Chia Shi Teck
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, the Minister has missed out my question on affordability. I would like the Minister's assurance. Nobody believes in the word "affordability", as the prices are moving up. Will HDB, for instance, freeze the selling prices for the next five or 10 years to ensure affordability?”
“The question is to prepare the girls, after the 'A' level, for some jobs that will get them ready for motherhood later on. Because the fear is that while the schools are chasing for As in academic achievements they might divert their attention from the basic motherhood later on.”
“Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary said that the complaint of the needles only came months later. Actually, it was taken on 16th November 1993 and there was confirmation that there were needles implanted. But the X-rays were lost. Subsequently, at counsel's request, another X-ray was taken on 29th April 1994.”
“My question is: how was it that when the prison knew that there was a needle implanted in November 1993 it lapsed until 29th April 1994 when the counsel asked for another X-ray to be taken and the needle was still inside? Therefore, it shows that there must be some lapse, as you said, and that there should be further investigation.”
“Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree to using camera for serious cases that lead to capital punishment if it is not possible to use camera to record all interrogations? But for serious cases that lead to capital punishment, probably it will be fair to do that. Assoc. Prof.”
“Sir, a recent report by EIU stated that Singapore is more costly than Hong Kong in terms of telecommunication costs. Given the monopoly to Singapore Telecom, would the Minister direct that they must be the cheapest as far as this region is concerned, because they have the advantage of the monopoly?”
The complete record
Every one of 186 lines we hold for Chia Shi Teck, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 4.
“Mr Speaker, the Minister has missed out my question on affordability. I would like the Minister's assurance. Nobody believes in the word "affordability", as the prices are moving up. Will HDB, for instance, freeze the selling prices for the next five or 10 years to ensure affordability?”
“The question is to prepare the girls, after the 'A' level, for some jobs that will get them ready for motherhood later on. Because the fear is that while the schools are chasing for As in academic achievements they might divert their attention from the basic motherhood later on.”
“Sir, would the Senior Parliamentary Secretary say that checking by the enforcement teams would be very effective and how many people are actually checking on worksites and the shipyards?”
“Sir, has the valuation of HDB properties been increased over these years? If so, the 1% reduction is not enough to offset the increase in valuation.”
“Sir, since the teachers in the neighbourhood schools have got to work harder, will he not look at better incentives for them? Because those who are in good schools actually do not do that much work.”
“Sir, will the Minister be able to answer this: are there any places of worship that belong to families, for instance, houses, where they put up some signs as a prayer place and people start going there?”
“I suppose the basket must be for those countries that we are competing with. Hong Kong, being our biggest competitor, we must at all times target our rates to be lower than them.”
“Sir, a recent report by EIU stated that Singapore is more costly than Hong Kong in terms of telecommunication costs. Given the monopoly to Singapore Telecom, would the Minister direct that they must be the cheapest as far as this region is concerned, because they have the advantage of the monopoly?”
“Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree to using camera for serious cases that lead to capital punishment if it is not possible to use camera to record all interrogations? But for serious cases that lead to capital punishment, probably it will be fair to do that. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: In the context of a review, we can consider his suggestion. But I can say that when we take this suggestion we have to look at whether there are gaps. Like I mentioned just now, unless you video-tape everything that goes on from point A to point B, all the way, there will always be an occasion when a person says, "Well, I was threatened during the lapses."”
“My question is: how was it that when the prison knew that there was a needle implanted in November 1993 it lapsed until 29th April 1994 when the counsel asked for another X-ray to be taken and the needle was still inside? Therefore, it shows that there must be some lapse, as you said, and that there should be further investigation. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Yes, like I said, there was a lapse on the part of the doctor. If the doctor who had examined Somporn and taken the X-ray had informed the Prison HQ about this, then the process would have begun and there would have been an investigation into his allegation. But the assurance is that we have taken steps to ensure that this will not happen again.”
“Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary said that the complaint of the needles only came months later. Actually, it was taken on 16th November 1993 and there was confirmation that there were needles implanted. But the X-rays were lost. Subsequently, at counsel's request, another X-ray was taken on 29th April 1994. How is it that the X-ray could disappear? At the same time, how is it that the needles were not removed from the Thai accused from November right to April 1994? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: The Prison doctor who examined the accused did not inform the Prison HQ of the complaint of Somporn. Admittedly, there was a lapse, in terms of what the doctor should have done. Anyway, we have taken steps to tighten up the procedures.”
