Chiam See Tong
Singapore
“Sir, Singapore's sovereign wealth fund companies, Temasek Holdings and GIC, returned 17% and 9.5% yearly respectively, using largely Singaporeans' CPF money. Why is CPF returning 2.5% on the Ordinary Account and 4% on the Special Account only?”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to take part in this debate. Under Singapore law, single parents are treated as singles who are not eligible to purchase a Housing Board flat unless they are 35 years old and they are also given reduced children benefits like lesser maternity leave and no Baby Bonus.”
“Sir, the collection of revenue from ERP gantries is way above the total amount of revenue lost by the Government from the exemption of household TV and radio licences. I would urge the Government to review and reduce the charges at ERP gantries for vehicles entering the ERP zones.”
“Although the Government is pumping $120 million a year to support needy students in all levels through a slew of enhanced financial aid schemes, schools funds and bursaries, we should not forget to look into the plight of students who have been cheated by unscrupulous education centres by helping affected students to pay or re-finance the…”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman, for allowing me to join in the debate. I would like to touch on fairer distribution of treating scholars amongst schools. MOE should ensure fairer distribution of teaching scholarship holders after graduation from NIE to the various schools.”
“Children and adults with special needs deserve better protection. It will reduce the anxiety of both caregivers and patients with special needs, like the mentally-ill and autistic children. I urge the Government to issue special I-cards to these patients.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,205 lines we hold for Chiam See Tong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 18 of 85.
“As Mdm Claire Chiang has rightly pointed out, they should make the language more interesting. Look at the methodology and, above all, you must make the child love the language. Once he has got a love for the language, it will be much easier. It is of course good for adults if we tell them that it will be useful if they are going to China to do business. But if you tell a six-year old child that if he can speak Chinese, it will be useful next time if he goes to China where he can earn a lot of money, he will not understand. So you must find a way to make the language or subject more interesting, and make them love it. This was what I was taught when I was in the Teachers' Training College. Whether it is Mathematics, Science or language, these are the more difficult subjects. The message is that you must alter our methodology rather than use a popular policy to lower the standard of Chinese. I do not think that will be a solution. In fact, our standard must be maintained. If the children cannot attain that standard, we have to look at the educational reasons why they cannot reach that standard, rather than to take a convenient route out and lower the standard. How low can we go? CL2, CL `B' and then what, CL `C'? I do not think that is the correct way. No doubt it is a popular method of lowering the standard and say, "Look, my child has passed Chinese, but do not say "B"." I think the solution is to find a good methodology, make it interesting, make the children love the subject. That is the way. And of course, if you can have total immersion when they are young, that would be even better still. Like myself, I come from an English-speaking background and my daughter managed to go through a Chinese-speaking kindergarten and a SAP primary school.”
“The message that I want to make is: do not leave it until it is too late, like in my case. I find it a big struggle learning Mandarin because our muscles, especially around the jaw, are already sagged and it is difficult for me to pronounce some Mandarin words like si shi, jue de, jian kang. There is no equivalent in English. Even at my age, I have got to go through these lessons. If I read for half an hour, my jaw is all tired after pronouncing the words. So do not leave it until it is too late. What should we do then if we really want to teach our children the language? I would say, start them off as early as possible, even at 2 1/2 years old. Of course, the best way to teach a child or a person a language is what they call "total immersion". If you want to learn a language, if you are already an adult, the best place is to go and stay in that country for 3 months, 6 months or one year, and you will master the language. In the case of a child, those from English-speaking background, I would advise that they send their children to a Chinese-speaking kindergarten, if there is any, and put them through a Chinese-speaking kindergarten, if possible, through Chinese primary school. By the time they come out from primary school, they can already speak Chinese for sure. And at home, of course, if they speak English, they will have no problem with English. I think that is the best solution. But I do not know whether we have this kind of system in Singapore. Actually, Mr Goh Choon Kang said just now that the Speak Mandarin Campaign is not going on too well. The statistics show it. In 1998, 20%; 10 years later, 40% English-speaking homes. I am afraid that the Government is losing the battle as far as promotion of Mandarin speaking is concerned. So what must it do?”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join in this debate. I have to mention that I regret that the Opposition was not informed of this important debate prior to the announcement. I believe Mr Low and I come unprepared for this important debate. So far, it has taken almost the whole day to show the interest it has generated. Sir, I am basically monolingual and even my dialect, Teochew, is rather weak. I have gone through four elections and I managed to win four elections. But, please, I tell the younger Singaporeans, do not take me as an example. They should learn their second language or their mother tongue because it will widen their horizon and open new vistas, as other speakers have said. I remember in the 60s, after Stalin had died, there was one Mr Khruschev who took over from Stalin. He visited America and of course he was remembered for banging the shoes at the UN meeting. But I remember him saying, when the reporter asked him, "Do you understand, or can you speak English?" He said, "Not yet." He said, "Why bother? I have always got interpreters to do it for me." That may be good for leaders. But for the ordinary person, we cannot have an interpreter moving with us all the time. We must know the language. If we want to communicate with somebody, it is better to speak their language. We have to know the language. Languages are important. In fact, we should not only learn one mother tongue, but if given the opportunity, we should learn other languages as well. I have just visited Japan. Fortunately, I have already taken up learning of Mandarin and I do not understand a word of Japanese. But I managed to get around because I could recognise the Chinese characters which they use. They call it Kanji. So language is important. There is no doubt about that.”
