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 4 of 4.
“We are talking about $4.6 billion. So the Government has subsidised public housing. We now have a housing stock of over 700,000. HDB's projection is that it is going to build 800,000 flats and plus the private units, we are talking about 1 million houses, probably to house the 4 million population that we are talking about. So it is four to a house. On the accounts, the interesting thing is on the car parks. Parking charges collected in 1991-92 were $184 million, and fines collected were $31 million. A year earlier, 1990-91, parking charges collected were $162 million, and fines collected were $24 million. But in the accounts, there was a deficit due to depreciation, interest, property tax, demolition and so on. If car parking is a losing business, I suggest we give it to the town councils. The mission statement of the public housing programme is very interesting, ie, to provide affordable quality housing to meet the needs of the population. In page 604 of the 1993 Budget, it states the MND's job in financing HDB. It says: `The provision of financial aid to the Housing and Development Board for the implementation of its public housing programme and for the protection of the capital gains attributable to past Governments.' Probably the Minister would like to explain how MND goes about protecting the capital gains attributable to past governments and, in this case, it must mean protecting the values of the properties, unless it is a controlled market and there is an intention to see prices go up. [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng) in the Chair] 4.05 pm The HDB should be praised for continuously improving the types of housing available.”
“Thank you, Sir. May I first declare my interest as a director of a public listed company involved in construction and sale of properties. From the 1991-92 Annual Report of the HDB, I notice 14,755 flats were sold, out of which 47% were 4-room apartments, 28% 5-room flats and 18% Executive apartments. Resale transactions totalled 15,997 and 53% were mainly made up of 3-room apartments. This shows that people are moving out of the smaller apartments into the larger ones. Rental demand went up to 9,300 and 6,800 flats were rented out, almost the same as the year before of 6,600. The surprising thing here is the deficit shown in the Annual Report. In 1990-91, with the sale of 17,037 units, the reported deficit was $80 million, which works out to about $4,700 per unit. In 1991-92, 14,755 units were sold, but $341 million deficit, or $23,100 per unit. The Minister may like to explain why with lesser units sold we are now having a higher subsidy, higher deficit, per unit. Is there a fixed subsidy policy for the different units? As for the rental units, the bigger surprise is in 1990-91. 6,648 units were leased out. There was a deficit of $69 million or $10,400 per unit, as against 1991-92 when 6,847 were leased out and the deficit was $167 million or $24,000 per unit. So it looks like leasing apartments is a more costly affair. We now have about 627,000 housing units and the projection of the HDB is to have 823,800 units. Taking about 87% of Singaporeans live in HDB flats, we are talking about a housing stock of more than 700,000 units, and we have a population of 2.7 million plus 300,000 foreigners, making about 3 million people. How far more do we need to continue to build? First, I declare that, of course, the Government has subsidised public housing from 1960 till now.”
“The Minister did not answer my third point about those who have to lease out their apartment, not for anything but to move into rented premises. Could there be a tax deduction? If it is a company, you will have a tax deduction. If a person leases a flat, he can deduct as his expenditure but not an individual who has to move out from a higher priced apartment into cheaper rented premises. 4.00 pm”
“The point here is that they may not have a capital gain, because of the ups and downs of the property movements. Another group will be the HDB shopowners. The recent scheme of selling the shops proves to be very successful. But these owners may not know that there is such a thing as property tax. The fact that they are buying the premises is to give them security, a protection against the increase in rentals. But the property tax over this 99-year lease may outdo all the savings ultimately. The Minister has said that he is not considering giving tax concession to children who house their parents in a second property, whilst the tax relief has been bent to allow for it. So probably the Minister could consider this in future, ie, it is also good for children to buy good premises for their parents, and why not treat it as owner-occupier. There is another group of owners who, because of retirement or unemployment, have to move out of their own premises into rental premises. Some of them lease out their properties for an income. And, similarly, if they rent another apartment, could there be a deduction? That means, the property tax should be assessed on his rented flat minus the rental that he is paying for his rental apartment. Some of them move out of the apartment simply because they can no more afford that apartment. I have heard of a case where this woman's husband has passed away. She leased out the flat for over $2,000 and moved into another one costing her $1,000. She was made to pay tax on the $2,000 without a deduction on what she has paid, and she felt very unhappy because she had to move out on the demise of her husband.”