“Therefore, as you move the floor price up, it will actually push the price higher.”
“Sir, is there a floor price during the tender offer? Would you withdraw the tender, if it does not meet your minimum level?”
“Under the Army discipline, would they be charged for insubordination because soldiers are afraid to by-pass their superiors to lodge complaints or things like that?”
“The Minister has said that there are lots of avenues where these national servicemen or their parents can turn to for their problems. Are these made known to the national servicemen and their parents? Dr Lee Boon Yang: Mr Speaker, Sir, yes, the avenues for assistance for servicemen in the SAF are widely circulated to all servicemen. Telephone numbers are circulated or posted at conspicuous places so that servicemen know where they can call up for assistance, if necessary.”
“Sir, is there a standard in all industries which is set by the Ministry so that we can actually measure whether or not there is wastage? Let us say in the hotel industry, the ratio on the number of rooms to the number of staff, where we can then give incentives to those who meet the standard and penalise those who do not. Because under the tight labour situation, we may have to look at that.”
“Sir, from the answer, is the Minister of State saying that there is no labour wastage in Singapore?”
“Sir, since the introduction of the 5% tax, has consumption been reduced? Has the 5% tax been effective?”
“Sir, would recreational facilities be considered as part of the overall solution that the Minister is proposing?”
“Sir, does the Minister see the present situation as problematic? And does the Minister see the loitering of foreign workers during weekends in public places as a problem? Could it be that it is because they have bad housing that they have to go to public areas? Dr Lee Boon Yang: Sir, providing accommodation to the foreign workforce is a difficult problem to resolve in view of the shortage of suitable housing for the foreign workers. The Ministry of National Development has taken steps to provide more land for building dormitories for employers who have a lot of foreign workers. I do not think that by providing more proper accommodation for the foreign workers will stop entirely the habit or the preference of the foreign workers on their day off from work to gather in certain places to meet their friends and to socialise. While we must continue to try to find ways and means of resolving this accommodation problem, let us not expect that the provision of accommodation would mean that all the foreign workers will stop congregating in certain areas during the weekend or during their day off. This is an opportunity for them to meet fellow countrymen and to socialise. So we may still have to accept that some congregations will take place, be it in Little India, Beach Road or at the Lucky Plaza Shopping Centre.”
“Question No. 7, Sir. I declare my interest as a tenant of JTC.”
“Sir, will the Minister consider building small stalls or corners for these traditional small traders, just like the Indian stalls selling betel nuts or flowers? Mr Lim Hng Kiang: We will leave it to the market. 3.00 pm”
“Sir, there are many categories of part-time workers. One category could be those who are engaged full-time and choose to work part-time over the weekends as cashiers or as service personnel in hotels. They already have CPF contribution in their full-time jobs. So for such work, does the Minister think there is a need for them to have the employee's CPF contribution, because they already have the CPF contribution? Dr Lee Boon Yang: Mr Speaker, Sir, in fact, my colleague, the Minister for Health, just explained a moment ago the principle behind CPF contribution. If you are working in several jobs, you will contribute according to the full CPF rate for all the jobs. But if the sums add up to more than the maximum required for CPF contribution, that is, $6,000 a month, then you can ask to have the contribution capped at this maximum of $6,000 a month. So this principle applies, whether it is full-time employment plus part-time employment, or a person working in many different jobs on part-time basis. JOB-HOPPING 8. Dr Kanwaljit Soin asked the Minister for Labour if he is able to give an estimate of the percentage of the workforce that job hops.”
“But tender should be for the bigger cars. There is no more need, I believe, in charging road taxes by capacity. If they consume more, they pay a higher petrol price anyway, because the petrol tax is very high. And they pay higher prices for COEs anyway. So my appeal to the Minister here is to look at all the charges now that we have the COE. The COE has doubled to over a billion dollars. Surely it can be returned back to the motorists in other forms. And a lot of charges may no longer be valid.”