“Out of the 1,093 cases which the Minister of State mentioned, how many of these were tested before the accident? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: As I have said, of the 1,093 persons who were arrested for drink driving in the first 11 months of last year, 156 were involved in accidents. In other words, the balance, more than 85%, were arrested and they were not involved in accidents. They were stopped either at road blocks or during normal patrols. ILLEGAL PARKING IN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (Summonses issued to motorcyclists) 14. Mr Chng Hee Kok asked the Minister for Home Affairs how many summonses were issued to motorcyclists for illegal parking in the Central Business District in the first week of January 1999. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Sir, a total of 31 summonses were issued against motorcyclists for illegal parking within the CBD in the first week of January this year. Most of these motorcyclists parked either along the side of the road or on the pavement.”
“Clarification from the Minister, Sir. I have two clarifications. Can I ask the Minister, out of the 20,000 workers retrenched, how many of them are Singaporeans? The other is the figure given by Mr Cyrille Tan in his speech in this House. He said that there are 600,000 foreign workers in Singapore. And the Minister has just mentioned that there are only 450,000. There is a difference of 150,000 between the figures of the union and the Government. Which is correct?”
“Sir, there is also another playground at Chempaka Avenue. Does his Ministry intend to do anything to improve this playground?”
“Question No. 12, Sir. CHILDREN'S PLAYGROUND AT BUTTERFLY AVENUE (Upgrading) 12. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for National Development whether the Government will upgrade the children's playground at Butterfly Avenue in Sennett Estate. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Mr Koo Tsai Kee) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, the playground at Butterfly Avenue which is currently being managed and maintained by National Parks, has the typical facilities of a playground of its size. The size is about 0.175 hectares. National Parks has, over the past three years, replaced damaged and worn out facilities in the playground. National Parks has also recently worked with the Ministry of the Environment on the reconstruction of the roadside drain adjacent to the playground and covered it with a footpath. This, I believe, has improved access to the playground. Sir, apart from the regular maintenance of the facilities in the playground, there are currently no plans to upgrade the playground further. Most of the facilities are in relatively good condition, and the provision of additional facilities will, I think, clutter the playground.”
“Is his Ministry going to solve this problem?”
“Sir, I am not happy with the Minister's answer. The problem is that the sewer system is insufficient.”
“Does the Ministry intend to solve this problem by either enlarging the sewer pipes there or reducing the load? And it is to close down these eating houses. I understand that one of them is a 24-hour eating house. I think the Ministry must take concrete steps either of enlarging the sewer pipes or you have to reduce the supply of the waste matter by closing down these eating houses, especially the 24-hour eating house.”
“Does the Minister know that this problem has been going on for the last 10 years or even more? This is a regular complaint. Every month there is flooding of private residences' toilet facilities and they have to telephone the Ministry of the Environment. They are like the Fire Brigade. They come and try to solve the problem. Unless something more concrete is done, this problem will continue.”
“Does the Minister agree with me that this regular overflow from the sewer in that area is due to the fact that the sewer system is insufficient for the load in that area? Encik Sidek bin Saniff: Sir, the answer is no. As Mr Chiam should know, there are residential premises and shophouses along MacPherson Road parallel to Mulberry Avenue. The shophouses include three eating establishments. Two of them already have these grease traps. Only one does not have. So we are asking this shop to install a grease trap and the other two shops to make sure that they clean the place. As far as the ENV is concerned, we will step up our efforts to make sure that the place is clean.”
“Question No.11, Sir. SEWERAGE SYSTEM ALONG MULBERRY AVENUE (Improvement) 11. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for the Environment whether his Ministry will improve the sewerage system along Mulberry Avenue in Sennett Estate which frequently gets choked and causes toilet bowls in private houses to overflow.”
“Is the Minister aware that there is a disused building, which is the former Sennett Community Centre, and is he opening up that area for a car park? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: This is the former grassroots' club which will be used, I believe, by the Potong Pasir CC temporarily for the next 1 1/2 -2 years. So it cannot be done for the moment.”