“Sir, the Minister has been nice enough to say that he will be looking at the long-term review of the property tax rate. The people outside are very happy with the one-off 25% reduction. However, there is another group of property owners who are not particularly happy, and these are the owner-occupiers of commercial and industrial properties. These owner-occupiers do not enjoy the increase in rentals as the property companies. So the property companies, having enjoyed the higher rentals, will be happy paying the property tax and have the savings on the deduction. But owner-occupiers, sitting on their own premises and selling the same wares or doing the same service are made to pay higher property tax each time their annual values go up. And now with the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore being a statutory board, the revision would even be faster. The question is whether we could have an owner-occupation rate for these owner occupiers who do not enjoy higher rentals with the moving of the property prices. The argument against them is that they enjoy capital gain or, economically, they should be doing better service, and so if other people can pay the higher rentals, why do they not make use of the higher rentals? But the fact is that you do not move that quickly with the property prices. One way out, if we cannot give them a lower rate, is actually to give them a sort of a reprieve, that is, they need not pay the higher property tax until the time when they sell the properties. At least, if they go into premises at an annual value of, say, $X, and if the annual value goes up, that is captured in their account until such time when they sell away their property.”
“Sir, Dr Ow Chin Hock started the debate on Budget 1993 three days ago by mentioning the mindset between the private sector and Government officials. Following that, we had quite a few other colleagues here, including yesterday afternoon, Minister for Trade and Industry, Mr Dhanabalan, talking about it. The question is whether we can assign the civil servants in the Administrative Service to have a stint overseas as well as a programmed stint in the private sector. And, hopefully, this way the mindset could be changed. There are many opportunities for the Administrative Service personnel to be assigned overseas in all the other Government agency offices such as EDB, TDB, STPB, MFA, the GLCs, and so on. As to the private sector, probably the Administrative Service personnel could be assigned to big corporations, GLCs and also the trade bodies in Singapore. Sir, the point here is to get them to understand the real world outside, and to enrich themselves. They are very important people - they are key civil servants - and they, in fact, are often mentioned to be more powerful than our Ministers who actually listen to them and all the papers put up by them. This mindset has got to change if we are going to take on the next lap, especially when we are regionalising and globalising. There are many key officers, and if the mention of their names bring disgust, then something must be wrong with some of these key officials in some of the Ministries. Otherwise, they would not be spat at. Another point is whether the Administrative Service need to be a protected pyramid, that is, whether some of the appointments could be open up to people from the outside to apply. Now that we pay so well in the Administrative Service, I suppose we can lure people back to the service.”
“Along with Daimaru came a lot of small specialist stores out of Japan. Today, many of those stores are all around Singapore because of Daimaru's big brother approach. So, maybe we have to look into that and encourage the big boys to actually piggy-back our smaller companies. As for the future of Singapore, I think we have to move away from a servant's mentality to a master's mentality. That means, instead of simply being manufacturers we should become big multi-nationals. We have to think of selling our own products, selling our own Singapore names and labels. The "Make in Singapore" tag must be promoted and it must be made to carry a premium for Singapore products. We should do everything to help those businesses that are actually marketing the Singapore brand. I think that is important, otherwise we will continue to be servants to the multi-nationals. With that, I hope the Minister will take them into consideration.”
