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 32 of 85.
“1988, yes. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: In addition to party political broadcasts, if the parties involved agree, and SBC agrees, that there should be debate on specific issues, then such additional accommodation will be made on the basis of consensus. Mr Chiam See Tong: I do not know how you can say it is consensus when the party involved is not asked on the matter. How can there be consensus when the Opposition has been completely left out on the matter? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, unless Mr Chiam can be more specific, I am not quite sure what question I am answering to.”
“Perhaps I am a more senior Member than the Minister. There was a party political broadcast or debate on the issue of the Elected President. An hon. Member: In 1988.”
“It has happened. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: What has happened?”
“I am not referring to the Presidential Election. I am saying that when a topic like the Presidential Election crops up during a General Election the matter is debated and broadcast. What are the rules in regard to that? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not appropriate for me to give answers to hypothetical questions.”
“These rules concern only the normal elections. But what happens at a General Election when something new suddenly comes up? Who makes the rules? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: If there are special conditions, like the new Presidential Election, then we will have to frame the rules as we go along. In the case of the Presidential Election which took place for the first time in our history we had to create new procedures for election campaigning to be done on television. We may have to make further adjustments next time round, but we will adjust as we go along. But the general principle is you get airtime in proportion to the number of candidates you field. As for the General Elections, there has been no change since 1980. So I am not quite clear what Mr Chiam is referring to. Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, there are two sets of rules. One set is for the general course of events, if nothing happens at a General Election. The other set is, if something crops up, there are no rules. I have given the example of the Elected President that was broadcast during election time. If you include the Opposition, then at least the Opposition would know what is happening rather than be caught by surprise. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: I am not sure how you can stop the Opposition from being surprised. For a General Election, the rules are clear. So there should be no surprise for the next election. For the Presidential Election, since we had rules for the first time, there should be no surprise for the next election.”
“Such things do happen at General Elections and the Opposition is often caught unaware on how the broadcast will be made. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: I am surprised. The current system has been used in the General Elections of 1980, 1984, 1988, 1991. It is based on a formula which allows free airtime to major political parties to state their platforms in the four official languages on television and radio. Under the system, a political party fielding a minimum of six candidates qualifies for the minimum airtime of one period of 2 1/2 minutes in each official language broadcast. Beyond that, airtime is increased by half a minute for every four additional candidates fielded. There has been no change since 1980. So the rules are very clear and I do not anticipate that there will be change the next time round.”
“Can I just have a word? It is true that activities are organised and the people take part in them and benefit from them. But who gets the political benefit out of all this money spent? It is entirely for the benefit of the PAP and I do not think the Minister will doubt that. As regards allowing Opposition MPs to run their own CCs, it is the wish of the people. It is not the wish of the Opposition MPs. They elected the MPs. In my case, nearly 70% supported me. It is the wish of the constituents themselves. They often told me, "Mr Chiam, why are you not the Advisor of the Potong Pasir CC?" Therefore, it is not the wish of the Opposition MPs. You must not get it wrong there. It is the wish of the people in the Opposition-held areas. The other point is this. It is often said in Parliament that Opposition MPs do not support Government policies. What are the decided policies that the Opposition has not supported? In fact, we said right from the start that we are a constructive Opposition and we want to get the country going. We are not going to topple the country. So let us know which are the policies which the Opposition has not supported the Government. Mr Wong Kan Seng: If Mr Chiam wants to know what the policies are, he himself should know better, because all of them are in the Hansard.”
“The Government should allow the Opposition MPs to run the community centres in their own constituencies, so that when there are any competitions among the community centres, and a PAP MP comes out the winner, then he can rightfully claim that his community centre was the best run in Singapore, having beaten not only his own PAP MPs but also the Opposition MPs. As it stands at the moment, whenever there is a competition among community centres, the competition is confined to only PAP MPs, the Opposition MPs are not included. So in the present situation, when a PAP MP wins any prize in relation to his community centre, there is no real achievement because the competition has excluded Opposition MPs who could have beaten him in that competition. It is like a situation where a one-eyed man is king in the kingdom of the blind.”