“Can he elaborate on this new car park that is going to be built? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: As I said, the proposals are being looked at. For example, the possibility of locating some car park lots along the service road off MacPherson Road. It is quite nearby, so that the patrons who want to use the shops there will not clog up Jalan Wangi, Mulberry Avenue and Angsana Avenue area. It is a bit further away but it is still within walking distance to the shops.”
“Is his Ministry willing to open up more car parks in that area? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Yes, this is one of the proposals being studied.”
“Sir, does the Police realise that the cause of this illegal parking is due to the many eating shops there? Does the Police want to liaise with the Ministry of the Environment to try to limit the number of shops? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: The shops are there and they are privately owned. So they cannot be relocated. But certainly, we will work with, for example, the grassroots leaders and LTA to ensure that the cars there are properly parked. I think these measures are being looked into.”
“Sir, I believe that a precedent has been set at Potong Pasir. One resident there did not know of the acquisition of his land and he went ahead to apply for renovation. And not long after, an acquisition was announced on his property. I believe the Ministry is willing to pay back the renovation cost in that case. This case is quite similar. No notice was given to the tenants that the building was going to be acquired. So they went ahead and spent money to renovate their shops in preparation for business. Will the Ministry consider compensating them with some money?”
“The Minister of State has said that the average earning of taxi-drivers is $1,800. How many hours does a taxi-driver need to work to earn this amount?”
“Sir, what sort of welfare does the taxi companies provide for their drivers?”
“Of course, I did. I made a plain statement like that just to illustrate that the problem of unemployment is not so serious in Potong Pasir. There are no people coming in a rush to ask for help to get jobs. If they do come, and if there are complaints that I am unable to get them jobs, then it is fair for Mr Peh to say, "Look, they have come to look for jobs from you. They do not want to come again because every time you fail to get them jobs." I think that is fair enough. But before that happens, he comes to that conclusion, which is a slur on my competence to help my residents. He should take back what he has said.”
“That I could not get jobs for people who came to look for me. If that were true, then I would object to what he said. That would be alluding to me to be incompetent as I am unable to do things for my residents. I would like to remind Mr Peh that I am not a first-time MP. Residents there have elected me not once, twice or thrice, but four times. It shows that I have performed. So on what basis is he saying that I cannot get jobs for my residents if they come to me? I think he should withdraw that statement. It is a slur on my ability to help my constituents.”
“I did not quite get his clarification. Can he please tell me whether my interpretation of what he said was correct?”
“Sir, I wish to seek a clarification from the Member for Jalan Besar. Can he please let me know whether I heard him correctly? He said that I did not get people coming to see me at my meet-the-people session because I could not get jobs for them. Is my understanding of what he said correct?”
“The HDB says it is to give better ambience to the residents there. But do the residents themselves demand for it? Are there complaints that there are no void deck in their block?”
“But these were all built in as part of the building. They were not in the original plan as void decks. Am I correct? They are already part of the structure of the building. You want to remove them to make into void decks. That is another matter altogether.”
“Other than Mountbatten, what other estates have flats on the ground floor?”
“So the amount is fixed, say, on 1st January 1975, or 1995, or whatever date is given. But in this case, there is no cut-off date. So in times of plenty, the HDB may be very generous but in hard times like these, the flat owner may be given a small amount. And if that happens, he will suffer twice. Firstly, his flat will be acquired and, secondly, he will be paid a derisory amount. I hope the Minister would have a second look at this particular clause.”
“Why is there a necessity now to compulsorily acquire a flat? Are there that many cases that the Minister has mentioned, ie, these flats that are in the void decks? As far as I know, I have not come across any of such flats. Can the Minister name where these flats are situated in Singapore? What about the occasions when a flat is needed for the construction of a block? Can this flat be also compulsorily acquired if the upgrading cannot be proceeded with unless that flat is acquired? I would imagine that, if that is the case, it would be a more compelling and cogent reason, and not just to acquire a flat for the benefit of the other flat dwellers. This exercise of compulsory acquisition must be rarely used. Can the Minister assure us that all possible remedies or solutions would be sought first before a flat is to be acquired? Also in regard to the procedure of appeal, the appeal is only to a Minister, and one would imagine that a Minister is an interested party, if not in that flat, at least in that block or in that project. Appeal must normally be made to an independent body, rather than to a person who has interest in the project. So I would suggest that the final appeal must be to the High Court, even after having gone through the Minister. I think it is fair because a person's home is being taken away from him. The final appeal must be to a higher authority which has got no interest whatsoever on the matter. As regards the payment of compensation, again the section seems to be rather unsatisfactory. Because it does not spell out how compensation is to be paid, what amount and if the amount is to be given, at what date that amount will be taken. Unlike the Act on compulsory acquisition of land, there is a cut-off date.”