“There are barriers from other countries whereas we, in Singapore, are totally open to them. Could our Government also help and arrange bilateral entries? We, for instance, cannot get into, say, London or Los Angeles to start a shop because of the restrictions. We cannot even bring our goods in because of other restrictions, whereas they can just come into Singapore and by tomorrow they are off the ground. What about helping our local industries, local businessmen, group together into business alliances with incentives, and helping our trade bodies? Assistance is different from rules and regulations. When the Government imposes rules and regulations, you have no choice but to conform. But if the Government comes out with assistance schemes, it is up to the individuals if they so wish to choose. So it is a different thing. Small companies do not have cash flow. The Minister for Finance has rejected the idea of a double tax system, the two-tier tax system, for the small companies. But how about taxing these small companies only upon distribution of the profits, that is, during dividend payment time? Very often, small companies make money in their book, only on paper, the profit and loss accounts. They have the stocks, a lot of credits and their debtors' list. So you do not have cash flow. But tax is paid in cash. So probably we could alleviate their problem by taxing them only upon their distribution of the profits. Earlier on, mention was made about a reverse EDB smelling out business for us. I think it is a very important matter. What about the big brother piggy-back the bigger companies can do for Singapore? I remember years ago when Liang Court was first started in River Valley Road, Daimaru came in and became the anchor tenant.”
“But take the conservation or preservation, for instance. You have the bodies but you do not have the souls. We cannot get the kind of crafts, the kind of arts, the kind of trades that we want into the Tanjong Pagar preservation area, for instance, if you simply go by market rentals. And yet these crafts, and businesses, can over time grow into good businesses and they can also be part of our tourist attraction programme. Not everybody can start big. When we talk about overseas ventures and joining up with GLCs and things like this, it must be for those businesses which are pretty off the ground. But what about continuously having our young Singaporeans wanting to get into business? I think that is the challenge. Future business is not going to be undertaken by people who are drop-outs from school or people who have not made it into the system. The niche, the product, the competition are no more the same. And unless we can draw the better-educated into business, I do not see how the future crop of businessmen can be the same as in the past. I think many Singaporeans do not lack ideas. Probably we could have a new ideas fund, not just venture capital as it is now because most venture capital companies are basically mezzanine financing companies. What about those who take risks with new ideas? What about the advertising and promotion aspect? McDonald's is big when it comes here. Levis is big. It is already known. The people who want to start a Singapore version of the hamburger got to have assistance and help. Probably we could have a dollar-for-dollar grant for advertising and promotion, or at least a double tax deduction. 3.15 pm There is also this government-to-government assistance.”
“We could simply pass our hats around. Today, the situation is totally different and we may have to think of ways to reproduce this environment where we can attract more and more people into business. Talking about going overseas is simple, but people who can go overseas must surely be people who have succeeded. Unlike our neighbouring countries, (1) they are very protected; (2) they are huge, at least, they are all talking about double digits and in terms of millions of people, good home market. So by the time they are ready to venture overseas, they do have some form of economies of scale, some form of muscles. The local enterprises here actually need not have more of these schemes but rather if we can concentrate on two things. One, give them more business. How do we give our people more business? How do we give them more track records, especially for those who provide professional services? Many a time, professionals lament and say they could not get jobs overseas simply because they do not have a track record back home. So how could we do that? An example is the HDB's programme when the then Minister for National Development introduced the scheme to give 10% of the public housing projects to private architects. I think these are very good ideas. Could we think more of this? Could we ask all the Government-linked companies in non-essential businesses to privatise quickly, today, tomorrow, if possible? So that the Government becomes a big customer and not a big competitor to the small businesses. When we provide our artists, designers, and our local talents with premises, we should consider this as infrastructure expenditure. I think this is one mindset that we can think of where the Minister said earlier that we have to put all these limited resources to best use.”