“The community centres and all the grassroots organisations at the constituencies are under the control and for the use of the PAP. The Opposition Members of Parliament, although they are duly elected by the people of Singapore, are shut out from the People's Association programme. We often read in the newspapers that certain PAP Members of Parliament carried out this or that programme in their own CCs or their community centres have won certain prizes for being the best run community centres. There are two aspects to this observation: one, people in Singapore can form the impression that only PAP MPs are winning prizes for their community centres and the activities carried out in those community centres, and the Opposition MPs never won any prizes for their constituencies' community centres at all. As far as I know, the Government has never made it public that all Opposition MPs, as a matter of policy, are to be treated like step-children, and are kept out of all community centres' activities. Consequently, great numbers of Singaporeans may form the opinion that the Opposition MPs are not as good as the PAP MPs or that the Opposition Members are not working as hard as the PAP MPs and have accomplished nothing for their community centres. The other observation is, when all the other Opposition MPs are kept out of running the community centres in their constituencies and never took part in the competition, how can a PAP MP claim that he has won the prize for the best kept community centre.”
“No. I want to know whether they are treated as waste and burned away or are they recycled for use.”
“Sir, can I ask the Minister one question? Are the roadside trees that are chopped down, I believe, in quite large numbers, treated as waste or are they recycled?”
“Sir, may I get a clarification from the Minister? He said that on 11th March he made a statement that 72% of the active CPF members would have CPF savings exceeding $40,000. Can I clarify whether or not they would still have this $40,000 on reaching the age of 55? Secondly, whether they have purchased an HDB flat or other private properties?”
“Sir, I would like to argue against the raising of the Minimum Sum. The CPF Minimum Sum now is fixed at $34,600. In my mind, it is high enough and need not be raised further. Singaporeans roughly can be divided into three classes: the poor, the middle class and the rich. The majority of the workers in Singapore are in the poor category. These people shall have virtually no CPF savings left after purchasing a 3-room HDB flat. So the quantum of the Minimum Sum is really of no concern to them. This is equally true of those in the lower end of the middle class, depending on the type of HDB flats they purchase. If they purchase an HDB executive flat or executive maisonette, they too may have no or very little CPF savings left at age 55 years. For those people, the CPF Minimum Sum is also high enough at the present level. As for Singaporeans in the upper end of the middle class and the rich, they certainly are educated enough or have enough good judgment on how to use their CPF savings when they retire and they would have other savings of their own. They really have no need of the Government to spoon-feed them or to tell them how to use their savings. They are quite capable of taking care of their CPF and other investments. That point was vividly pointed out by NMP Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon during the Budget debate. If we examine the issue closely, we can see that there is no need to raise the present level of the Minimum Sum. Therefore, there must be other reasons why the Government wants to raise the Minimum Sum eventually to $80,000. Is it to withhold excess CPF to delay the payment out or is it to prevent inflation by mopping up cash so that they cannot reach the hands of the public?”
“Yes, I am finishing. I hope SBC can organise a good talk show, say, once a month. I am sure this is going to be good for Singapore as this will encourage people to think of issues and to speak up and not be afraid to express their points of view in public.”
“As for SBC TV programmes, generally, I enjoy watching Channel 12, and it must be commended for showing very interesting and high quality nature programmes like the one under the title of "Earthvisions". What I find lacking is high quality talk shows. At the moment, SBC has one talk show - "Talking Point" - a half-hour programme at 8.00 pm on Wednesdays. It is more a feedback programme and does not have depth. I hope ---”
“Sir, radio and television are powerful mass media tools. Politicians and businessmen throughout the world have realised their immense importance as a means of persuasion. The PAP Government also realises that and keeps a tight control of radio and TV broadcasts. PAP Ministers' walkabouts and other PAP activities are widely broadcast, whereas Opposition's activities, which are of equal news-worthiness, are glaringly left out. That was particularly so of election activities. During election time, SBC always painstakingly set up their microphones and TV cameras with their glaring lights at each of my party's news conferences and public rallies. But none, or hardly any of those recorded materials, were broadcast. That shows the biased stand taken by SBC as regards local political matters. SBC should also change its rules in regard to party political broadcasts during the elections. The rules made by SBC for party political broadcasts were too arbitrary and they disproportionately favoured the PAP and against the Opposition. The minimum time given was three minutes for eight candidates fielded. The PAP always fielded the full slate of 81 candidates. Consequently, they always got the maximum exposure over TV, whereas the Opposition parties put up only a small number and, as a result, they were either shut out or got only a minimum of three minutes exposure over TV which was really not enough. SBC should form a well-represented committee, which should include Opposition members, to decide on the rules in regard to party political broadcasts to be used in the next and subsequent parliamentary elections. I would suggest that each party with a total of six candidates be given a minimum of five minutes of TV time for a start.”
