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 19 of 85.
“We do not want to fiddle with the exchange rate, because the reason why the Singapore dollar is viewed with such high regard in the region and why so many ten thousand dollar Singapore notes are in circulation in the region is because there is a deep trust in its value. And I would say that it lies at the core of our financial system. The easy way a weak government would take is to lower the Singapore dollar, devalue it. And then you get a flush, things may appear better, but long-term problems are not solved. And I do not think we should use the Singapore dollar to solve this problem. Instead, let us be trim and flexible. If we have to make adjustments, Government, workers, unions, everybody together, we make those adjustments, take the decisions, and not toy around with the Singapore dollar. Land cost, rental cost, because of the boom years, they have gone out of line. So they are coming down. I think they will have to ease to a lower level. We want a soft landing. We do not want a major destabilisation of our financial system. And I think the market will gradually correct itself, and we should be in a more competitive situation in the coming years. Of course, when the tide comes in again, then we will float up again. But in the meantime, do not take it for granted. Let us ease ourselves into the lower position so that rentals are lower and business costs are lower. As Mr Tay Beng Chuan and other MPs have said, we must also watch Government levies, Government fees and taxes, and whatever causes problems, and where we can make adjustments, we should. But this is really for the Finance Minister to decide and we have to wait till next March for new measures to be announced, if and when those measures are deemed to be necessary.”
“The Committee has been meeting, its sub-Committees have been working very hard. The report will come out at the end of the year. And many of the ideas have already been incorporated in the meantime. It is economic competitiveness in the end which will solve the problem of employment and employability in Singapore; nothing else. And to maintain our economic competitiveness, there are two things that you have to watch out for, and they never change. One is our cost structure. It does not mean that we cheapen ourselves. Cost structure does not mean that we must be the cheapest in town. We offer value for money, but we must watch the cost structure to make sure that we are not out of whack. Secondly, and this is an endless task, we must continually increase productivity and efficiency. This is an endless game. Cost structure. Lowering business cost was, of course, the focus of Dr Richard Hu's off-Budget measures which came to $2 billion. If you look at the exchange rates, we can be in danger of being uncompetitive. Around us, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, they have gone down close to 40%, Indonesia, much more. We have only gone down 15% to 20%. Of course, Hong Kong has maintained the peg. So they are above us. But as any of us who has travelled in the region will know, things look incredibly cheap in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines. So if we are not careful, very quickly investments can flow out of Singapore into the region around us. We have got to watch the cost structure, and make sure that all components of costs are kept as low as possible.”
“I think most Singaporeans understand this. And it is because they understand this that we continue to do well. In fact, when I listened to the many Members of Parliament who spoke today, except for the two Opposition MPs who have to say something, on the whole, there were really no sides to this debate. On the fundamentals of competitiveness and having to make a living in the world, on education, on discipline, on collective effort, there is no disagreement. And this is the great strength of Singapore. In many countries in Asia today, because of economic astringency, very quickly the economic problem becomes a political problem, and the fracture quickly finds its way to the core, because powerful vested interests are involved. I support A, he wins, I am millions of dollars richer; he loses, I am finished. If B wins, he wins, and so on. But in our system, complete rationality, complete objectivity. If this is something that must be done, let us do it. We can disagree honestly, but not on the basis of your vested interest versus his vested interest. You remember last year before the crisis, we established the CSC, the Committee to look at Singapore's competitiveness, chaired by Minister Mr Lee Yock Suan. And no sooner had the Committee sat for two or three sessions, we were straight into the downturn. At each meeting it was a different set of circumstances than the previous one. So we have had to adjust our position. When we started, a top item on the agenda was job-hopping, and many papers were written on how to stop the job-hopping problem - very creative policy adjustments to stop that problem. Today, that problem has completely evaporated. We do not even talk about it. The problems are unemployment, restructuring, competitiveness.”
“But, of course, as a number of speakers have pointed out this afternoon, there have been a few excesses in Singapore, particularly in the property market. Young people became very ambitious, leverage themselves to the eye balls, and are now in trouble. It is sad that every generation must learn its lessons for itself, that whatever their parents may have to tell them, they must make their own mistakes before an internal balance is found. But because our infrastructure is basically strong and our system is basically sound, I think that lesson comes relatively cheap. It is crucial, as Mr Lim Swee Say and many MPs have said, that whatever the situation, whether the tide is coming in or going out, that we maintain our relative competitive position. Take no chances. Always assume that things will get a bit worse. It is like running with lead weights. If you do not have to wear those weights, you fly. Here, we have got to worry about not just short term investment conditions but the long term, as Mr Inderjit Singh has said. The key is to convince domestic and international investors that Singapore runs a tight ship, that our core philosophy is that there is no free lunch in the world. That if we make a good living it is because we are of service to others. No one owes us a living. If we have something in the kitchen, we have something in the living room, it is because we work hard for it. We must continue to project this philosophy to all potential investors, foreigners and Singaporeans, that whatever we need to do, we will do. There are no sacred cows. There are no mindsets. If we have to adjust, we will adjust. That is all. Because if we do not adjust, if we become paralysed or ossified in our present position, then we will be swept aside. That is all.”