“I am surprised to note that the HDB needs to issue bonds as an alternative source of funding. The traditional way of HDB funds is from the Government. They get a loan from the Government and they pay an interest. This loan is used to build HDB flats and in turn the flats are sold to members of the public. Once the profits are taken in, the Government is repaid their loans. I am just curious why at this stage funds have to be raised from outside Singapore or from other sources other than Government funds. My question is: Have the Government funds in fact been dried up that there are no Government funds now to finance HDB projects? Or is it because of the bad economic times that funds are short because the Government has to help out in many areas? We have noted that even the upgrading programme of the HDB has to be slowed down. So my curiosity is aroused. Why is there a need to raise money other than from the traditional source? The other area that I would like to comment is this new draconian clause 7(b) whereby the HDB is given new powers of acquisition. My fear is that once compulsory acquisition powers are given to the HDB, we are opening the Pandora's box. Now the HDB can tell members of the public that they are acquiring only a flat on the ground floor and making more provisions for the other flat dwellers. But who knows, in time to come, this power can be used very liberally because in new subsections 7 to 14, which give power to the HDB to compulsorily acquire a flat, nowhere does it say that these powers cannot be extended. This is the fear of the public that once these powers are given, we are opening the Pandora's box. In the past, the HDB has renovated and upgraded hundreds of flats. Why was there no need to have this power of acquisition?”
“Is it to bolster the DBS' financial position? The Minister should state the position to this House so that, once and for all, we have these doubts cleared in the minds of the public. The other question which many people have asked is why did Post Office Savings Bank go with DBS, and why not other commercial banks. This is like a marriage. You do not propose yourself to many suitors. You look for suitors and then decide. Both of them share a common background, being Government-linked companies. So I do not see any wrong. In fact, it is quite appropriate for these two institutions to merge and the public should take it in this spirit. I am sure when the other banks are going to merge, they would merge with those banks which are near and dear to them. They are not going to marry somebody who is not close to them. Sir, there is another aspect which I would urge the Minister to convey to DBS. I have been a user of Post Office Savings Bank, and the friendly service is something which I hope would be continued by DBS so that the man-in-the-street will find the service as good, if not better. On that note, I support the Bill.”
“Is DBS eyeing that amount of money to bail itself out of its losses? I wish the Minister could enlighten us. Mr Shriniwas Rai: Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on the Bill. I am in support of the Bill, although I have some reservations with some clauses which I will come to later. Sir, the proposed merger of the Post Office Savings Bank with the Development Bank of Singapore has drawn a great deal of public interest. This is because POSBank has been regarded as a national institution. Though the Act came into being only 25 years ago, the institution has existed for almost a century. Many of us remember starting our savings through the Post Office bank accounts. In the early days, we used to buy stamps and we would stick them to a book. Of course, new Members may not realise it, but this is the way we were encouraged to save. Sir, a larger question that the House would be interested in is that, in the interest of the financial institutions in Singapore and the banking industry in particular - I have mentioned this earlier and I reiterate - we should have not more than two to three banks, and the signal should be sent to the other banks that they should consider merging in the greater interest of financial institutions in Singapore. This trend is seen all over the world, in USA and Japan. In fact, recently in India, there was a report on banking. They too encourage merger. I think it is timely. Of course, I share some of the grievances Mr Chiam has mentioned earlier. I urge the Minister to consider the grace period. He has asked for six years. I think it is a fair figure. At least it should be more than four years. Sir, members of the public have asked why is there a need to have this merger now.”
“The home owners have to seek loans from private commercial banks when the grace period given by Credit POSB ends on 31st December 2002, and they have to pay substantially more. It was reported in the Straits Times of 28th July 1998 that home owners had to pay between $78 and $103 more a month for every $100,000 loan when Credit POSB's cheap housing loans are phased out by 2002, provided interest rates remain the same. Those who have taken a 25 or 30 years' loan shall be the most hard hit as their monthly repayment amounts are higher. With the economic downturn and property values have also nose-dived, the banks are not going to show magnanimity. They want their customers to top up or make bigger monthly repayment amounts. In one Straits Times' report, a borrower was asked by the bank to pay $4,000 more each month. This may be an exception but such horror stories go to make people aware that once property prices fall, all kinds of hardship can occur. In the light of the bad economic situation, I would urge the Minister to extend the grace period of increasing the interest rates of Credit POSB to those of the commercial ones to six years rather than four years. As regards the purchase of POSBank by DBS, newspapers had commented that DBS got POSBank rather cheaply at $1.6 billion. The purchase price paid by DBS for POSBank is 1.37 times of its tangible asset value, and this is said to be below the norm, which is about 2 to 2.5 times for banks. I would like the Minister to comment on this. I would also like to ask the Minister why is the takeover of POSBank taking place at this point of time. Has DBS lost too much money in its overseas investments and needed help? We all know that POSBank has about $25 billion of depositors' cash.”