“The credibility of the Government is also being questioned. In fact, because the credibility of the Government is being questioned, a lot of schemes that the Government brought forward have been laughed at - the pay-and-pay, the Poor Also Pay, to Pian Ah Pek, when you introduced the SOTUS scheme. When the Government is not truthful in its revenue collection and the payment is not reasonable, we must remind the Government that such payment angers the people. And as Mr Robert Chua said earlier, everything is on tender and whether that itself solves the problem. If we look at page 1 of the tables, the question here is company registration versus private registration. There was a reason at one point in time when we did not want companies to give cars to their employees that easily. The escape clause is "benefit in kind". So we have the company registration. Now, with COE, is there a need for this double cost for companies, double COEs, ALS and so on? Is there a need for higher road tax for cars that are over 10 years old? They are being inspected yearly. In fact, motorists are worried that if they grow old in future, probably the medical costs will also be higher simply because they are old. Then what about road taxes by categories? With the COE, is there a need now to tax by categories, ie, the higher the engine capacity, the higher the road tax? Does it make sense any more? The rationale then could be because of the oil crisis and we did not encourage high fuel consumption. But now with the COE, it seems to favour the bigger cars. So more bigger cars are on the road. And if we really want to keep the cars small, then I buy the idea that we should ballot for small cars, and not tender. So that people who need cars and cannot afford expensive COEs can ballot for them.”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing my tables to be distributed. When the Government introduced the COE, it came out with the rationale that it was because of the car population and congestion. That was the problem. And revenue raising was not the problem. In fact, our PM, DPM, Finance Minister, Communications Minister and many others mentioned the philosophy that car ownership was all right, so long as it did not cause congestion. But if we look at the tables that I have distributed, Tables 1 to 3 show all the various categories of costs. As it stands now, car ownership is not all right. Therefore, I beg of the Minister to review all these charges relating to motoring costs. Many of the charges then introduced were for specific reasons. Probably some of the reasons may no longer be valid, now that COE has been introduced. If we look at Table 4, we could see that the total revenue collected on the revised basis in 1993 came to over $4 billion, relating to motor vehicle expenditure. I include the petroleum products. I guess most of the money was collected on charges of petroleum, car usage, motor vehicle import duties, ARF, road tax and so on. The licences and permits, I reckon, are mainly COEs with a little ALS and things like this. If we look at the fourth item, licences and permits, from $662 million in 1991, it almost doubled to $1.2 billion in 1993. When the Government introduced the COE, it did say that it was not a revenue raising measure and they would review all the other taxes related to importations, ARF and so on. So what has happened to that thinking? I ask the Minister to give the motorists a break. The $4-plus billion represents over 40%, not 30%, as mentioned by Mr Heng the other day, of Government expenditure of less than $10 billion last year.”
“Sir, I think BRANDAS does not serve the purpose of the advertising and promotion scheme. Anyway, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdraw.”
“Is the NTUC going to build holiday chalets so that I can go there and relax and play golf? What kind of returns on investments are we talking about as against the other normal kind of investments? And can I get to work there any time? [Laughter.] Let us not laugh because these are questions that are being raised now and interests are stirred to a point that we may be able to just shift over there and live. Will there be many more of such townships should Suzhou be successful? What are the competitions that it will bring to Singapore in the longer term? Will that be a threat to Singapore's very survival? What about brain drain? The people that we have sent overseas are given special privileges. What if the professionals or civil servants choose not to come home? We have done this with incentives by offering citizenship and permanent residence to foreign nationals working here. So the same could be done to our people working in Suzhou. Are there any political implications? Are we certain that the move will not backfire? As this project involves sticking out the neck of the country, it therefore cannot be viewed solely from the economic point of view. Whatever answers the Minister may give later, I hope the press will take it up as this is important. We have to inform the people of Singapore out there.”