“Politically connected vested interest got rich, because they were near centres of power. All that was fine and a wonderful game to play when the tide was coming in. Now when the tide is receding, all those poorly built structures have either collapsed or have become very shaky. During high tide, the water looks very calm and beautiful. During low tide, all the sins and wreckage show. In Singapore, we are completely affected. Because we are, as it were, in the middle of that tidal cross flow. We cannot fight the tide. If we fight the tide, we are sure to lose. We must float with the tide. We are feeling it. There is a lot of pessimism in Singapore, not all of it justified. We have to revise our growth projections downwards every few months. And as Mr Lim Swee Say and many MPs have spoken about this afternoon, unemployment is growing and will continue to grow for a while yet. But unlike many of the countries around us, our fundamentals are strong. This is where I profoundly disagree with Mr Low Thia Khiang who said that when we were successful we blew our trumpet. Now when the tide is down, we should take the blame. We never took liberties with ourselves. Even when times were good, we were frugal. In fact, the PAP Government had a certain reputation for being very careful with money, and watching the cents. We were like Joseph in Egypt. Years of plenty, rather than squandering the money, we carefully built warehouses, stashed away whatever we could, whatever we did not consume, wasting not a grain, because we were preparing ourselves mentally for difficult times. I hope the difficult times will not be as long as in the Bible, but still we cannot be sure. We should not take liberties with ourselves, as we did not when times were good.”
“In the middle of 1995, it was 80 yen to a dollar. Today, 1998, it is about 143, 144, 145 yen to a dollar. Within the same period of three years, the yen has moved the other way, about 50%. Because of it, it has an enormous contractionary effect on the economies of all of Southeast Asia. In other words, what we are talking about are huge tidal flows over which we have no control because the yen-dollar relationship is not dependent upon what happens in Southeast Asia. It is dependent upon the complex interaction between the US economy and the Japanese economy. The key contradiction now is that Japan has no capacity to lead internationally, even though it is the world's greatest creditor country. America is the only leading superpower left in the world but it is also the world's greatest debtor country. It is a complex relationship suffused with policy and other implications. But that relationship plays dice with our lives. The question now is, this tide which is receding, how long will it recede? The last tide brought 10 years of prosperity to Southeast Asia. This tide, we hope it will turn around quickly, but I do not see it turning around yet, and we have to wait, and have to wait anxiously, and in the meantime take all necessary precautions. We hope for the best but prepare for the worst. The period of boom in Southeast Asia led to a period of excess. Suddenly money was easy. Borrow American dollars on the short term. Institutions were weak and capital markets were opened freely before the regulatory structures were in place. So they became very vulnerable to short term capital flows. This happened in particular in Thailand and Indonesia. Worse, there grew in Southeast Asia, political structures which were fueled by easy money.”
“This is completely different from the 1985/86 recession. Therefore, we should not be too quick to apply the lessons of 1985/86 recession to this current economic downturn, just as generals have always been advised, never, never to fight the last war. Take, for instance, a big change in the larger situation, the dollar-yen relationship. In 1985, the Japanese yen was 250 yen to US$1. The Americans complained that it was too low, and they had this current account deficit. During the Plaza Accord, they forced Japan to revalue the yen, and within three years, from the Plaza Accord in 1985 to 1988, the yen rose from 250 yen to US$1, to 130 yen to US$1. If you look at the graph, that is just one movement. But it created a sea change in Southeast Asia, because an expensive yen led to an outflow of Japanese capital out of Japan and a lot of it found its way into Southeast Asia. Malaysia had good infrastructure, administrative and physical infrastructure, they were a beneficiary. So was Thailand. The Plaza Accord was in 1985, and by the end of 1986/87, Malaysia and Thailand were on a boom. We were coming out of the recession and we were swept along. Indonesia had a boom later in 1988/89. China after Tiananmen, June 4th 1989, by 1990/91, ethnic Chinese capital from Southeast Asia, Taiwan, Hong Kong went in, and that in turn sparked off a Chinese boom. The Japanese economy is huge. It dominates most of Asia. So that 50% change in the value of the yen led to an in-rushing tide which brought prosperity to all of Southeast Asia. It was supplemented by a revaluation of Korean Won and the Taiwan NT. So in addition to the capital flow from Japan, there was also the capital flow from the NIEs. Let us now look at the events of the last few years.”