“Sir, the Post Office Savings Bank is an institution in Singapore which is synonymous with saving. Saving is, of course, a virtue which the State should inculcate among its citizens. The State wants its citizens to save. That is why it gives incentives for people to save. The deposits in the POSBank accounts are tax exempt up to a limit. Almost every man in the street in Singapore in his lifetime has a POSBank savings account. But with the merger, the image of the POSBank as the people's bank shall be taken away. The tax exempt concession enjoyed by Singaporeans for the last 26 years shall also come to an end, except for those below 21 years of age and those who are serving National Service. This concession has very little benefit because most of those who are below 21 years of age have not started working. As for those serving National Service, their NS pay is very low. Hence, even if they save the whole of their NS allowance, the amount of interest accrued is very little. All in all, the tax concession given to those below 21 years of age and those serving NS is insignificant and not meaningful. The people who are most unhappy are the people who have taken loans from Credit POSB to buy homes of their own and future purchasers of property for their own use. The POSBank is a source of cheap funds for people who want to purchase a property. The difference of interest rate between that offered by Credit POSB and the commercial bank is about 1.5%. Credit POSB's rate is lower than the commercial banks' rate. In view of the high property prices, up to January of last year, the amounts borrowed by home purchasers are very high. The monthly interest paid is correspondingly high.”
“The problem is probably due to too many COEs being released. There are too many cars on the road. That is why you are getting congestion.”
“The Minister has said that the CTE has become more congested. What is the Government doing about it?”
“Sir, my question has partly been asked by Mr Rai. In the light of Malaysia implementing its currency control policy and its adverse effects on Singapore, will there be a possibility now that CPF will be cut this year rather than next year?”
“But the majority of us, I think, will stay and we will bunch together and keep this boat chugging along and prepare for a new situation. When sweet and gentle breezes return again, the region will not look anything like what it was before last year. The landscape will be different. We cannot be sure. We cannot have a fixed plan that we must be there or here, because things are changing so fast. But we know the general direction we must move towards. We know there is no free lunch in the world. We know that every Singaporean will have to carry his own weight. We know that we have got to be competitive and that is the only sure way to stay employed and to stay employable. Sir, I support the motion. [Applause].”
“However the situation turns, we will survive; we will find a way to prevail; we will find a way to compete. Mr Low Thia Khiang said at a time like this, Ministers should take a pay cut. I am glad to tell Mr Low Thia Khiang that Ministers will take a pay cut because our salaries are pegged. The salaries in the private sector have gone down and, with a time lag, Superscale salaries will also go down. So he need not be too worried about this subject. An hon. Member: MP's allowances? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: And so will our allowances too. The point is: if we do not make major mistakes, our boat will stay afloat. We must be prepared for what can become a long haul, all working together, all at battle station, alert, Government, employers, trade unionists, social workers, looking after each other. If someone falls over, a lifeboat; a dent, quick repair; a leak, plug it. Will there be seven years of famine? I hope not. But can we be sure? And should we be so reckless as to say, "Let us in one decisive move raise this boat when the tide is ebbing." Some friends have told me, they said, "Government has been saying reserves are for a rainy day. Now there is a storm. Now is the time to spend the reserves." The storm has just started and we have got to husband our resources carefully. And if we do it carefully, not losing our nerves, but with a quiet sense of self-possession and self-confidence, we will sail this boat, position it well and when the tide comes in again, we will be far ahead. We will take some knocks. There will be casualties and a few Singaporeans may even lose heart and leave Singapore. In the 1985-86 recession, we had a small outflow. And this time round, there may be a small outflow again.”
