside for rainy days. Sir, it is heartening to note that the Government will continue to keep the public sector lean and trim. Government expenditure as a percentage of GDP will be less than 20%, and that is commendable. I hope the Government will continue to keep expenditure low as long as the long term benefit is lower taxes for the people and for businesses. Indeed the proportion of Government expenditure as a percentage of GDP should gradually decline as we privatise some of the Government agencies and statutory boards. The implementation of a Management Accounting System will serve as further checks on the use of resources in the public sector. My committee and I of the Estimates Committee will look into this system in greater detail to see how further improvements could be made. Sir, I have one comment regarding the use of manpower resources in the public sector. I have noted from a chart on page 19 of the Budget document which shows the strength of the civil service -- the budgeted strength versus the actual strength.”
“Sir, having set up investments abroad, the SMEs need to find able Singaporeans who are prepared to go overseas to work and look after their investments. Are Singaporeans prepared to make the sacrifice to leave their cushy jobs in Singapore for a place that is foreign to them? Perhaps the Government should look into introducing schemes whereby Singaporeans will be encouraged to accept overseas postings; schemes such as housing priority, income tax exemptions, suitable educational system for their children, and so on. And employers too must play their part. They must not only reassure the employee that he will not be bypassed in any promotions, but indeed make overseas posting as a necessary condition for promotion. Only then will the belief that the dispensable are posted out be dispelled altogether. However, I wish to caution that no amount of schemes or fiscal incentives can work if Singaporeans treasure their quality of life here and avoid overseas postings. I therefore urge Singaporeans to consider seriously overseas postings if the need arises. Sir, I now move on to the call for subsidy. It has been eloquently asked: since we have accumulated large reserves, should we not return it to the people? I think the answer is yes, and that the Government is doing exactly that. The Government will be paying conservancy charges for 1-, 2- and 3-room flat dwellers in December this year, and the implementation of the Edusave and Medifund are some of the schemes the Government has thought of to plough back the reserves to the people. There will be more when the needs are established. Sir, in my view, the guiding principle of such subsidy is that it must be applied in a manner so as not to lull our hardworking Singaporeans to become complacent and slothful.”
“The move to encourage Singapore companies to venture abroad was stepped up in the 1980s. Indeed, many fiscal incentives were introduced in the past to encourage Singapore companies to go abroad. Many of these companies which have successfully ventured abroad are the bigger local and Government linked companies (GLCs). Sir, I believe what is needed now is to try to open doors for our small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to establish linkages with the world. The Government linked companies have in the past performed a pioneering role and ventured into businesses and industries that the private sector would not want to venture into, because of many reasons, such as large capital outlays, high risks and long gestation periods. Government linked companies have done well and played a key role in this aspect of Singapore's economic development. Sir, I think these Government linked companies could again play a leading role in our efforts to globalise Singapore companies, particularly the SMEs. Many of these SMEs hesitate to go abroad due to lack of financial and manpower resources, high risks, as well as lack of business opportunities. In bidding for overseas projects and establishing foreign subsidiaries and joint ventures, the Government linked companies could assist the local SMEs to establish or set up overseas plants and investments. What I am saying here, Sir, is that there is a need for a public-private sector partnership to be established to achieve our economic strategy of establishing global linkages with the world. In this regard, may I suggest that the Ministry of Trade and Industry look into how best these two sectors could collaborate to help accelerate the internationalisation of our local enterprises.”
“I urge all Singaporean workers to recognise that a robust economy pays better than one that has slowed down, and hence they must be prepared to accept lower pay increases this year. Perhaps the National Wages Council should reiterate this point and go back to setting quantitative guidelines for wage increases this year. It is something which they have abandoned last year. Sir, businessmen are generally concerned about the high cost of doing business, particularly the strong Singapore dollar. While a strong Singapore dollar has kept our inflation low, enhanced our status as a financial centre, and benefitted Singaporeans, especially those who travelled abroad, we must ensure that a strong Singapore dollar do s not make us less competitive vis-a-vis our competitors. Sir, I am not against a strong Singapore dollar, as given the fundamental strength of our economy and political stability, the Singapore dollar is likely to continue to appreciate in the long term. But in times of uncertainty and in times of economic slowdown, we should try to keep the Singapore dollar at the level which will give Singapore companies the competitive edge. I hope the MAS takes heed of this. In the longer term, Singapore companies should find out from their Japanese counterparts how they survived in the 1980s when the Yen appreciated against major currencies. Sir, besides the strong Singapore dollar, the business community is also concerned that any further increase in Government rates and fees this year will add on to the cost of doing business. In view of the economic uncertainty ahead, may I suggest that the Government defer all increases in rates and fees in the next 12 months. Sir, the Minister has reiterated the need to enhance our linkages with the world economy.”