“In discussing the problems of employment and employability, it is important to understand the nature of this crisis, because what we do must be in accord with the dynamics of this crisis. This is the biggest event sweeping Asia since the Second World War. It is a big thing. Already it has brought down a number of national leaders, like General Chaovalit in Thailand, President Suharto in Indonesia, Prime Minister Hashimoto in Japan. It contributed to the election of Kim Dae Jung in South Korea and President Estrada in the Philippines. It is not over yet. We know it is not over yet because the fundamental problems have not yet been resolved. The key is, of course, the Japanese economy, which is two-thirds of the Asian economy. The old political consensus in Japan has broken down. Today, it does not matter how brilliant you are as a Minister or as a civil servant. Within that sticky rice culture, it is very difficult to effect change. Within Japan itself, there is no great sense of a crisis. Because Japan is unable to re-stimulate her economy, the effects of the Asian crisis have not only not been contained, they are increasingly being felt in North America and in Europe. Members would have read in yesterday's newspapers President Clinton using the argument to Congress to persuade them to cough up more money for the IMF, that if they do not, and the Asian crisis is not stabilised, it will in the end drag down the US economy. These are large forces not within our control. We have to observe them closely and carefully, the way a farmer would try to estimate the effects of an El Nino. There is nothing you can do about an El Nino. But you can dig reservoirs, you can protect yourself, and this is the approach that we should take.”
“We should give the dignity to our labourers. There is dignity in labour. That must be recognised. If a person has to work with his hand, so be it. But he can be proud of it and be good at it. Whether he is a cook or a carpenter, if he is good at it, then society must respect him for what he can do, and not stress too much on academism, brain work and degrees. In fact, a former Member of this House has already pointed out that there is too great a disparity of wages between manual workers and university graduates. If you go to a western country, you will be surprised to note that a carpenter can earn just as much as a university graduate. But I am just trying to say that his skill is recognised by society and he is paid for it. Singaporeans can be educated to get rid of their negative motivation and be taught initiative, leadership, and work on their own instead of always being supervised. I think one of the problems of foreign workers - they have almost nil productivity - is because they have to be supervised all the time. I have seen that in the Town Council. As soon as you leave the foreign workers alone, off they go somewhere else. They would not be working anymore. So they have to be supervised every minute of the day. That is the problem. I do not think we want our workers to be like that. We want our workers to be responsible and to show initiative. If you leave them on their own, you pay them a day's wage, they will give you a day's work. 5.33 pm The Second Minister for Trade and Industry (BG George Yong-Boon Yeo): Sir, I support the motion standing in the names of Mr Lim Swee Say and Mr Seng Han Thong.”
“I think they can work if they want to, the problem is attitude. Singaporean workers have got something in them which is hard to describe. They seem to be reluctant to be as productive as what they should be. I think the genesis of this attitude problem is our education system. I think there is a flaw in our education system. All this streaming and dividing the sheep from the goat is bad for the child. Right from the early age, the motivation of the child has already been killed. In fact, there is negative motivation on the child. As the child grows up, he just refuses to be cooperative. He refuses to contribute and be socially useful. So there is a negative attitude about this type of children who have been branded in the early days as a failure, as a no-good, as a drop out. So what do you expect him to be? If you tell me that I am a drop-out, I am no good, what do you expect me to be? I think for the long-term of Singapore, not just for quick turn around in this economic downturn, the education system of our country has to be looked at hard. I have spoken against streaming at an early age since 1984 and the problem is always there. I was in Parliament in 1984 and they were saying that half of our 600,000-odd workers did not even have an education. They were illiterate. They did not know how to read. They did not know how to write. They cannot recognise numbers. How are they going to be productive? Today, we still hear the same thing. 700,000 of our workers have got no secondary education. As for retraining, it is only 5,000 of them. That is not good enough. We have to revamp the education system across the board and only if their productivity is high, then their wages are justified. This is the message that I want to tell the House. Another matter is attitude.”
“I know we are all in the same boat, but we are not even in the third class. Probably we are in the bottom or in the hull of the ship. Whereas the PAP and others who support them are in the first class. Nevertheless, if we sink, we all sink together. It is true that we are all in the same boat but I hope that there can only be one class and not several classes. As regards this problem of the economic downturn, how do we turn around? As the Deputy Prime Minister has said in public, the problem is external. This is like a person getting flu. We have to go through the full cycle and then we get cured. But meanwhile, I think what we can do is to try to give a remedy to the symptoms to lighten the sickness. I think Mr Tay Beng Chuan has already said and I think the Government should look at the problems and the plight of the small business people sympathetically and if it can, I think it should lower some of its levies, its charges and lower the costs of all these small businesses. But I think in the long term, the important thing is productivity. Even foreign organisations have pointed out that Singapore workers have got a bad attitude and have low productivity. I have seen it with my own eyes. We were in Copenhagen once on some kind of a conference and we were in a lounge of a hotel. I noticed that only one lady was managing everything, collecting money, taking orders, being a waitress, serving, taking back all the used plates and crockery. Sometimes she was assisted by a man who came out once or twice. But, basically, it was one lady doing the work. I have never seen that kind of productivity in Singapore. I hope we can really improve our productivity. There is nothing wrong with our Singapore workers. They are very skilful.”