“At a time like this, it is crucial that we bunch together, that we have the instinct that, "Look, we must help our neighbours, but in a way which is proper and principled." And we cannot assume that this regional crisis will not lead to political crisis in various parts of the region. Many things can go wrong. The horrible events of May in Indonesia were triggered off by the regional economic crisis. Other bad things, other evil things can happen in the region. We have got to be careful, we have got to be mentally prepared for it. We cannot turn inwards. The other day, I was very cheered. I was talking to Teo Chee Hean about the SAF. He told me that the morale of the senior SAF officers is very high. I felt very good about it because if, at a time like this, our SAF officers are weak-kneed, then we might as well pack up and go, is it not? We have got to, especially at a time like this, go out of our way to help those who are in difficulties but to help them in a way which does not create long-term problems for ourselves. And I think on the whole, Singaporeans have that instinct. There is a certain resilience which our people have got. The NEE Exhibition has been a tremendous success. I have not heard a single negative remark about the Exhibition. We extended it by six days but within one afternoon, all the tickets were snapped up. Why is this? It is because when Singaporeans look back upon their past, upon what their forefathers have done, what an earlier generation of leaders had brought us through, they felt proud and their morale went up, and we must build upon this. And what we really must have is a certain spirit of resilience, pak buay see ( ) kind of spirit.”
“Is it right at a time like this for Singaporeans also to turn inwards and ignore our neighbours? I think that would be wrong because we are then sowing seeds for long-term difficulties. How can we turn our back because Singaporeans want help? The majority of Indonesian workers earn less than S$1 a day to support an entire family. Their future is in their own hands. There is not very much we can do to help. But if we can help in small ways, we should, and we are. There is nothing wrong with that and we should not be defensive about it. It is in our own enlightened self-interest to help our neighbours because our destinies are intertwined. But at the same time, I hear some MPs talk about some of our Malaysian friends making unkind remarks against us. We should be principled and firm. We should not be taken for granted. And at a time like this, Singaporeans should have the instinct to bunch together. Last week, a friend of mine from the SAF, he used to be a senior doctor in the SAF, called me up. He said, "I want to see you urgently." I said, "Come, let's have lunch together." He was very unhappy because he works in a private hospital and in the doctor's room, one Singaporean came in and railed against the Singapore Government for being difficult with Malaysia. He said that we should just give in. CPF, return it. CIQ, why do you want to make all these changes? This friend of mine was so angry. We were friends in the SAF for many years. He said he gave him a 40-minute lecture and all the other Singaporeans in the common room became very encouraged, and some of them also spoke up. The Malaysian doctors in the room kept quiet.”
“Mr Chiam See Tong said that we discriminated against his kite fliers and that his MPS is conducted in the void deck instead of in an air-conditioned room. If you look at the bottom 5% to 10% of Singaporeans of any race, we are far better off than any other city in the world. Our bottom 5%-10% are better looked after than the corresponding groups in Tokyo, or New York, or Los Angeles, anywhere in the world. And it is because of this that we are socially very stable. Yes, in minor things, these are part of the rough-and-tumble of democratic politics. But on major things, we provide a solid base for all Singaporeans regardless of race, language, religion or political affiliation. Mr Chiam knows this. When he talked about fires in Potong Pasir not being fought by the Fire Brigade, or crimes in Potong Pasir ignored by the Police, he knew he was joking. If he was not joking, I say we should have a proper debate in this House and a proper Commission of Inquiry for the Fire Service and the Police Department. It was a joke and we should take it in that spirit and not pursue the matter much further. But at a time like this when economic conditions are hard, human societies turn inwards. Mrs Lim Hwee Hua talked about how her friends complained to her about the $5 billion aid we gave to the Indonesians. There is a lot of carping, "If you can give Indonesians $5 billion, why cannot you help me?" To begin with, let us get the facts right. That $5 billion have not been disbursed because the IMF programme under which we rode along has not been implemented. We are helping Indonesia in other ways, through trade financing, humanitarian assistance, our investment in natural gas, by maintaining operations in Batam, Bintan and the Riau Islands.”
“Should we have welfare? I listened to Mr Lim Boon Heng yesterday saying that we should not have a retrenchment fund because this can impede our long-term competitiveness. And I think we are very lucky that, in Singapore, the trade union movement understands this profoundly. If we have welfarism and get ourselves into the European position, then we are sowing the seeds of future problems for years and years to come. The European economies are doing quite well now, but their unemployment levels remain stubbornly at well over 10%. Why is this? Because of overly generous retrenchment benefits. There is a tremendous moral hazard involved. So we must guard against this. We can have welfare, yes. If a breadwinner is unemployed, children need school books, school fees, assistance from MCD, yes, help him, help him to get a job, help the children remain in school, do his examinations, get jobs later on. And in every CDC now, we have a whole slew of programmes through various NGOs and grassroots organisations to provide help. During the boom years, I think many of us, in various constituencies, had to go around persuading children to take up bursaries and scholarships. Maybe in the coming years, they will come on their own. But I think we have the programmes and if we need many more such programmes, so be it. But always watch the moral hazard and do not allow an attitude of welfarism to seep in, then it is by right, and if you do not give me, I will vote against you. Because once we settle into that position, it is well-nigh impossible to get out of it. Have we done poorly? Mr Low Thia Khiang said that we discriminated against certain Singaporeans.”