“May I first declare that I believe in this Suzhou Township Project? However, as this is a huge project and the first of its kind to be undertaken by the Government, I would like to seek some clarification to enable the people of Singapore to know what we are in for, and how each and everyone of us can participate directly or indirectly and benefit from the project. It is not new for the Singapore Government to invest overseas, but hitherto it has been in portfolio management or simply in capital gains investments, strategic investments like bringing back technology, transfer, or playing a catalytic role, as in our cluster development. All these investments so far have very little or no management requirement on the part of the Singapore Government. But this Suzhou Township Project is totally different. We are talking about a huge scale - 70 square kilometres, ie, more than 10% of Singapore's land size, 700,000 people to be staying there, 25% of Singapore's population, and 250,000 jobs. How much money is to be thrown in? It must be hundreds of millions of dollars. And what time frame are we talking about? 10, 20, 30, 50 years? We also read about the hardware, the infrastructure, that is led by Keppel Corporation, which is a GLC, but the Government is providing the software. That means opening up all the expertise that we have in the Singapore machinery. So what is the actual cost to us in terms of money and manpower? And the worry, as expressed by Mr Leong earlier, do we have that number of people? Where does the money come from? Are there other hidden costs? How does it benefit the people of Singapore and the country? And is it an extension of Singapore's territory, ie, if I cannot apply for a flat in Bishan or Pasir Ris, can I now apply for one in Suzhou?”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, my point has been missed, because an HDB flat especially is not representative. The few rented out units are not representative of the total number. Just by taking the few units in the neighbourhood, and uplift the total 700,000 units, I think that would not be a fair representation.”
“Can I raise a point, Sir? This time round I am talking about the residential properties where the sale price of the residential units has gone up tremendously over the last one to one-and-a-half years. In the case of residential properties, the rental rate is not representative of the whole big volume because you are just talking about a small number of units that are leased. Therefore, my request is that the valuation should not go up because whatever the price is, the people living in an HDB flat still live in the same old flat.”
“Once again, I would reiterate that despite the 1% reduction in property tax, the private properties will eventually have to pay more in property tax. The Minister for Finance said that the rentals of industrial and commercial properties have gone down. But I am certain that the annual values of all the residential properties will go up. The selling price of HDB flats rose substantially this year. In fact, the resale prices of HDB flats in the last 12 to 18 months have gone up a peak. I would like the Minister to enlighten us on what is the formula for the valuation of properties. Many people are living in their own houses and they are paying only 4%. Unless the owner sells his property, the purchase and sale price is of no value to him at all. The annual value should not go up. I would like the Minister to recommend to the Chief Assessor to relax the revaluation of annual values. 4.00 pm”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head N of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code NN 1500. (In Mandarin): Sir, in the Year of Assessment 1992, the Government's revenue from property tax amounted to $1.476 billion. Among that, $996 million was from private property and $480 million from the statutory boards. In the Year of Assessment 1993, the Government's property tax revenue was estimated to be about $1.372 billion of which private property was estimated to take up $876 million, a decrease of $120 million. I understand that this included all the new properties as well as the 25% rebate granted by the Government on all industrial and commercial properties. Property tax from statutory boards was estimated to be $495 million, a slight increase from 1992. The above figures were estimates for Year of Assessment 1993. Now, let me read the revised figures as contained in the financial report of 1993. This can be said to be the actual revenue for the Government. Private properties paid $1.11 billion, which is $234 million more than the estimated amount of $876 million, an increase of some 26-27%. On the other hand, for the statutory boards, it was $391 million, some $104 million lower than the estimated amount. Why is it so? What has happened to the 25% rebate? It looks as though only the statutory boards are getting the benefits. I have on many occasions said that if the assessed annual value is increased year after year, then the tax reduction of 23% to 16% and this year to 15% has no actual benefit to the property owner himself. In this year's budget, it is estimated that the 1% reduction in property tax would cost the Government $80 million, and the statutory boards would increase by $80 million.”
“A transparent formula is good in both ways. As I said earlier, Singaporeans know that if a year is no good, they will have to dig deep into their pockets. However, on the other side, Singaporeans can rest assured that for as long as we work hard and meet our targets, GST never need to be increased.”