“This kind of threat tactics will certainly not build a cohesive society. Even now, presently, the Opposition is being unfairly treated. A simple application for the use of land to fly kites or to hold a lantern festival and we would not get an early reply. How are we going to prepare for the event? How are we going to send out notices? And every time we ring up and ask about a simple answer to the application, they say, "We can't give you an answer now because the answer from the top has not come down yet." Sir, the way the Opposition is treated is really shameful. So I hope that the Government, if it wants a true cohesive society, I think they should treat the Opposition fairly like any other Singaporean. Mr Low has spoken about the CIPC funds. Millions of dollars have been distributed to the PAP wards, but the Opposition wards are not enjoying any of those funds. Then when we talk of applications we wish to make, we always seem to get it rather slowly, whether it is for a licence to speak at a public dinner or whatever simple applications like that. Then, every week, we have to meet in the void deck to see our residents and other people from other parts of Singapore in the meet-the-people sessions. We do not have a proper place to meet, whereas the PAP MPs have got nice air-conditioned rooms, computer sets, everything. But we, as I have said, are like the Chinese medicine sellers with one table and one chair at the void deck. So I hope all these can change. Having said all that, do the Opposition support the Government in times of difficulty? Of course, we do. We are Singaporeans. We want to see Singapore do well. We want to see that the economic downturn can go away very quickly. Dr Vasoo has spoken of the fact that we are all in the same boat.”
“Yes, this was in the early days. The opposition ward shall be slow in getting public services. If somebody sets a fire in the lift, the police might not attend even after a complaint has been lodged. Some hon. Members: No.”
“Sir, we have come to almost the end of the debate and I do not think it would be useful for me to suggest any solutions to our economic problems, because I think most or nearly all the solutions have already been given in this House today. Like my colleague, Mr Low Thia Khiang, the other Opposition Member in this House, I think we are particularly concerned in this issue of social cohesion. I support what Mr Low has said, ie, the Government should be fair to all citizens whether they are in the Opposition or whether they are supporting the Government. In good times, when the economy was booming, our banks were flushed with money, the Government spoke a different language. At the last election, the Government said, "If you support the opposition, you will be last in the queue. Probably you will never even see upgrading." That kind of a policy alienates one section of the population from the other. And we, in the Opposition, have felt the alienation policies of the Government. We have heard threats being uttered by the Government, "that if you vote the Opposition and if you get stuck in the lift, you should be rescued last." An hon. Member: No.”
“What is the cost of buying water from the Riau Islands compared to that from Malaysia and desalination?”
“Because living in a condominium is not just buying your own property and living away from everybody else. There are legal duties; there are legal liabilities. And that is why a management corporation is formed in all developments with powers over many areas. So this is the other point which we should note. Members have talked about the 10-year rule. Our approach, as I said in my speech, is not to dictate which developments are ripe for en-bloc sale. We leave it essentially to the owners. So there is minimum intervention, unlike Mr Simon Tay who had asked why we do not stipulate terms and conditions in the sale and purchase agreement. We take a non-interventionist approach. I think the starting point is that we leave it to the majority owners. If 80%-90%, all like minded, all with their own faculties to decide what is best, say that this is the way to go, provided, of course, the transaction is at arm's length, there is no collusion, then the sale goes ahead.”
“But I would argue that there is a public interest element, not just in land acquisition but also in en-bloc sale. Let us not forget that, unlike land acquisition where a person's property is acquired, he may lose out financially, the distinguishing factor here is that in an en-bloc sale, the minority owner would very often benefit substantially financially. That is the first point I want to make. The other point which we should also bear in mind is that, like I have said in my speech, the new scheme will not apply to landed properties, even though one of the Members had urged for it to be applied to terrace houses. I think the difference is fundamental and this is one point that perhaps Singaporeans do not fully grasp, the legal significance of buying a condominium where what a person buys into is a strata lot. He buys into common property. He is designated share values in common property. He has no specific land lot. He has got strata rights, essentially enjoyment of the air space where his unit is located. So what the majority want to do, in effect, is to exercise their rights over the common property. If there are 99 owners in a 100-owner development, assuming the share values are equal and equal area also, what the 99 owners say is, "We want to exercise our rights to sell this strata development" where every owner who comes into this development, unlike buying landed property, knows what he is going in for. The other point, of course, is besides just the legal nature, one cannot understate the fact of communal living in strata development. And this is another point, which is that Singaporeans over time will better understand what the Land Titles (Strata) Act is all about. It is a complex Act with 130 sections. Why?”