“While the economic growth last year was commendable in the light of international economic developments, I am perturbed by a worrisome trend. Inflation remained within 2-3%, unemployment stayed below 2%, and wages grew by 7.6%, but productivity fell to its lowest growth since 1982, growing by only 1.5%. This marks the third year in a row where real wage growth has exceeded productivity gains. Sir, the signs reminiscent of the much dreaded 1985 economic recession loom large. We cannot take chances. This trend merits closer attention by the Government as well as employers and the unionists. We should study what has led the economy to slide so dangerously close to a productivity cesspool. Could it be due to excess capacity aggravated by squeezed profits and rising wages? On their part, and to help the Government, I suggest employers and unionists together study the trend closely and help to take or suggest immediate actions to reverse the productivity decline. Sir, Singaporeans themselves will also have a part to play to help bolster the economy. Other than continuing to work hard, they will also have to be realistic in their expectations. But what are realistic expectations? For those who have worked some years now, they understand that wages should never outstrip productivity. Consequently, many have tried to upgrade themselves, acquire new skills and subject themselves to further training so that their level of productivity gain continues to match wage increases. My concern is, will our young graduates and new job seekers subscribe to the same philosophy of matching their productivity with their wage expectations?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it must be clear to all by now that what is certain about our short term economic outlook is its uncertainty. Certainly there will be surprises this year, some good, some bad. Some optimists have predicted an improvement in the economy in the fourth quarter this year, but some pessimists think next year could be worse. We are seeing conflicting signals about an economic recovery in the US. The UK remains in recession. Germany and Japan are expecting a slowdown in their economic growth this year. These leading world economies' continued downspin will sooner or later have a dampening effect on us because our economy is neither insulated nor isolated from the rest of the world. Sir, this year 1992 is also election year in the US and in the UK. Naturally, no efforts will be spared to make the economies appear buoyant and that they are heading for a recovery. But what happens after the election is anybody's guess. Last year, we managed to weather through the uncertainties, helped to some measure by the strong economic performance of neighbouring countries. The Singapore economy grew by 6.7% last year. Would we continue to have the same blessings this year? Already, official forecast by the Ministry of Trade and Industry is for a lower growth of 4-6% this year. Sir, while other Ministers for Finance are grappling with how best to please the populace in an economic slowdown, I am glad that our Minister has chosen, undauntedly and wisely, to present a Budget that is pragmatic, prudent and appropriate in today's circumstances. It may be described as "unexciting and conservative" but Singaporeans will understand that no responsible Government should give away bags and bags of goodies in the face of so much economic uncertainties.”