“Sir, as a businessman, I appreciate all the Government schemes offered to help local enterprise develop. As the Minister for Trade and Industry pointed out earlier, there is a book which shows the whole shopping list of schemes. But the more important thing is because we are a small market and we are an open economy with no restrictions, competition has become very very keen. The market is so small. MNCs and even the GLCs, the big boys that come to Singapore, have many many big advantages and not a fault of their own. They are known names when they come to Singapore and they have a headstart. They can open doors easily, acquiring premises, and shops, talking to Ministers, and things like this. They have more financial muscles, they borrow easily, they borrow cheaply. They have track records to carry them on. They have markets back home, market access. They have technology. They have the connections. They are even given better incentives when they come to Singapore. Those that we want, we give them pioneer status. They have huge advertising and promotional muscles. They can attract better staff too because of their name and they can pay better. The question is: how do we equalise this so that the local businessmen can be starters? Otherwise they are non-starters. It is just like our National University of Singapore where we provide training and education for our people. They must first qualify to get in and then qualify to come out and after which they can be in competition. So we may have to think of schemes where we can provide this shelter, not protection, but a shelter to train and give them a chance to become starters. Unlike the 70s when I personally first started, the market was huge and booming. Start-up capital was very small.”
“Thank you, Mr Prime Minister, for the good answers. Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Encik Harun bin A. Ghani (Hong Kah GRC)( In Malay): Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head V of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code VA 1500. The Prime Minister's initiative in setting up the Service Improvement Unit (SIU) is indeed welcome. SIU reflects the country's emphasis on productivity and serving the customer. Its setting up, I am sure, will not be an impediment to administrative efficiency and, on the contrary, will give it a further boost. I would like to know what has been the public's response to SIU and what suggestions they have offered the Unit. In addition, I think PMO or SIU itself should publicise what it has achieved ever since its establishment. What are the examples of improvements made and how effective they have been in raising efficiency, productivity and financial and manpower savings in the civil service? What about the attitudes of civil servants in performing their duties in response to suggestions for service improvement from SIU? Have they been positive or otherwise to the suggestions? I think this is important because without a positive attitude, the desired objectives will not be achieved. Finally, I would like to know whether SIU has met with any hindrances from civil servants, the private sector and the general public in achieving its objectives.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head V of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, Singapore is well known for being a corrupt free society. Our civil service is almost corrupt free. And we have earned this reputation through the hard work of the Government which is supported by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau. The question is: over these years, how many investigations were undertaken per year? Has the number of investigations been greatly reduced? Is there such a term as "success rate", ie, those investigated prove to be corrupt officials? I am sad to read occasionally of people under investigation taking their lives, ie, suicide cases. Now that we have more sophisticated methods, can this be prevented? And those who have been cleared after the investigations and who are innocent, how do we deal with them? Because in such a small society as ours, there is this question of stigma. I think the budget allocated to the CPIB of over $7 million is well worth spending.”
“Sir, could the Minister enlighten us on whether the 15-20 year period is constrained by manpower and finance. And could the design of the precincts take place first so that Town Councils would know the programme and the design could be decided upon earlier.”
“And I hope that can be controlled. Our meritocracy has done us well. But we have gone ahead of meritocracy into what we call "moneytalkcracy". Everything is money, and that is the frightening thing now. Moneytalkcracy - we have done it in business, we were taught in school when we were young, that 'Money cannot buy Happiness'. But now we add the term, "Say the rich to fool the poor". Because in Singapore, if you have no money, you just cannot get by. I believe the Government is conscious of this high cost and that is why the Cost Review Committee is set up to look at what is real, and what is not real. The other Chinese saying which I heard over the radio goes this way, and it is being used quite often: Qian bu shi wan neng, dan mei qian, que wan wan bu neng ( ). It almost amounts to the same thing that money is not everything, but without money in Singapore you just cannot get things done. And I think that is the fear. I must commend the Finance Minister for putting really great effort in trying to cover every area, every segment of the population. And I think for that the Minister should be really praised for going through all the hard work. I am not against the GST as a matter of principle. But I am against the GST now as it is not timely to introduce it now, although many people have said it would be good to introduce it when you are in a position of strength. But I am not so sure we are really in a position of strength other than the fact that we have huge surpluses and reserves. But in terms of competition, in terms of the unknown, and the total effect of getting us out of place is real. And venturing overseas is something very close to all of us businessmen. I will pick it up during the discussion on the Ministry of Trade and industry.”