“As for Singapore, it must not throw all ideals and principles to the wind. For me, I believe in the sacrosanctity of my home. I should be allowed to stay in it as long as I like. I therefore cannot support a law which will allow others to force me out of my home all because they want is to make more money out of it. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, first, let me thank the many speakers who have spoken. Since the Bill will be going to a Select Committee, I will not address all the points, especially the technical ones which can be considered at the Select Committee. However, Sir, I should take this opportunity to outline the reasons why the Government has taken this approach. As stated by many Members, the underlying objective of the Bill is recognising land is scarce in Singapore and the fact that the plot ratios of many developments have been enhanced, there is a need to facilitate the realisation of more housing units for Singaporeans. We are talking in many cases of prime areas, freehold, 999 years. From the records that are available, some developments have yielded two to three times more units for ourselves, for our children. So this is a step that we take which will have long term impact. Of course, as many Members have stated, yes, indeed we are dealing with property rights that can be sensitive. But I think we have to also understand that in land scarce Singapore, we should not flinch from taking measures that are necessary which will benefit both Singapore and Singaporeans, which indeed we did in the 1960s when we introduced land acquisition. These land acquisition policies have facilitated and resulted in developments that have made Singapore one of the best cities in the world. Of course, some Members may say that the example may not be quite the same.”
“But if we value freedom and value the principle that one has a right to live where one chooses for whatever reasons, then I believe we can start to understand the refusal of those two ladies to budge from their places of residence. Normally, one is only forced to move out of one's home in times of war, or in times of natural disaster like an earthquake, or where there is a widespread contagious disease in the community, or one's property is required for public development. Other than those instances, I do not think that in a civilised society, one should be forced to be evicted from one's own private property against one's own will. The governments of other countries may want to do it to their own citizens. But I do not think that we should follow them. If a property owner wants to make money out of his own property, he is entirely free to do so. But I do not think that he has a right to drag other residents into his money-making scheme if the other residents do not want to have a hand in it. I think a society must have some ideals, some principles to hang on to. If a society has no principles, no ideals at all, that society, for the short term, may prosper but in the long run, it shall surely collapse. I cannot accept the belief of a well-known businessman in Singapore when he said that everything is up for sale except his own wife. I am certain we do treasure certain things which cannot be sold whatever is the price offered. Expediency as a philosophy is not a good philosophy for our nation. The American nation, despite its commitment to business and seeming expedient ways, has endured for over 200 years, because it still holds on to certain sacred beliefs and ideals as enshrined in its constitution.”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join in this debate. I am surprised, Sir, that the Government should succumb to the greed of property owners and take away the principle of unanimity in regard to en-bloc sales. In 1987, at the last major amendment to the Land Titles (Strata) Act, the Government held firm to the principle of unanimity as regards the sale of the whole development comprised in a Strata Title plan. Why should the Government now make a complete about turn and go back on its own belief? I believe that the principle of unanimity is correct and the Government should hold on to it. The principle has been upheld by the Government up till now because it believes that the minority interests must be protected. There will normally be a few people who live in a large block of private flats who do not want to be moved out. These people are not spoilers or people who want to hold the other flat owners to ransom and demand high prices for their own units. They just do not want to move out whatever the going price is paid to them. I know of such instances in a private development where an en-bloc sale was proposed. Each flat owner was offered about $1 1/2 million as compensation. Those flats were first purchased in 1969 for only about $27,000 each. So the price of $1 1/2 million was a windfall. It was like touching a lottery. But there were two ladies who refused to sell their units. Those two flat owners did not ask for more money. The compensation paid to them was not an issue. They just do not want to move out and live somewhere else. Many people of course will call them stupid or unable to comprehend them for refusing such large sums of compensation money.”
“Sir, my issue is that this is the real situation. It has already happened and a big amount of loan has been given out by the banks and, also, very likely many of these loans would be recalled because there are house purchasers who are unable to pay. So my question is: is the Government just standing by and watching these many poor purchasers having to go bankrupt? As it is already, 1,000 of them have gone bankrupt. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have just explained that the Association of Banks has advised its members not to take a short term view of the viability of their customers' businesses or to pull back loans that are being regularly serviced. I am sure the Association would not mind me telling the Member that, in terms of housing loans, what they have suggested to the banks is to consider not requiring top ups where the term loan repayments are current, and to look at it case by case and support customers who have viable businesses, and help them to weather the current difficult environment. I think these are for banks to decide. If the bank wants to pull back a loan because the customer is not servicing, and we tell the bank, "No", do you take on the responsibility? I am not prepared to take on the responsibility because I would have to come here and ask Members to vote money which may be in the billions of dollars, in the case of Japan, US$600 billion. We should go to the banks not to rescue a bank, but to make sure the whole banking system does not collapse, and the whole economy does not collapse. I would rather not have to make such a request of Mr Chiam.”
“This is why, in 1996, we set a limit of 80% of the value of a property on mortgage loans, and which is why even now, despite many very strong appeals to the contrary, we have not lifted this requirement, and I hope Mr Chiam will support us in that resolution.”