“Even when privatization does eventually increase efficiency, will the privatized company reduce its charges for the benefit of the public? Furthermore, the Government is contemplating the implementation of consumption tax. Once implemented, the consumption tax will bring more funds to the public sector. Will this not be another hindrance to the development of free economy, and exerting more pressure on our people? We should all know that every time the Government introduces a new levy, the businessmen will eventually transfer the burden onto the consumers. In the end, it was the people who suffer. Mr Speaker, Sir, our coffer is rich, every citizen owns approximately $15,000 in our reserves. Yet, the pressure we have to face in our living is getting heavier and heavier. Is this reasonable? Generally speaking, the President's Address does not provide any suitable solution to the clear signal given by our people at the General Election, and the future of our society. As such, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am moving an amendment to the motion. Sir, I beg to move, "That the motion be amended by deleting the full stop at the end and adding the following words: 'but this House regrets that the Address does not set out what the Government's response is to the message from the electorate in the last elections on the kind of society best suited for ourselves.'.".”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1985 when our economy was in recession, there was a negative growth. The Government put the blame on the global recession. But there were many Asian countries which were enjoying various degrees of positive growth, particularly the three other "Little Dragons" - Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea. Prior to 1985, the Government kept on increasing their charges for the various basic services. The financial resources were over concentrated on the public sector. Local enterprises did not have stable development. Yet, the Government was not sensitive to it. It was only when many companies could not afford to pay their CPF contributions, corporate tax or rentals, and had to resort to retrenchment of staff or even had to close down, that the Government woke up and took steps to reduce the various charges. However, many companies had already sapped their vitality. Those companies which had closed down were beyond redemption. Today, are we going back to the old ways? As we all know, the world economy is trying to recover, but to no avail. The economy for the years to come will be a far cry from what it was in the past. In fact, some people have predicted that a great depression will be coming soon. I hope history will not repeat itself by bringing back the great economic depression. However, the Government is still very quick in increasing its fees but very slow in lowering its charges. On privatisation, the Government says that privatisation will increase efficiency. But, just before or just after the department or company in question is privatized, the Government would normally allow the said department or company to increase its charges. Can the ordinary people benefit from such privatization exercise?”
“Is this not an indication that something is wrong with the substance of our education? Mr Speaker, Sir, apart from education, the Government institutions and those "one of a kind" so-called private companies which provide services to the public should also treat all the people justly and equally. If the PAP exercises its influence, and through these agencies, discriminates against the Opposition parties, or even exerts pressure on the people in the constituencies won by the Opposition, then this will result in those Singaporeans who do not agree with the PAP Government's style of ruling, and who are demanding for a more open-minded and democratic society, feel being isolated. This will result in the people being divided, and will reduce the people's sense of identity with the country. This is certainly against the interest of the country. Please do not forget, in the 40 constituencies which were contested, almost 40% of the people of Singapore have expressed their wishes to the PAP Government. As far as our economy is concerned, because of the general economic situation of the world and the hard work and team spirit of our people, our performance has been outstanding. We are one of the "Four Little Dragons" of Asia. Our coffer is rich and our reserve has grown by leaps and bounds. However, how much have the ordinary people shared in this economic success of ours? More regrettably so, the President's Address gave all the credit to the Government's policy and made no mention at all about the contributions of the people. In fact, yesterday I wanted to stand up to ask Dr John Chen why he was also attributing all the economic success to the Government, and giving no credit to the people for the role they have played in bringing about this success.”
“The former Workers Party's MP for Anson proposed in Parliament, in 1985, that we should provide educational subsidy and assist those in our society who were in financial difficulty, so that their children would have the best opportunity to be educated. Mr Speaker, Sir, many families are able to improve their standard of living because of the academic achievement of their children. Therefore, when the Government makes use of the reserve to subsidise on education, it should be done in a fair manner so as to benefit all the students. It should not make use of our limited resources to favour those who are gifted and whose results are better. It is said that education can also sharpen our competitive edge. Then, would it not be better to make the majority of our people more competitive, than just to improve the competitiveness of a handful of elites who are talented and who have performed better in their studies? Mr Speaker, Sir, the Preparatory Year for primary schools is enthusiastically welcomed by many parents. In fact, many parents were disappointed when their children could not find a place in the preparatory class. It is the wish of most parents in Singapore that the number of preparatory classes be increased so that every child in Singapore will have a chance to get in. However, I am surprised that the Government has, on its own accord, decided to discontinue with these classes in the schools. All along, our education system has been one which emphasizes on practical application. Applied sciences, no doubt, are good for our economic development. However, in order to transform Singapore into a gracious society, equal importance must be attached to the humanities. There is this so-called kiasu syndrome and lack of civic-mindedness in Singapore today.”