“But as I said, this is a subject on which it is very easy to make stirring speeches and get the ground worked up in the wrong direction. Therefore it is incumbent upon all of us who have a sense of responsibility to hold this ground because on it depends our long-term survival and the long-term employment and employability of Singaporeans. DBS, OCBC, you notice recently, having to restructure and adjust to a new situation, both of them have recruited foreign CEOs. Should we stop them? That would be stupid, would it not? In fact, I will go a step further. All over the region now, bright, able, dynamic entrepreneurial people have gone bankrupt or are without jobs. Should we not, selectively, encourage some of them to come into Singapore so that when the tide comes in again, we will have a thick layer of entrepreneurs and foreign talent to take our economy even further into the next century? If Hong Kong, in 1949, did not get that outflow of talent from Shanghai, and Hong Kong in 1949 was not a very prosperous economy, would Hong Kong have done as well as it did? If Taiwan did not get the one million mainlanders, would the Taiwanese have achieved that kind of progress which they achieved? The one million was the cream of a whole continent. So we should have the instinct and the wisdom at a time like this to welcome foreign talent into Singapore so that when times improve again, we will take off in double quick time. But the key to all this is political unity and social cohesion, a point raised by almost all MPs this afternoon. This crisis will put our society under stress. It will put our institutions under stress, it will put corporations under stress, it will put every family under some kind of stress. I do not think any family is unaffected by it.”
“Without that 40%, there will be no 60% for Singaporeans, is it not? Without foreign workers, who will build our homes, our MRT line, who will repair our ships? There are many areas which Singaporeans would not want to do even if they are quite hard up. And we need foreign workers for those jobs. And at all times, there are imbalances. We need machinists, we need computer programmers, we need restaurateurs, and so on, bring them in. Of course, where a Singaporean is equal to a foreigner, prefer the Singaporean, choose the Singaporean. We do not have to say this. Instinctively, every Singaporean employer, for reasons of cultural affinity, would prefer a Singaporean. If he has to choose between whom to retrench, a Singaporean or a foreigner, and they are more or less the same, I have no doubts in my mind that he will retrench the foreigner, not the Singaporean. So I do not think this is such a serious problem. But we must not allow this issue to be politicised or polemicised. And when we talk about foreign talents, it is even more important. Our universities, our research institutes, our financial sector, in many areas, without foreigners, we cannot maintain this high level of performance. In fact, at the higher reaches, the majority may have to be foreigners. If you look at the economy of London, or the economy of Tokyo, or the economy of New York, how many are local to London or New York or Tokyo. If you tell the City of London that you can only recruit Londoners, I think the City of London might as well pack up. So in the same way, to maintain the kind of economy that we have, we have got to have a free flow of talents coming in from outside, and this is very important.”
“EDB has mounted an Industry 21 programme which targets not just manufacturing but also manufacturing services. I announced some of the details in June this year. Our corporations will also have to restructure. We must help them to restructure. We must not, through threats or moral pressure, make it more difficult for them to restructure. Dr Lee Tsao Yuan talked about POSB. Why not we slow the process down, make it easier for those who have loans from POSB and so on? Yes, in every case, it is better to hold back restructuring. But there is also a heavy price when we hold back restructuring. Because every year lost is a year lost to competitors. And at a time like this, I do not think that our instinct should be to hold things in place, but to help individuals, corporations make the adjustments. But whether or not POSB can lengthen by a year the grace period, that is for POSB to decide. But we must remember that, at the end of the day, all restructuring is difficult. It is never easy. One of the most important things that we should pay attention to in this period is to fight political pressure to make life more difficult for foreign talent and foreign workers. At a time like this, the easiest thing to do and to say is, "Let's keep the foreigners out. Save the jobs for Singaporeans and treat it as a zero sum game." And at the political rally, on a soapbox, one can make quite a stirring speech. Our trade unionists can make quite a stirring speech on this. Therefore, at a critical period like this, it is very important that all of us, PAP MPs, Opposition MPs, NMPs, all of us, hold to this position that we need foreign workers. If we do not have these foreign workers, our economy will seize up. Let us say, for electronics companies, 40% are foreign workers.”