“All right. It would appear that many of these property purchasers would have to sell their properties under forced sale. Is the Government, in the absence of an ombudsman, just going to stand by and see this happen? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, whether a person takes a loan or does not take a loan is a personal decision. If he had gone to the bank to take a loan, that means he did not buy an HDB flat. He had bought a private property, and I presume that he had made his own calculations, and he has to look after himself. I would not be surprised if the volume of housing loans has increased dramatically since 1985. The number of private properties has gone up, the value of private properties has gone up even now compared to 1985, and if bank loans had not increased, I think our system would have been malfunctioning. So these matters are private decisions between the banks and the borrowers. As I explained, even in countries where you have an ombudsman, lending decisions are really the bank's prerogative, not the ombudsman's prerogative. If the ombudsman has to decide that you may call back this loan or you may not call back that loan, and the ombudsman says that you cannot call back the loan and the loan turns sour, who pays? The bank or the ombudsman? Is the ombudsman a rich man or does he have the government standing behind him? So it is not such a simple matter. The lesson I draw from the data which Mr Chiam cited is that we have to be very careful not to over expand credit during times when the property market is hot and there is a certain euphoria and heady whiff in the air, and everybody feels this is the chance, the bankers feel these are safe loans, the borrowers feel this is a sure chance to make money, let's go.”
“Yes, I am coming to it. The loans made by banks to property purchasers were about $10 billion and this amount has in fact grown to about $64 billion. With the downturn of the economy, it would look like many of these property purchasers would have to either top-up or, if they are unable to top-up, pay higher monthly interest. They will have to fork out ---”
“Sir, in good times the banks are flushed with money and they encourage their customers to borrow. In Singapore's case, they do borrow to buy real estate property. It was reported in yesterday's papers that in 1985”
“Of course. I just bring home the point ---”
“Sir, I was watching the television programme, Business Day, and almost every other company's annual report shows a loss. I was waiting for somebody to ask whether the Government would, in fact, lower the corporate tax. In fact, they had been asking for it already last year. I wonder why it was not asked, for those other companies having difficulty.”
“Maybe the Minister could clarify. This point about the lock-in to the Special Account has been mentioned by Dr Vasoo. It says here with a strong word "irrevocable". In other words, if he agrees to put in this money up to a maximum of $40,000, he cannot take it out anymore until he probably reaches 55 years old. Is there any escape clause here where there is a real difficulty he could just take some funds out?”
“May I get some clarification from the Minister? Sir, this is in regard to clause 3 of the Bill. The Minister says that voluntary contributions can be given by housewives and people who are employed abroad. I can think of other categories of persons in Singapore who will be making voluntary contributions, such as the self-employed, small businessmen, like the hawkers and shopkeepers, and of course big businessmen who are well-off, and professionals. I suppose that for small business people who make voluntary contributions, it can be said that they are in fact saving for their old age. But in the case of people who are well-off, who may own their own homes and in fact own one or two other investment properties and who have a regular income, not only from their employment but from their investments, these people may want to make voluntary contributions not for the purpose for which the CPF Act was enacted. In other words, they have got no worry about saving for their old age. They are quite well-off already. So if these people make voluntary contributions, they may be doing it for other reasons, probably to save on their income tax. So if they really do that, and they also want to enjoy their Medisave, in case there is a worse scenario situation, they are taking advantage of the CPF system. The CPF Act was set up specifically to make provision for workers to save for their old age. So if this group of people takes advantage of these voluntary contributions, they may do it for their own purpose, as I said, like tax savings. I would also like the Minister to clarify what he means by different classes of members in the new section 13B. Are the people who make voluntary contributions a class by itself, or are they different from the regular workers who make CPF contributions?”
“We are talking about a case of retrenchment. In other words, there are more than enough workers. There are not enough jobs to go round. This is the situation we are talking about. Therefore, the situation that Mr Lim stated does not apply, because he said that there are not enough workers and you have to pay 20% more to house these foreign workers. But our situation now is different. Am I right? So his situation does not apply.”
“Sir, I would like the Minister of State to clarify the clarification that has been given to Mr Lim. Can I have a clarification that the situation, spoken by Mr Lim, is in fact in the case where there are insufficient workers? What we are talking now is that there are more than enough workers. So the situation of employing foreign workers who are more expensive does not apply.”
“Can I get a further clarification? You are talking about a specific instance. But in a case, say, a factory which produces chips and it has a whole batch of foreign workers whose skills are very good, will this whole batch of workers be retained and an equivalent number of Singaporeans be retrenched?”
“Sir, can I get a clarification from the Minister of State? He says that the retrenchment of workers will be in proportion to the nationalities of the workforce. But not long ago in this House, I heard that the retrenchment of workers depends on the skills of the workers. Supposing there are a Singaporean worker and a foreign worker. If the foreign worker is more skilful, the Singapore worker will be retrenched first. Is that not the position?”
“Sir, in 1985, I believe the employer's component was cut by 15 percentage points. Can the Minister now give an indication, if there is going to be a cut, what is the percentage point?”
“Perhaps the Minister can clarify. I should also like the Minister perhaps to tell this House why the Government's treatment and rehabilitation programmes for drug addicts have not been so successful. Is the Government not putting enough money into the programmes? If not, why not? I would like to urge the Government to have another look at these treatment and rehabilitation programmes of drug addicts rather than take the easy way out by caning repeat offenders of specified drugs. If Singapore has to resort to caning all social wrong-doers, then I am afraid that Singapore can never be a cohesive society.”