“We should allow everyone in our society to express their views legally and freely, through the various legitimate organisations in our society, so that everyone could be expounded with the realization of what is the truth, and what is national interest! Or through the restriction of open discussion and through the mass media, to inculcate our people with some kind of specific thought. Mr Speaker, Sir, many countries in the world today practise closed-door and single-party domination policy. With the high efficiency of a centrally controlled system, they had enjoyed some moments of glory. However, not long later, their politics became degenerated, and the people were made to live in an abyss of misery. Eventually, the government collapsed and had to face disastrous consequences. These are lessons which we should draw from other people's mistakes. Our greatest challenge ahead is how to bring about a gracious society which is more just, equal and democratic, through the practice of open politics. At the same time, cultivate our people to better identify themselves with our country. Mr Speaker, Sir, education is a very important factor. In a country, the quality of its people, the performance of its economy, the development of its social works and the general mood of the society, are closely linked to the success or failure of its education system. Furthermore, as we all know, the only resource in Singapore is our human resource. The Government's subsidy on education is an investment on the future of our people and our nation. It must not be viewed as a form of consumptive subsidy. Education must not be regarded as a form of service.”
“However, I regret to say that the President's Address has neglected the problems in our Singapore society which need to be discussed and dealt with urgently. Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong had said, before he became Prime Minister, that his Government would be an open and consultative one. This was also one of the slogans he used in his election campaign, urging the people to give him their support. The message given to Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong is clear and definite. People have moved away from their traditional reliance on the PAP. With the spirit of reason, confidence, and dauntless courage, they returned four members of the Opposition. This clearly illustrates the fact that our people's political consciousness has improved. They care for their nation and actively participate in the affairs of the nation. This is indeed heartening! Mr Speaker, Sir, if we look at the situation of the world today, we will see that in many countries, people paid dearly for their struggle and fight for democracy. Yet, the people of Singapore are able to progress in its development of democracy in a rational and peaceful manner. Is this not a matter for rejoicing? Yet, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said in the post-election press conference that he was going to review his open and consultative style. This is something which makes me very worried. In the President's Address and also in The Next Lap, there is no mention at all of the direction of our political development. Are we going back to the old ways of autocracy and closed-door policy, or do we go along with the global trend of moving towards greater democracy?”
“With that, Sir, I beg to support this Government's philosophy and policies laid out in the President's Address. Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, for this opportunity to speak in Parliament today, I must first of all thank the voters in Hougang Constituency for their support. Although I was educated in Chinese and I have chosen to speak in Mandarin, the concern I have for the problems in Singapore is certainly not confined to the Chinese community alone. Although I am a Member of an Opposition party, I am also part of Singapore. My criticism on the policy of the Government as laid down in the President's Address cannot be viewed as a sign of disloyalty to Singapore. I would like to bring the voice of our people to Parliament, and without fear or favour to ensure that the Government considers the interest of the ordinary people when it passes any resolution. In the President's Address, the Government finally admits that for its policies to succeed it needs to have the universal support of the various communities, including those who do not converse in English and who are less vocal with their views. The Ministry of Community Development also admits, in its Addendum to the President's Address, that more care and concern must be given to the lower-income group. In his speech, Dr John Chen mentioned that some views presented by the formerWorkers Party's Non-Constituency MP, Dr Lee Siew-Choh, had also been accepted. Just now, Mr Chin Harn Tong mentioned that this policy speech is one which is full of compassion. Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that this is the will of the people. This is also the result brought about by the fact that our people had been sensible in voting in four members of the Opposition at the last General Election.”
“If the economy can expand at the rate of 5-7% per annum, as predicted, the expectations of many of this enlarged pool of graduates could be satisfied. But if this growth target is not met, the scenario can be quite different. I therefore once again urge Singaporeans who wish to better themselves through education to be realistic in their expectations. Sir, the decentralisation of the public sector's personnel management system is indeed a move in the right direction. With the civil service becoming less fettered and a more responsive and competitive employer, we should see more able talents from the private sector joining the civil service. Needless to say, a strong civil service - the actual proposers and formulators of Government policies - will make a stronger and more prosperous nation. While I look forward to a civil service that is more liberated, I wonder whether it would thus become too competitive for the good of the economy in general, and the private sector in particular. If the civil service will no longer be constrained by a salary scale that it could offer to recruit a talent, it will easily have all the financial means to outpay any employer in the private sector for this talent. In the past, the private sector had been accused to have poached good people from the public sector. With the revamp of the civil service, I hope it will not be a case of the public sector poaching talents from the private sector, with even greater vengeance! The private sector can indeed ill afford to lose all its good men to the civil service and still remain internationally competitive. We must therefore ensure that there is a good spread of talents between the two sectors.”