“But the worry is that, after corporatisation, though the hospitals have not been listed, there was this privatisation exercise done, the total medical cost has gone out of proportion. That is a big push. The GST gives reason for everybody to increase the price. Many people will argue that they have not increased their prices for the last few or umpteen years, and all because of our good policy of open competition. The barber is afraid that the neighbour would not increase the price, if he were to do so. So there is this competition. But now with the excuse of GST, he knows, his neighbour is going to do it, he would do it. Everybody in the other estates would do it. So instead of $5, they will go for $6, and then you will see the spiralling effect. That is one reason why I think we should not have GST as this is not the right timing. As some speakers have spoken earlier, the cost of doing business is increasing and the competitiveness is actually eroding. As an employer, I feel for the employees. The workers in Singapore, by our cost of living, are certainly under-paid. They are under-paid! But when we compete externally, using all these cost composites, we find that we are no more competitive. So something is wrong. Unions, I think, will not clamour for higher wages just for clamouring sake. They are responsible people, as I said when I started off the debate. But it is the cost of living that is frightening them and they are waiting to see how the GST is going to affect them. They will be clamouring for higher wages, and that will spiral up the whole cost problem. The role of Government, Mr Deputy Speaker, is certainly to provide good essential services, and essential services are needed not just for the population but also for business.”
“And because the population is aging, we should not frighten them into an extra worry. A lot of these things are actually psychological. The cost of living, the spiralling effect - many colleagues here have spoken that the 3% will not be so - the worry about rounding up, and all these may spiral into higher cost and add more worries to the people who are getting old in Singapore. Next, I move to corporatisation and privatisation. Many people out there in the streets wonder, first, who owns all these companies, who owns all these corporations. It must be the Government and, ultimately, as a custodian for the people. And the next thing is the worry about privatisation on costs. There are two kinds of Government companies. One would be those on the essential services; the other would be on the non-essential services. And I think, very quickly, the Government should privatise all non-essential businesses. There is no reason for Government to be in the business of selling roast ducks, for instance. So they should be out of that. But as to the essential services, there is this worry. The cost of living will go up, as an earlier speaker has mentioned, and the management would view it differently now. How would the shares of a company go up? According to the Prime Minister, if you keep your Telecom shares, they must go up. Then why sell them away to foreigners? Why not keep them for Singaporeans? So if we do privatise and want the money, then the money must be put into good use and the people of Singapore must be told, "Look. This money raised will be invested and income will be shared. You will have some share of the income." And I think people will buy it.”
“The very fact that we do not have natural resources and the very fact that the population is ageing tell us that we have to increase our reserves. But increasing the reserves is not an end. Surely the people that contribute to this increase in the reserves want to share part of it. So I hope the Government will, other than this operating revenue, look at a system where we make use of our reserves to earn more income. Probably we pay, out of the earned income, a certain percentage will be used to top up the reserves, and the balance to be distributed as bonuses to the people, not for their immediate consumption but into their CPF old-age account, the special account which I mentioned earlier. If our income is in excess of, say, $3 billion, the excess could be chalked up into our CPF account. Singaporeans must accept the fact that we cannot deplete our reserves as we do not have natural resources. But if the Government administrators can make use of the reserves to buy into resources, we can become like Brunei, though our oil reserve is not here. But the fact is that we can buy into many national resource companies and make use of those incomes to help cushion our aging population. Because the population ages, I feel all the more we should not introduce a GST. Not because our population is aging, therefore, the tax base shrinks, hence we need to introduce the GST. Principally, I accept the GST is a very fair system. But I am a proud Singaporean and the Government has made me proud. And each time the Government tells me, we are different, we are so special, we introduce a lot of ideas and schemes that no other country can follow, and we are in a very strong position to do that because we have accumulated huge reserves. We can make the reserves work for us.”