“Sir, the Minister wants this House to approve laws which will allow the Government to inflict corporal punishment on repeated consumers of specified drugs. A second time offender under the new section 33A can now be caned up to a maximum of 12 strokes. This makes repeat consuming of specified drugs an offence equivalent to the most heinous and violent crimes. Caning is normally reserved for those who commit heinous and violent crimes, like armed robbery, rape or trafficking in heroin and other illegal drugs. Sir, in some countries, consumption of heroin is not even a crime. It is classified a social problem. But in Singapore, consumption of heroin is considered a crime. Those who do so can be compulsorily detained for treatment and rehabilitated up to a maximum period of three years. The fact that the Government has to escalate the punishment from non-corporal to corporal ones for repeat drug offenders shows that the Government's treatment and rehabilitation programmes for drug addicts over the last 20 years have probably not been successful. It is now resorting to strong-arm tactics. It virtually wants to impose its will on the drug addicts. It tells the drug addicts: Do not take heroin or other specified drugs again! If you do so, we are going to whack the daylight out of you! Hopefully, the majority of drug addicts will get the message and stop their old habits of taking drugs. But what happens if a drug addict who is so badly addicted and he is a person of weak character and is unable to give up the heroin habit, even after the second conviction and punishment under the new section 33A? There is no mention in the Bill of further punishment after that. Does it mean that this type of recidivist drug addict has to be locked up forever?”
“Sir, is it not possible for the Government to find a way to build barriers in which they will not impede the flow of passengers?”
“Sir, I believe the Minister has left out one point, which is on the criteria for us to enter into an extradition treaty with another country. Also, in the case of Malaysia and Brunei, my reading of the law is that extradition can only be carried out when there is an extradition treaty. If we do not have an extradition treaty with Malaysia and Brunei, how do we force those governments to hand over a fugitive to Singapore?”
“Sir, my understanding of extradition is that it is dependent entirely on statute. My question to the Minister is that since Hong Kong is not a sovereign state, can it sign an extradition treaty with the Republic of Singapore? Unlike the UK, we have not amended our laws in this respect. As regards the extradition treaty signed between Hong Kong and Singapore, may I ask the Minister whether it was at the initiative of the Hong Kong government or was it on our Government's initiative? I would like to further ask the Minister what are the criteria he would look into before an extradition treaty is signed between Singapore and a foreign country. In this respect, may I ask how many of the countries in ASEAN have signed extradition treaties with Singapore other than Thailand? Sir, I would like to refer to section 3 of our Extradition Act. I note that in that section, English extradition laws are incorporated into our statute. Section 3 puts into effect in our Extradition Act all those foreign States which have signed extradition treaties with England as if they had signed extradition treaties with us. Since we are now making amendments to our Extradition Act, I would like to ask the Minister why he does not now also include the list of foreign States in the new Third Schedule. In the absence of the full list of foreign States in our Extradition Act, we have to look to the English Extradition Act to find out all the names of countries which have an extradition treaty with us by virtue of the said English Act. This is quite inconvenient, to say the least. Would the Minister consider putting the full list of foreign States in our new Third Schedule?”
“It was said that the Battle of Waterloo was won at the playing field of Eton. Sir, Eton is a famous English public school. Eton is also a boarding school. What the saying means is probably that in this type of school environment, the qualities of leadership, courage, cooperation, discipline and physical fitness are inculcated. All these qualities probably help in the winning of the Battle of Waterloo where many of the generals and leaders in the battle came from. Of course, these qualities will also assist in helping to build men later in their work. I am not saying that we should have an Eton school duplicated in Singapore. But good boarding schools can inculcate in our students those extra values which a normal day school would not be able to do so. The ordinary day school lacks the element of communal living. Communal living is perhaps the essence of boarding school. Sir, I believe that money spent in building boarding schools shall benefit Singapore in the long run.”
“Sir, my cut is on Boarding Schools. There are very few schools in Singapore which have boarding facilities. Unlike in England, the boarding school system is prevalent there. May I suggest to the Minister to set up boarding facilities in some of the better schools, in particular, to cater for students who have to travel long distances to attend those schools. At the moment, one of the problems in Singapore is traffic congestion. If large numbers of students can be housed in the school compound or within walking distance of the schools, where the boarding schools are sited, much of the traffic congestion can be mitigated. I am not suggesting setting up boarding schools to solve our traffic problems. The more important reasons for setting up boarding schools are for social and educational reasons. When students stay in boarding school, they are living in a community. They learn good social habits. They learn to give and take. This means that they learn not to be selfish. They learn always to care not only for themselves but take into consideration the interests of others around them. As Dr Lee Tsao Yuan has said, in one session schools the possibility of bonding between the students is great. I think in boarding schools, the bonding would even be greater. They also learn to be disciplined. They cannot do things as they like. They are to a certain extent regimented because in boarding schools, they shall have fixed hours for studying and other times for games. I think at home, this kind of discipline is less because most likely both the parents are working. They also learn to be self-reliant, tolerant and independent. 6.30 pm Sir, the boarding school system in England has produced great leaders, both in government and in politics, and also great administrators.”