“Look at what happened to these countries. Singapore cannot afford to err in the same disastrous manner. Sir, I therefore would like to suggest that if the Singapore economy really back-pedals within this term of Parliament, let us not try to push through the implementation of the various programmes in the Next Lap. Singaporeans must have the gumption to accept lower growth and come to terms with lower expectations. Singaporeans must realise that unless we are united as one people, unless we continue to work hard and unless there is economic growth, there can be no reward and progress. Only then will we thrive as a people even in times of adversity. I therefore urge Singaporeans to be realistic in their expectations. Sir, I commend this Government for once again stressing the importance of educa-tion. Education is life long. The pursuit of higher education does not stop or even slow down with age. No one should consider himself as educated enough. The more he perseveres to learn, the more he works to acquire knowledge and skill, the more useful and able he will become. The proposed setting up of an Open University and the Institute of Technical Education cannot be more opportune. Many have missed a formal education due to personal circumstances and not by choice. Some come from large families that could not afford an education except for the younger siblings. So now Singaporeans will be given a chance to catch up. And with the setting up of a fourth Polytechnic, there would be opportunities galore for all who long to fulfil their aspirations. With more people better qualified, their expectations will correspondingly become higher. Quite understandably, they would expect a new and better sounding job title, and higher pay.”
“That good life is therefore a matter of course for Singaporeans. This is not so. To believe that this is so will be suicidal. As our economy matures, it is not expected to grow as fast. The challenge before us is how do we get Singaporeans, especially younger Singaporeans who had not felt or seen acute hunger, to accept that whereas 8-10% annual growth was normal, a 5-7% growth henceforth will be very good? How do we get the McDonald kids to understand that the McDonald restaurants are here because we had worked hard and they knew we can pay for their food and services? And not because they have an altruistic mission to provide air-conditioned comfort to our kids. The closing down of the Orchard Road thoroughfare for merry making and dance is only possible because we had worked hard and needed to unwind for some relaxation. And not because we have become a fun seeking lot. Sir, a basic assumption in the President's Address is that our economy will continue to grow at 5-7% per annum, to generate enough economic wealth to pay for the various programmes in the Next Lap. While this assumption is reasonable, there is a remote possibility that we may experience yet another economic recession before the mid-1990s. The current economic recession in the US and some developed countries, if prolonged, will have an impact on us, sooner or later. And if our economy really back-pedals, would we be able to resist the temptation of digging into our reserves to pay for the various programmes in the Next Lap? This temptation will become even more enticing when people would emerge to exploit the situation, to appeal to emotions rather than reasons. Would we be as objective then? Can we afford to follow the path of some developed countries in giving free hand-outs to their citizens?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indeed heartened to note from the outset that the President has stated very clearly that the Government will now translate its long-term goals into immediate programmes, so that Singaporeans will be better off by the end of this term of Parliament. I also note that the President had, in his usual amiable and paternal style, gently reminded Singaporeans against being lulled into complacency by our achievements and success so far. Singapore has achieved much and can be proud of her success. But this is not a 100-metre dash where the race is over in 10 seconds. We are in a circuit race that continues on and on, in a medley where we can expect not only a change in the team's runners, but also a change in the way the race would be run. The baton has now been passed on to the next generation of Singaporeans to run the Next Lap. Can we run as fleet-footed as our forefathers when we were required to run without our shoes on? Or have our soles been so pampered with the likes of Reebok and Bally that we have now developed Achilles heels? The world envies us. As with all envies, it breeds a burning desire for the envious to outdo the envied. Therefore, it comes timely when the President reminded Singaporeans that the basics have not changed. The law for survival has not changed, however secure our prosperity may appear. We must constantly keep ourselves trim and fit, agile and keen, eager to change in order to keep ahead, although no longer lean and hungry. Sir, the good life that this PAP Government has consistently dished out to Singaporeans might have created an equally consistent yearning for more, and an unrealistic expectation that this Government can unilaterally continue to deliver the goods.”