“Sir, each year, near Budget time, expectations, anxiety and tension run high. For nine years now, Singaporeans and corporate citizens have been at the mercy or generosity of Uncle Richard or probably Santa Hu. Expectations ran high this year as our economy performed way above expectations and also because come April Fool's Day, we will have to live with GST. After the announcement of this year's Budget, we hear of some disappointments and some negativism. To avoid all kinds of reactions to motivate Singaporeans and corporations, I think it is time now for the Government to announce a formula on how we would like to share the harvest. Singaporeans are smart enough to understand that at the end of the day it cannot be the generosity of the Government. It must be that the economy has done well and that we have a good harvest. Along with the good fortunes, sometimes come the bad years. So the Singaporean will understand that we cannot be looking forward to goodies all the time. Our long term growth projection is 4-6%. Government aims for a balanced budget ultimately and meanwhile the projection has always been for a small surplus. The long term productivity improvement is targeted at 4%. Could we say that once we have achieved these numbers, all of us in Singapore can expect a dividend in a pre-set formula? The Finance Minister has said that all the incentive schemes are already in place and that it would be more a case of fine-tuning. Can we have a formula as to how much would go into the reserves from the surpluses over and above our budget? The reserves, I agree, are important. So over and above that, how would the balance be shared among the various incentive schemes? Everybody will benefit - the rich, the poor, the not-so-rich, the sick and so on.”
“Would the Minister consider a weekend category for commercial goods vehicles and buses for delivery purposes outside the normal trading hours? Would such a category be allowed for those who do their delivery outside the normal trading hours as they do not jam up the roads? It will be cheaper for these small businessmen to own the vehicles.”
“That would also mean that for all future investments in Government companies, the Singapore investors have to open their eyes that the Government will not bail them out even if it is directly owned by Temasek.”
“Sir, does that mean, even if ICS belongs to Temasek, as long as it is a normal course of business, and it has gone bust, whether it is a CPF trustee stock or non-trustee stock, the investing public has to accept the fact that there is a risk involved?”
“Sir, as far as the Minister is concerned, there will be no taxi fare increases. An hon. Member: He did not say that. Cdre Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, I said the Public Transport Council will consider this if and when the taxi companies make a proposal.”
“Sir, having heard so much, can the Minister tell us whether taxi fares should be increased in the near future? Cdre Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, that is a matter for the Public Transport Council to decide. The Public Transport Council will consider it when the taxi companies make an application.”
“I think they have got to get out of their present jobs and go into full-time learning and be counted upon to man our new investments, the new value added investments that the EDB and the Government are pursuing. Also, there are many opportunities in existing industries that may need them. So how can we take those older workers who are interested to start afresh, to learn a new skill and to have a second chance? These older workers, in their late 30s and 40s, will need an income to support their families and pay for their financial commitments. But yet they have got to resign from their existing jobs and go into full-time learning. Companies have a problem releasing them. Everyone is looking at cost and is short of workers. Can we turn to a scheme where we actually give these older workers an income when they come out to learn a new skill? Can we draw on the foreign workers levy? It is not a subsidy that will go to waste, because we are training these people to learn new skills, new jobs, that we are bringing into Singapore. Many of the older workers cannot attend night courses because they are also moonlighting. Many have other family commitments and responsibilities. So they are stuck. Unless we are prepared to take them out from what they are doing now and give them a chance to learn a new skill, I do not see how we can solve the problem. On balance, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Government has grasped our problems well. The Government's philosophies and strategies are generally sound. It is for us all Singaporeans to rally behind the Government to achieve success. It is also our job to give feedback to the Government the minute we notice negative side effects. I trust that the Government will listen. Sir, I support the motion. 2.10 pm”
“The Singapore Manufacturers Association and many other industry-based trade associations actually were formed and became more meaningful and they helped develop their own cause. But now, again, a new development is taking place because they are now looking at the big umbrella, a confederation of all these Chambers that can speak in one solitary voice. So along the line, the needs may be satisfied or new needs may appear and I hope the Government will monitor the situation closely, as I believe this is still a point of concern. The Government is absolutely correct to see the need for continuous training and retraining and I agree with the union Member, Mr Tong Kok Yeo, who said that the younger workers have to be trained. But I like to take up the older workers' position first. As regards the older workers, as emphasised, why are they not coming forward for training? The National Productivity Board told me that there are lots and lots of places for training and yet they are not coming forward. The President's concern about the older workers makes sense and he said that the older workers will need retraining to learn new skills and fit into new jobs. Therefore, it is not a question of retraining or upgrading. How much can an old driver or delivery worker learn? How far can he be upgraded? Sir, not long ago, Pusan, South Korea, was the place where the world's best athletics and sports shoes were made. Over two years, they have disappeared. All the companies have relocated in China and Indonesia. All the companies are all right, but the workers were left high and dry. Pusan has over 30% unemployment now. Our mature economy is now undergoing painful structural changes. Our older workers with absolutely no skills need to master new skills to serve new masters.”