“These are things that touch them because if we look at Singapore, whilst on the one side we want an external economy, we have not exploited all the other avenues that can make Singapore more prosperous. So there is a lot of money to be made out of the arts and the entertainment circles. There is a lot of money to be made out of sports too where we can make this a sports hub. The question is, because of our position and our fantastic infrastructure and efficiency, we can generate a lot more activities other than just doing a little production of goods and services. Not all future leaders need be really academicians or people with all straight A's. Just an example, in the Baltic Republic, the Lithuanian President, Mr Landsbergis, is a classic intellectual, music professor, accomplished pianist, and he had taken on the might of Mr Gorbachev and the Defence Minister in bringing the tiny little Baltic state to independence. Probably in future we would have sportsmen and musicians as Nominated MPs. To give recognition to all these other people, they should be invited to State functions. As to the budget numbers, I am very assured. That is why I keep saying the Government is fantastic, looking at the numbers. We are looking at $17-plus billion of revenue for 1993, out of which only about $7.2 billion would be from the income taxes, the rest will be from other revenues. So the $7.2 billion is very small out of a total of $17 billion. That does not include our other investment incomes. It also does not include the sale of land and future corporatization of Telecom and so on. So we are very healthy. We have a huge reserve. I am not proposing that we deplete our reserves.”
“Because if we are asking the older workers to retire later and continue to make a contribution, probably it would be good for the Government to top up the CPF contribution. Giving higher personal relief to this group of older workers and lowering their tax and giving them higher rebates, maybe we could also pay higher CPF interest rates to these older workers as a way of demonstrating that they have contributed much to the growth of Singapore. I share Mr Walter Woon's point that maybe we should make children look after their aged. But that may not appease the retirees because the retirees want to look at themselves. They have contributed, so the nation returns some to them. What their children can give them is a separate problem. But their contributions should not be ignored. I think many retirees have spoken up on this. In the Next Lap, the Government has talked about the different values. A lap is a lap. We want more Singaporeans to be in the lap taking the race. If we are not careful, we may be running in circles, because it is a lap that we are talking about. We have been giving a lot of emphasis on people who are good in politics. We want the best in politics. We want the best in the administrative services - the managers. But there is more to life than these two groups. Now there is this big talk about the entrepreneurs and earlier on Mr Leong Horn Kee said, "How about giving them awards?" But there are the other groups -the entertainers, the people who bring a lot of fun; musicians, dancers, and the performers. Surely, they should also be elevated to the same status as all of us in this House. What about the glory seekers, the people who bring glory to the country, the sportsmen who carry our flags? They are not to be housed during the SEA games in the hotels.”
“But taking that there are these national servicemen, there are the people who represent the country, the national representatives, the sportsmen, the social and community volunteers, the high taxpayers, probably we could look into ways of rewarding them and making them feel that their contributions are not idled. There are some retirees who have actually said that during Singapore's formative years they have contributed quite a bit. But the way we are going about protecting our reserves, they may not be here to live and enjoy the reserves that they have helped to accumulate. So I am suggesting whether or not we could have a credit point system where we could spread some benefits to these people who have contributed, and weighing their contributions we credit certain bonuses into their accounts, which can only be used after the retirement age, ie, instead of giving the $200 straight for buying shares, it might be better if we create a fund where from our surpluses will become bonuses into their accounts. The more surpluses that we accumulate, the more they will get each year. We can set a policy. Instead of rebates going straight into their accounts for use now, it should go into the retirement account. It is like the blood donation scheme that we have. The more you contribute, the more you get back in times of need. All people who have served club membership could become honorary life members where they enjoy certain privileges. In the commercial circle, we do have VIP cards for big spenders in our shops. The Government may like to share the bill when we bring the retirement age to 60 years. To demonstrate the sincerity of the Government, I suggest that instead of just reducing the CPF contribution rates for the older workers, the Government tops it up.”