“Sir, I would like the Minister to clarify the position of joint accounts of husband and wife. It has been said that only one-and-a-half times need be set aside. If the amount is set aside by only one spouse and if it so happens that they are divorced, how do they divide the CPF Minimum Sum? I must declare my interest. I am a practising lawyer.”
“Some people in the Ministry of Education may think that 2,700 children is a small number and is not worth the while to implement compulsory education in Singapore. I do not think that 2,700 children who do not attend school every year are a small number. The PAP has ruled Singapore for over 30 years. In 30 years, the number who did not attend school has swollen to about 81,000. In addition to the 81,000 Singaporeans in the workforce who are quite illiterate, there are at least 700,000 other workers who did not have secondary school education, according to the abovementioned Labour Survey Report in 1992. Therefore, it is a pressing problem to implement immediately compulsory education in our schools by requiring all students to attend school, if not for a period of 10 years, at least for a period of eight years. This must be done with a view to upgrade the quality of the Singapore workforce to meet future world economic challenges. The upgrading of literacy and numeracy skills by requiring students to compulsorily remain in school is one aspect for having a compulsory education programme. The other equally important aspect for us to put in place a compulsory education system is to teach our children good behaviour, good social values, the cooperative spirit and the ability to work with each other. The Japanese have found that this aspect of education of their school children is of utmost importance to make Japan economically competitive in the world market. I call on the Government to implement compulsory education in our school system as soon as possible.”
“Sir, the Singapore Government's approach to education is like that of a colonial one. It has not done everything within its powers to provide the maximum education for the people of Singapore. We have heard complaints in this House during the Budget debate that not enough university space has been made available to the GCE "A" level students who qualify for them. Something like 11,500 Singaporeans have to go to overseas universities to study because they cannot get entry into our local university. What about the lower end of the ladder in our education system? Is there also something lacking there? The answer is yes. Unlike other successful independent countries in the region, for example, South Korea, Taiwan and Japan, we still do not have compulsory education in the primary and secondary levels. It is not that the Government lacks facilities or is short of funds. We have been told that there was a surplus of $7 billion last year and an expected $2.2 billion surplus this year. The Government's coffers are overflowing with cash. Therefore, the refusal to implement a compulsory education policy is only due to the Government not wanting to do so despite the Government's much publicised policy that its intention is to educate and develop every child in Singapore to its fullest potential. How can the Government do that when every year, from the Labour Force Survey of Singapore 1992 statistics, there are at least 2,700 children who do not attend school at all, or only lower primary level? There is no question that those 2,700 children who did not master the 3Rs can ever be expected to be developed to the fullest of their potential.”
“But the point is that we are still within time.”
“"Guillotine" time is at 2.30 pm. There are still 15 minutes more.”
“Sir, I have a cut. The Chairman: You were not in the House when I called your name. We have run out of time on this amendment. Mr Chen, would you like to withdraw your amendment?”
“What about counter-measures from the Government?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, while I support the views of Mr Sinnakaruppan on education, I would like him to make a correction. I have not mentioned anything about the restoration of the 1 1/2 percentage point of the employer's CPF contribution. I have not mentioned that at all.”
“These farsighted massive investments have helped Singapore's economic growth considerably. The question is how long will the Government continue to keep on this policy of pumping massive funds into investments and thus making its hand greatly visible in the economic activities of the country. Even now, the Government is leading the charge to invest overseas. I am not saying that this move of the Government is bad. But my worry is: when can the indigenous private sector in Singapore come of age, or does it need to play second fiddle to the Government all the time? It moves only when the Government tells it to do so. My feeling is that, as long as the Government accumulates massive budget surpluses, the indigenous private sector in Singapore will always remain in the shadow of the economic hand of the Government.”