“And if we do get the increase in numbers, I think a lot of the problems could have been solved. We have, I think, over 300,000 foreign workers here. Let me now turn to another issue. A policy that was of much concern in the last debate on the motion of thanks to the President in January 1992 was the sudden emphasis on the ethnic self-help groups with the formation of SINDA, CDAC along the lines of MENDAKI. Clan associations, Eurasian body and all similar ones were given lifts to help look after their kind. The hon. Member, Mr Chandra Das, had said then and I quote him: 'The line between one's pride and one's culture and chauvinism is indeed very fine.' Many had voiced caution including the then Opposition leader, Mr Chiam See Tong. Whilst accepting the policy to be logical and worth pursuing, many were concerned. After two years now, the policy appears to be progressing fine. However, one cannot be too sure. Should the bodies stick strictly to only helping their kind? Our leaders in these various bodies, I am happy to note, are very good and sensible people. In fact, there are already some forms of cooperation and collaborations between and amongst them. The leaders, however, have their problems. I checked with some of them and one thing for sure, they told me, the contributors or donors along ethnic lines will not want to see their money being used to help other ethnic groups. So there is a problem as to how much they can do. Look at the various ethnic based Chambers of Commerce. They played a most useful role, a most meaningful role, in our earlier years of development. Today, I think they are struggling to find their relevance.”
“The slogan can be changed to "Three or More if you Love and are Prepared to Sacrifice for your Children." Will it be too irresponsible to ask the State or society at large to help nurture all these children born to poorer families? The President stated clearly in his Address that, and I agree, subsidies must be justified by desirable objectives of improving the self-reliance for long-term economic independence, not dependence, of those helped by subsidies. Is there a case to justify going all out to nurture our children, sons and daughters of Singapore? Yes, maybe not many of them will become leaders, not many of them will enter this House. But I think even if they become our construction workers, they are still contributing and can be counted upon to defend Singapore. Can SINDA, MENDAKI, CDAC and all other welfare bodies help shoulder a bigger load? Our SDU has done a good job in getting more people to get married and to raise families. Can there be a unit to help promote probably a Godparents Scheme? There may be many Singaporeans who can be matched to become godparents of such babies. The joy can be shared. Another issue that is very sensitive is abortion. I remember the outcry when abortion was legalised. I am not raising a public issue or public debate on this, but I am purely looking at the numbers. Surely, the lesser the abortions, the more babies we will end up with. How can we reduce the number of abortions? Have we done enough to counsel and talk people out of abortion? Can we help foster the unwanted babies for whatever reasons? Can we make the option for abortions as a last resort, ie, make it more difficult? These are issues that we can tackle if we are just purely looking at numbers.”
“However, as mentioned in the President's Address, the number is still not good enough. Our Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, has, in his New Year's message, said that we are aging faster than other countries. But if we take it positively, we can similarly correct the situation just as fast. We should go for numbers. The baby boom years in the 1960s saw over 60,000 births per year. It dropped to under 40,000 and if we should have some 10-15 years of 55,000-60,000 births, then I reckon a big part of the problem would have been solved, ie, depending on a few to feed the old. Our present policy encourages birth if you can afford it. That rekindles my thoughts back to the great debate and controversy on nature versus nurture. Whilst there may be much truth, how much and how certain, God only knows. There may be some truth in the nature theory but no one dares challenge the equal importance of nurture which plays a part. And this Government, I am proud to say, is very sensitive and has treaded the issue solely on the ability of the parents to nurture their offsprings. Incentives have been introduced to get the better educated and the richer breed more babies. Some success has been reported. But from the tone of the then Minister for Health, those who are supposed to have more babies still fall far short of the target, albeit there is some improvement. And the other group, those who cannot afford, is having more babies than it can cope. Sir, do we need to stop these people from having more babies? Is it wise to cut down such births, I ask myself, because I am troubled. If we so need the numbers that badly, can the Government and all of us Singaporeans not help in nurturing the babies? Allow all those who love children to have more babies. We can help them.”