“That people would take this as their nation and not a place of convenience for them to make money. The fear of our people here is, as some of the earlier speakers have said, that the cost of living must go up. With more and more additional costs coming in, and with an ageing population, the people fear that they may not be able to live their dawn years here. So I am suggesting to the Government to look at ways of rooting Singaporeans. Our Government has done a fantastic job in using home ownership as a good way of rooting Singaporeans. The question is, with additional cost, will this home ownership backfire? The roof over our head will not be able to feed our stomachs if we have no incomes. As the population ages, many of us will be retiring in years to come, where would our income be? If we cannot afford to live here, we may just sell off our properties and move to cheaper countries. So we must prevent that. Probably some of these fears may not be totally real. It could be a perception. But we have to arrest it. I think if the Government were to introduce more ways of sharing the fruits of our labour, as it has done, like the Edusave, Medifund, and now the $200 topping up, these are good ideas to make Singaporeans feel wanted. So we have to look at other ways of affirming, assuring and appeasing our citizens. Those who contribute to the nation, our national servicemen and reservists. The Minister for Finance has, since the last budget, given $1,000 and $500 for them in tax relief. I think that is too little.”
“The hollow-out is not unreal because once the MNCs find that there is no more money to be made here, once the professionals find that it is no more a place of convenience for them to make money here, they will start to go. And all the properties that we have invested will become white elephants. The Government must look into creating a friendly environment for investors to come here and also for professionals to want to come here to live. From the figures given by the Minister for Home Affairs, we are doing well. The number of Permanent Residence (PRs) granted for the last few years has been in excess of the 20,000 figure yearly. The number of new citizenship given, naturalised citizens, is in excess of 7,000 in the last few years. The number of Singaporeans emigrating has gone down to less than 2,000 last year. So we are doing well. That means we are very attractive and people are coming here and we have got to continue to do that. As to the external economy, we must be looking at Singapore as an anchor where MNCs as well as local enterprises network out of Singapore and bring the benefits back into Singapore, and not a process of uprooting. If individuals were to go overseas and benefit and prosper, the question is: would they come home? How do we bring them home? It would be like those of us who have children who are pursuing overseas education. The worry of parents would be that once they are out, would they come home? They worry that they will pick up foreign values and they would not come home. If we have love and if we have bondage, and there is a lot here for them to come home to, then they will come home. As a country, we should do the same, ie, we should make the people want to come home. I feel that nation building is very, very important.”
“First and foremost, I must congratulate the Government for our strong economic health. We are actually on the first class status and we must count our blessings in that we do have a fantastic Government. We do have a diligent and most obedient work force and a very cooperative and responsible union. Our employers are also very fair. So all of us are in the same boat and the Government has started off with the right policy in that we immediately took off, after a short while of inward-looking, in export-driven and open competition. Our EDB has done a fantastic job in bringing better and better investments into Singapore and along came all the professionals and technical experts. All of us have benefitted and grown from it. While the other countries were looking inward, we were all looking outside and competition is nothing new to our Singapore businessmen. But, Mr Deputy Speaker, we are in a maturing economy and the population is ageing. We are no more that cheap. We are facing labour shortage and there is more competition, not just from the region but from the world over - Eastern Europe, the old Soviet Union, China, Vietnam and so on. Our own economy is growing more slowly and the Government is looking at 4-6% growth. The talk now is that we have to have an external economy. But let me point out a word of caution that we may be taking this whole thing out of perspective. We still need a strong domestic economy. I think it is most important that we continue to make Singapore attractive and the EDB continues with its good work in attracting better and better investments into Singapore. Otherwise, if a hollow-out were to take place, we would be in big danger.”
“Sir, I rise in support of the Bill but would like to raise some concerns. It is most assuring when we hear both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health assuring us that no Singaporean who cannot afford to pay his bills will not be treated. But on the administrative side, we often hear and get the feedback that it is not that easy and that the administrative procedure is difficult and unless they can produce their Medisave account, they may not even be admitted to the hospital. As Dr Tan Cheng Bock has said, we hope that the whole procedure could be simplified. As we are an Asian society, I think the sensitive part about having to fill in long forms and all the details sometimes deter people from filing their applications. My biggest concern is that when Medisave was first introduced, there seemed to be an upward momentum in the medical costs. Now with this wonderful fund, will the doctors be just jacking up the fees since there is a fund to pay for all patients? There is this danger of an upward momentum. There is also this feeling that many of the patients do not wish to get into ward C. One perception, and I tend to believe it is real, is that there are certain surgical operations which are not given in ward C simply because they are too expensive. That perception, if it is not real, should be taken away, because the latest we hear is that the number of C ward beds will be reduced because of less usage. But less usage could be because they fear that they are not given equal treatment.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I declare my interest as an employer. Question No. 6, Sir.”