“Actually, I still have not got a satisfactory answer from the Parliamentary Secretary. In any case, I shall withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I am very sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary should bring this up, because it is not in our topic of debate. The debate now is about disbursing of CIPC funds. And out of the blue, he wants to delve into Potong Pasir Town Council's accounts. But I am telling him now that we have never run into a deficit except for one year. Last year, due to a technical problem, as an MP, I had to change parties. Apparently, we had to take away all the monies that I had in credit balance and put it into some other funds. And because of this movement of funds, it would appear that we had a deficit. But, in fact, we have, on record now a credit balance of over $300,000. So we had got no deficits for two years. This is not true. I think he had better withdraw that statement or verify his facts before he says that Potong Pasir Town Council has two years of deficit. The point is that the system must be changed. If the system is not changed, I will never get any CIPC funds for improvements or projects at Potong Pasir. That is the crux of the matter. The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to go to Sennett Estate and ask the residents' association to do it. But Sennett Estate is a private estate. It is not a HDB estate. We are talking about HDB estates. The private estates can take care of themselves. The two HDB estates in Potong Pasir are much larger than Sennett Estate. We should start with the housing estates in Potong Pasir first before we go on to Sennett Estate. Sir, the point is whether I can get a commitment from the Ministry of National Development that the rules of applying for CIPC funds will be changed.”
“Sir, I want the system changed. Because as long as the present system is in existence, as an elected MP, I have to apply to an Advisor, who is the defeated candidate, for funds. How is he going to advise his Chairman? Will he say, "Okay, by all means give it to Mr Chiam." He would never do that. That is against his interest. He wants to be known that he is doing the project. And if he cannot do it, I also cannot get it. So it is a dog in the manger policy. I hope the PAP will not accept such a policy. We want the constituency improved and the only way we can really improve it to the standard of the PAP's is we must have the CIPC funds. Let us play on a level field.”
“Can I get one more clarification? The Chairman: Yes.”
“Anyway, it is not even $10,000, and not 1% of what a PAP MP's CCC would have been awarded on average. So he cannot say that it is tremendous. In any event, the point is that we are also doing community projects, like constructing pebble walk, landscaping, walkways and covered walkways. These are projects in which CIPC funds have been freely disbursed to the PAP constituencies. Why are we not allowed to get such similar funds? We have to spend our own funds of $300,000 to erect five linkways. We have asked for it, but we did not get it. Why?”
“I do not understand how the Parliamentary Secretary can say that all MPs have benefited tremendously from these CIPC funds. As I understand Mr Andy Gan only managed to get $7,500 ---”
“Unless we have this change of disbursing CIPC funds, an Opposition Member cannot carry out any improvements in his constituency to the extent that PAP-controlled constituencies can. Sir, as regards the disbursement of CIPC funds, to-date, I believe that each of the PAP MPs has benefited by about $1 million worth of CIPC funds. But no Opposition MP has been successful in his application for CIPC funds. This House has recently been told that a sum of $36 million shall be set aside for CIPC funds. If we divide this amount equally among the 83 MPs, each would be allocated about $430,000. My question is: will each of the Opposition MPs be allocated this amount for their community projects this year?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head U of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code UJ 2600. I shall be speaking on the subject of Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) funds. Sir, I have spoken on this subject many times in this House and I shall continue to do so. The reason is that under the present system of disbursing CIPC funds, which are public money, the Opposition Members of Parliament shall never be able to get any CIPC funds to help them carry out the community projects in their constituencies. Currently, if my town council wants to embark on a community project, I have to apply for CIPC funds through the Chairman of the CCC, who is presently Mr Andy Gan. Mr Andy Gan, as you know, was the PAP parliamentary candidate who contested against me in the last two general elections, but lost. Recently, it was announced that Mr Gan shall stand against me in the next GE. That being the case, I do not expect that he would advise his Chairman of the CCC to approve applications for CIPC funds from me, who is his rival. If the system of disbursing CIPC funds is not changed, I shall never be able to get any of such funds to carry out any of my community projects in my constituency. Sir, I am asking that the present system of allocation of CIPC funds in relation to the Opposition wards be changed. As an Opposition Member, I do not have any grassroots organisations there. So applications cannot be made through the grassroots organisations which are not present. I would suggest that at the Opposition wards, the MP should be given the authority to recommend applications for CIPC funds and not the Chairman of the CCC.”
“Sir, I think the Parliamentary Secretary missed the point. The point is that all the cholesterol is contained only in the egg yolk. So if the egg yolk is larger than normal, it would definitely contain more cholesterol than an egg which has got a smaller yolk, unless you are saying that the concentration of the cholesterol is very high.”