“The enhancement, however, has got to be earned and we have got to compete with the world to survive and prosper. And yet we cannot, as a country, leave it simply to the survival of the fittest and, therefore, we talk about compassion and for those who are better endowed to carry the less blessed. The designers of our long-term programmes are always well-intentioned. However, sometimes, policies may backfire and certain results may be achieved with unexpected cost - negative, social and political consequences - whilst we may succeed economically. Sir, may I indulge in citing one sensitive example that has pretty devastating consequences? This, of course, is done with hindsight wisdom now. Faced with double digit unemployment and uncertainty in the horizon in the 1960s, the "Stop at Two" policy was implemented. The campaign to ensure success was fired with many ingenious incentives, disincentives and schemes to go for an all-out population control. Abortion was legalised, ligation was coerced, if not forced. Couples with more than two children were stigmatised and penalised. Family tensions mounted, the family fabric was strained. Gratefully, the policy is now changed. Faced with a non-replacement problem and, now, a fast aging problem, the Government is encouraging more births. The slogan now reads "Three or more, if you can afford it." Mr Yeo Cheow Tong, the Minister for Health until last month, was jubilant when he said that the number of births reached 50,000 last year. Thanks must go to all the parents and fathers, including our new Health Minister here. Congratulations to him and his wife for having their fourth baby! Since the introduction of this new policy, the last few years had seen a good harvest of over 40,000 births, reaching 50,000 last year.”
“And if the giant economies continue to be weak, the four "tigers" and all the other emerging NIEs will surely suffer. We cannot remain unscathed. So, yes, there is jubilation in the successful conclusion of the GATT talks on 15th December last year. Yet, the developments between and among these big players, the big blocs of US and NAFTA, the European Union, Japan and China, do not seem to be very encouraging. Squabbles and frictions are taking place. Therefore, let us not be too carried away with our present success, and let us be sober and down-to-earth all the time. The President rightly said that, and I quote, "Sooner or later we will face a recession like the short one we had in 1985, or like the prolonged current recessions in Europe and Japan." In the last few days, the share market has collapsed and I do not know whether it is the first indication. The President has outlined the Government's programmes to tackle our present and future problems. In fact, almost, if not all, the programmes outlined are already in their various stages of development. Let us all be good citizens - Opposition, critics, cynics, one and all. Let us study the President's Speech and all the addenda on the Ministries. Let us all play a part to ensure success and then to enjoy in the success of the programmes. We may like to ask ourselves questions like these: Are we in agreement with the problems identified? Are we convinced that the programmes put forward will solve all the problems? Are we uncomfortable with any of the programmes, or do we have better alternatives or suggestions for the Government? I believe in the Government's sincerity in wanting to enhance the well-being of each and every Singaporean.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am most happy to support the motion of thanks to the President standing in the name of Mr Loh Meng See, Member for Kampong Glam GRC. The Government has, since the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament in January 1992, spent much time in tackling the many hot issues of the day. Ministerial, parliamentary and professional committees were formed to study and make recommendations to solve or, at least, to alleviate the problems - health cost, cost of living, etc. I totally agree with the President when he said that, and I quote, "Our short term issues are well in hand." Of course, the Government will need to consistently monitor all developments concerning the people's day-to-day well-being. Circumstances may change, adjustments and modifications will have to be made, and I believe this Government has the wisdom to make these changes. However, the Government and all of us, Singaporeans, should not be drawn into just spending time on short-term issues. I am glad that the Government will now focus more on the bigger issues that are confronting us, issues that affect our very survival. Whilst we are doing well, so it seems, the world at large is not doing that well. Europe and Japan are still in recessions, deep ones, and signs are that they have not bottomed out. The US economy is still very uncertain. The former Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc have more than just economic woes. Border, ethnic and racial problems are on the increase. A new balance of power is taking place after the collapse of the Cold War. And according to Prof. Thurow - he was quoted by BG Lee in the last session - he wrote an article in the Asian Wall Street Journal recently that the growth of China and, for that matter, this region cannot be enough to carry the world.”
“But I do not speak for every Singaporean and I think ultimately you have to convince most Singaporeans that the Government that they have is worth what they are being paid.”