“Does the Minister know that the annual value has increased manifold since 1986?”
“Sir, does the Minister also want to encourage property ownership with its HDB shop sales scheme?”
“My question is: why do we not reduce the CPF rate for this group of people so as to attract them to work?”
“Sir, in addition to those who want second jobs, we have a big pool of housewives. And with the foreign maid levy so high, it is not enough for them if you deduct such a big amount into the CPF. So it is the take-home pay that we are talking about, not just the people who are not earning enough. They would not come out to work because they are not taking home an attractive sum. So we are not encouraging people to take up part-time work.”
“Sir, the Minister has been explaining that the lower income earners would not benefit, but we are talking about encouraging more to take up second jobs, like doing week-end jobs or night work for several nights a week. Because of the high CPF, the take-home pay is low, and that prevents many from stepping forward. It is granted that they must have enough CPF for old age. If they do have enough contribution, could we not encourage them with a lower CPF contribution?”
“Is the Minister happy with the number of part-timers presently? And does the Minister want to encourage more people to take up part-time jobs, in addition to their present jobs?”
“Sir, will the Minister assure the public that there will be sufficient doctors in the estates should this tender system reach a price that doctors cannot afford them?”
“Otherwise, if schools run strictly on all ECA programmes, such as ballet and music, do we have the facilities to provide for them? There will be a sudden surge in all these costs.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, from the first time the idea was mooted till now, I think there is some deviation. The original intention was to give $100 to each student. Now it has been shifted to a more scholarly kind of endowment to reward those who can study. The worry here is, like the Medisave scheme, whether a sudden surge in a certain demand will cause a surge in the cost and price that the schools will have to pay. It looks like schools will be the ones to dictate what the students would get. Probably a good compromise will be to also allow a small portion of the money, maybe a quarter, to go to each individual student so that he could also make a decision with the parents to use the money. If for anything, he could accumulate the money for further studies in the later stage of life. Strictly, on the scholarly endowment, it may not be very palatable in the sense that the Education Ministry has been trying very hard through the many systems and schemes, different kinds of schools and giving more budget to the schools to enhance their own programmes. That part of it is beautiful and that should continue. But I think Edusave should be given more to the students themselves, an investment that the Government is willing to put in the students, rather than on the mechanism of education as a total picture. On the budget side, if 4% is not enough, maybe a little bit more in the good years should go straight to helping the schools to provide more incentives for running better ECA programmes. But my personal feeling is that disappointment will come when the original intention was to give $100 to each student and then allow him to see where he would like to improve on.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, while I agree that corrective measures are good, I tend to feel that we may demean the whole situation and get us back to those who have actually gone into voluntary service. Schools which have been organising students to clean the beaches and so on will take that they are all to be seen as offenders in future. I think the negative part will come in. It brings me back to my school days when we were sent to detention classes and asked to pick up papers in the school compound. That means, when there is voluntary work in actually cleaning the school, people tend to keep away because they fear that they will be seen to be offenders. So I think we look at the whole "fine" situation that we are imposing and it does not go down to the people of Singapore in that our education system, our civic consciousness does not come through. With the passage of this Bill, maybe we have to see to the part on implementation which Mr Chin mentioned: how do we get these people into voluntary services? How do we coerce them, how we counsel them, how to win them over? I think the point about just simply putting corrective measures and then later charging them in court is, again, a very heavy stick. I would like to propose that we look at some softener. People who are actually coming forward to help should not be seen to be offenders at the end of the day.”