“Sir, I have one more observation and this pertains to clause 11. The Bill empowers the PUB to charge a penalty for late payment. While I think the intention for introducing this late payment charge is fair and is aimed at recalcitrant late payers, we must allow for consumers who are genuinely facing financial hardships. I would like to suggest that the PUB consider setting up an Appeal Committee, within the Board, to look into hardship cases, so that consumers who are facing financial difficulties are not unnecessarily burdened by these late payment charges.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have some observations on some clauses in the Bill. Sir, I see this Bill as another step forward towards privatising the PUB. By this, I am referring to clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill. Allowing the Board to form companies for the purpose of carrying out its functions and to decide on the remuneration and terms and conditions of employment for its employees are just two clear indications that the Government is preparing for the privatisation of the PUB. Sir, I welcome this idea so long as the end result of any privatisation exercise must be a more efficient use of our limited manpower, capital and land resources, so as to produce energy resources in the most cost effective manner. Ultimately, this exercise must benefit the general public and this could be in one or two forms. The public could benefit by becoming shareholders in the privatised company, or they could benefit, as consumers, by paying lower utility charges arising from whatever savings as a result of privatisation. Sir, notwithstanding this argument, the question in the minds of some members of the public is: will the PUB be out to maximise profits after privatisation? If so, they fear that the utility charges may increase instead of decrease, and they are, therefore, not in favour of privatisation. I have the following questions for the Minister: (a) When will the PUB be privatised? (b) In what form will the PUB be privatised, that is, will the public be invited to subscribe for shares? (c) Will the private sector be allowed to set up similar services to compete with the PUB, after the PUB has been privatised? (d) Will the Minister give the assurance that whatever cost savings that may arise from privatisation will be passed on to the consumers?”
“Sir, I will take the next cut. Sir, it has been five years since the Divestment Committee did a study on the privatisation of statutory boards and Government companies. I believe most of the recommendations of this study have been implemented. May I ask the Minister if the Government will do another comprehensive review and recommend further divestment of its other public sector activities. 3.45 pm”
“Sir, the public sector today employs something like 130,000 employees, the majority of whom are in Division 3 and 4 grades. Sir, this pool of manpower could be tapped for part-time work in the private sector. This will help ease the labour shortage situation. Sir, I am not suggesting that we encourage civil servants to take up two full-time jobs. Neither do we want to see sleepy civil servants at work. But there are part-time jobs in the private sector, particularly in the tourism, retail and restaurant sector which is facing an acute shortage of labour currently, which could be performed by civil servants on weekends and even limited hours in the evening; jobs like tour guides, retail assistants or even restaurant waiters. These part-time jobs do not demand much physical energy and are therefore unlikely to affect the performance of civil servants in their civil service jobs. Sir, I am aware that under current IM policy by the Finance Ministry, civil servants need to seek the approval of the Permanent Secretary (Finance)(Public Service) if they want to work for another employer outside their normal working hours. And I was told that in practice, this is grossly discouraged. It is understandable. Only a handful of civil servants, particularly teachers and lecturers, are allowed to do part-time tutoring and lecturing work. Sir, in order to help ease the very acute labour shortage situation in the private sector, will the Minister consider relaxing the policy and making it more flexible for civil servants, particularly those in Divisions 3 and 4, to take up part-time jobs, and perhaps delegate the approval process to the respective Permanent Secretary of each Ministry?”
“I would like to urge the Minister to consider asking Government-owned companies to concentrate on businesses outside Singapore, so that they could really pave the way for local companies to go to these countries. Sir, local companies have also been urged to go overseas. It is nice to hear the advice, but going overseas is a very, very difficult effort. It is not only expensive but also we do not know how to go about it, especially we are so used to the small nature in Singapore when we do business, and the style of doing business is also very different from overseas. I think one way is to offer attractive incentives for local companies to join forces. I personally believe that size is of great importance here. Unless and until the companies here have a certain size to go overseas, it is really an impossible venture. Another way is to really ask the Government-owned companies to join forces with local companies to go on overseas contract. This is easier in the sense that the Government-owned companies could make use of local companies as either sub-contractors or go into joint venture with them on big projects in the overseas market. I personally believe that going overseas is one of the most important things that our local companies must take upon themselves in order to survive in this part of the world.”