“Eventually, what we hope is for all our institutions to become "one institute, two systems" - one system for those who come out from school; the other for those who are coming back from working life in order to upgrade themselves. And that is the kind of society that we must become, the kind of culture that we must have. Never stop learning. Always have a child-like curiosity for what is new, and try. Fail, never mind; try again. Fail again, never mind; try again. In the end, learn something. And if we cannot master these skills ourselves, encourage our younger brothers or sisters, encourage our children and grandchildren to master them, because it is good for them. We are preparing for something which we know will come, in the 21st century, when wealth is increasingly based upon knowledge, not land or raw materials or natural resources but on human minds and the knowledge in those human minds and their ability to network together. This is why we have been pushing IT; we have been pushing Singapore One and encouraging our young children to prepare themselves for that kind of a world. Then, however that world changes, you will still come up against a computer, you will still come up against Windows; you will still come up against Internet, and you make the necessary adjustments. Whether in a restaurant, in a bank, in a shopping centre, in the SAF, whatever, it does not matter. Put someone before the computer screen and he is there hammering away, no sense of being intimidated. There are other things that we should do too, like encouraging entrepreneurship and so on. These are all long-term efforts. If we can make 1% improvement a year, we would have done well. It is not something which will change the situation rapidly.”
“So they set up a skills development centre and introduce a whole range of courses. In other words, when the economic agencies sense there are areas of potential growth which can take additional employment, we put out these indicators, encourage those who might be unemployed to upgrade themselves and try. But, of course, as many MPs have said, it may mean that they have to travel further. It may mean that they have to work shifts. It may mean that they have got to convert from white collar to blue collar. But so what? I was in Thailand two or three weeks ago. There was this Thai businessman whose company had gone bust, and he now sells sandwiches. The newspapers have been reporting on him. He is bubbly and very cheerful about it, and in a very wonderful way he has given heart to a lot of Thai people. And if Singaporeans make that effort, I do not think that the problem of unemployment will get out of hand. To begin with, there are hundreds of thousands of work permit holders in Singapore and many of their jobs can in fact be taken over by Singaporeans. We must educate every individual to the fullest possible. Mdm Claire Chiang has talked about social infrastructure. We are spending a lot of money on building up our educational infrastructure. Not just a formal school system of primary schools, secondary schools, ITEs, polytechnics and universities, but also life-long education, so that all of us are used to the idea of going back to school to update ourselves, whether it is on Windows, whether it is on computer-aided manufacturing, or whatever.”
“But if that company, if the industry, cannot sustain that level of employment, their unemployment is inevitable, we should not stop it. It is part of the process of adjusting. We have got to float with the tide. If we anchor ourselves when the tide is shifting, we will be in trouble. Mr Tay Beng Chuan spoke at length about the plight of the SMEs and how many of them are in pain. There is a liquidity crunch and the LEFS programme which is introduced can only help some of them. I think we should do all that we can to make life easier for them but we must accept that whatever we do, we cannot save everybody. If we try to save everybody, we will be in deep trouble. But those whom we can save, we should save. The LEFS is being extended in order to allow more to be taken in. But at the end of the day, the banks must decide. Government is only co-financing. The banks must decide who will survive and who will not. Yes, if we can raise the level of the water by one inch more, more will be saved; but it is not possible to freeze things in position. That will be the wrong strategy. That is on the cost side. Then on the productivity and efficiency side, there are many things that we have to do. The key in the end is the individual. We can have the best infrastructure. We can have all the programmes, all the bells and whistles, but if the individual does not make the effort and does not try harder, nothing can be done. And all our efforts are to enable the individual to help himself. Unless he is sick or an invalid, there should be a way out for him through one of our programmes. The SRP was initiated by the NTUC, together with the SNEF and the Government. SDF put in $50 million. The Government threw in another $50 million. And recently the Government added another $20 million.”
“Another major component is, of course, wage level, especially in the service industry where it can be more than half of total cost. In many manufacturing sectors, it could be up to 40%. We have got to allow wages to adjust. Mr Lim Swee Say said that to be pro-employment is to be pro-business. In the old days, that would have been considered a reactionary remark. Today, that is a very progressive remark. To be pro-employment is to be pro-business. Because if the businesses do not survive, where is the employment? So we have got to watch our wage levels, accept that it varies from industry to industry, from company to company but, at the least, we restrain; at the most, we prepare for adjustments. We have built up over the years now a variable component of up to 20% in the public sector and maybe 16% in the private sector. We should be prepared to go into those before talking about the CPF. But even if it means talking about the CPF, so be it. No sacred cows. Whatever we need to stay competitive. And that must be the impression we give to foreign and local investors. This Government, this society, these people called the Singaporeans, they will do everything necessary to stay in business, and we intend to stay in business. We should, of course, minimise unemployment. But minimising unemployment must not mean stopping unemployment. That will be very dangerous. The Ministry of Manpower has set up a tripartite retrenchment panel so that companies which have to retrench would give early warning, and try to prepare the workers for it. We have the SRP. We have various funds and programmes to help retrain them and to get them new jobs so that the pain is minimised.”