“It is true that the people who have purchased shares in Government companies, such as Telecom, will benefit in the long term. But the Government in introducing this scheme is not entirely altruistic. The Government will benefit from the massive cheap funds it will be able to gather for itself. The next float of a Government company will be in two years' time. For the next SOTUS exercise the Government will top-up $300 for every CPF member who has contributed $750 or a proportionate sum thereof. At the last SOTUS exercise when Telecom shares were floated, 1.26 million citizens received $242 million in matching contribution from the Government. Assuming that this same number of citizens has $750 in each of their CPF accounts, the Government shall next contribute about $378 million. The amount contributed by the Government and the $945 million being the members' own contributions will eventually go back to the Government when the next lots of shares in the Government company are sold to them. It can be seen that by the CPF Top-up Scheme, the Government shall gain large sums of cheap money. Since the PAP took power, its Government's announced policies were to encourage economic growth and establish social stability. In this light, it has used Government surplus funds to create a conducive environment necessary for economic growth such as, constructing the MRT system, building Changi Airport and subsequently Changi Terminal. I agree with these enlightened and farsighted policies. I also agree with the Government's economic policy of using surplus funds to invest in the economy, in places where large capital is needed, for example, in such enterprises like Sembawang, Jurong, Keppel Shipyards, DBS Bank, Natsteel, NOL, SIA and also the Petrochemical Complex.”
“At one time, the New Zealand government attempted to start a forced savings scheme, not unlike our CPF scheme, but it failed. The people of New Zealand voted against that scheme. The people of New Zealand were suspicious of any government accumulating too much wealth because they fear that the government could use those surplus funds to "buy" votes to put them back into power. In this respect, I am not pointing my finger at the Government. But I do not think that I am wrong in saying that any government which has accumulated massive amounts of funds shall one day be tempted to use them for its own political ends. I applaud the Government for diverting some of its surplus funds into the Edusave and Medifund schemes and also the pension fund which will shortly be set up. More money, I believe, could be put into education. It is not flattering to know that Singapore has one of the lowest educated workforce amongst the four dragons in the region. This problem of low education amongst our workers was highlighted 10 years ago; it is not a new problem. At one time the Government pointed out that the problem was amongst the older workers. But it is now more than 30 years since the PAP took power. I should say that now the majority of the uneducated workers in our workforce grew up during the rule of this Government. It is time the Government put more money from the surpluses into quality education to prepare the Singapore workers to meet the ever fiercer competition from other emerging nations. The Government has prided itself in diverting some of its budget surpluses to Singaporeans through the CPF Share Ownership Top-up Scheme (SOTUS). I have commented that it was a clever scheme.”
“The HDB rebates that I recommend may be very conservative compared to the surpluses accumulated by the Government each year. Yes, the hongbao in the Budget has not benefitted the business community or the masses of the poorer Singaporeans. The hongbao in the form of budget surpluses, most of which are paid by Singaporeans, have entirely been benefitted by the Government. The budget surplus last year was reported to be a mind-boggling sum of $7 billion. It is a massive sum of money looked at from every angle. The total Government expenditure last year was expected to reach $15.5 billion. It is not uncommon for governments in the developed nations year after year to have a deficit budget. I am not saying here that the Singapore Government should aim for a deficit budget. But it would appear that the Singapore Government is trying to establish a record in the accumulation of money. The $7 billion surplus last year represented 45% of its total expenditure. That must certainly be a world record or near a world record in achieving budget surpluses. This year, the Government aims to have a $2.2 billion budget surplus. The Government aims to get richer and richer. The question is, "at whose expense?" Singaporeans will without hesitation tell you that it is at their expense. Singaporeans are being squeezed by frequent cost increases, most of which are Government initiated. The common complaint amongst workers is, "The Government has so much money and yet it is collecting more and more from us. What do they do with all those monies?" The Singapore Government is the envy of many governments in the West. They are envious of the Singapore Government because it is in a position where it can collect and accumulate so much money.”
“The goodies include a 5% income tax rebate across the board for year of Assessment 1994, and rebates on service and conservancy charges and rentals for those who live in one to five-room HDB flats." Is the 5% income tax rebate really a goodie? Certainly not for the masses of the lower income Singaporeans; the majority of whom in any event pay very little income tax, perhaps less than $100 a year. The majority of these low wage earners will comprise the 76% of taxpayers who shall not pay income tax on the introduction of GST this year. So the 5% rebate could hardly benefit them. It is the rich that will be much better off with the 5% income tax rebate, in particular, the upper 8% of income taxpayers who pay the bulk of income tax collected by the Government every year. The 5% income tax proportionately will come to a sizeable amount. Therefore, as far as the 5% income tax rebate is concerned, it will benefit the rich, and benefit the poor only marginally. As far as the rebates on HDB service and conservancy charges and HDB rentals are concerned, those rebates could certainly be more generous, if they are really meant to offset the impact of GST this year. The inflation in the first year due to introduction of GST shall most likely be 9%, like the New Zealand experience, rather than 5% as touted by some quarters. If the inflation is going to be nearer the 9% level in the first year of introduction of the GST, then the rebates given to the one-to five-room HDB flats are insufficient to meet the inflation caused by the GST. The Government should be more generous and give an additional one to two months' rebates in respect of service and conservancy charges and rentals.”
“Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. As in other years, the Straits Times, this year predictably in its 24th February issue, praised the Budget in its banner headline as follows: "Dr Hu hands out hongbao Budget." The hongbao was certainly not given to the business community in Singapore. Many businessmen thought this year's budget was a disappointment, in the light of the GST which shall be implemented on 1st April this year. The stock market certainly thought that the Budget was a disappointment. After picking up prior to the Budget day on 23rd February, it took a 38-point plunge the following day after the Budget was revealed. Generally, to the business community in Singapore, the mood was one of gloom after the Budget was unveiled. Businessmen expected a further cut in the individual and corporate taxes. They expected a further one to two percent cut in corporate tax over and above the 3% corporate tax reduction given in last year's budget. This fact was reflected in the Straits Times report of 25th February under the heading: "Budget offers little to defray costs of implementing GST." The article, inter-alia, stated, "Businessmen struggling with the implementation of the Goods and Services Tax yesterday said that they were disappointed that the Budget had little to offer to compensate their time and money in GST preparations." If the hongbao in the Budget was not given to the businessmen, was it given to the masses of lower income Singaporeans? The Straits Times seems to think so. Chan Sue Meng, writing in the Straits Times of 24th February, has this to say: "Finance Minister Richard Hu yesterday handed Singaporeans, specially the less well off, a big hongbao - in the form of a generous Budget for fiscal year 1994.”
“The Minister has just said that the income from commercials on public service broadcasts is insufficient to pay for those broadcasts and you need to increase the licence fees. So my question is this: In addition to the commercial income, are these licence fees enough to pay for PSBs? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: No, it is not enough. In fact, recently MITA has worked out an arrangement with the Finance Ministry for an additional grant to SBC based upon 15% of licence fees collected. In other words, whatever we collect from licence fees, the Finance Ministry will throw in an additional 15% for the public service broadcasting side of SBC. It is not enough. "SENSATIONAL" ARTICLE ON THE NECESSARY STAGE AND FORUM THEATRE (Fears of the artistic community) The following question stood in the name of Dr Kanwaljit Soin - 12. To ask the Minister for Information and the Arts whether he will allay the fears of the artistic community over the "sensational" article in the media concerning The Necessary Stage and forum theatre.”
“My question is the supply of taxis is not an issue, is it not? Cdre Teo Chee Hean: Sir, the supply of taxis is not an issue.”
“The Minister says he does not understand my question. I have to explain.”
“There was a recent report that the taxi association, because of the rise in COE prices, made representations to increase the taxi fare slightly. The Minister gave the answer that one has to look at the totality of the problem. One of the problems is the supply of taxis on the roads. I believe that is what the Minister said. But that certainly is not an issue at the moment, is it not? Because the supply of taxis has not reached such a stage where you could curb taxis. So taxi companies are still allowed to increase their fleet as long as they can pay for the COE. In other words, as long as they pay for the higher price of taxis which is to be paid by taxi drivers ---”
“Yes, I am asking a supplementary question just to follow up on what the Minister has informed this House. He said one of the questions is the totality of the supply of taxis on the roads. My question is: at the moment, if at any time the taxis reach the maximum number, the Government could easily freeze the number of taxis. But that is not the case. Is there not a justification for adjustments in taxi fares? Cdre Teo Chee Hean: Sir, I do not follow the logic of the Member's point. I am not sure whether he is suggesting that we freeze the number of taxis as a solution. If that is the case, I do not think that is a good solution at all.”
“If we take the question of totality of taxis as against private motor cars, when the maximum number of taxis is reached, the Ministry could easily curtail them. But that is not the position today. As long as the taxi companies can afford the taxis, they will be allowed to buy taxis. Is that not right? I think the question of supply of taxis is really not an issue. Cdre Teo Chee Hean: Sir, I do not understand his question.”
“Sir, if the increase in COE prices has affected the income of taxi drivers, would there not be some adjustments in taxi fares? Cdre Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps it is useful here to reiterate the principles on which taxi fares are based. The Member has chosen to single out one particular aspect. But the Public Transport Council has to consider all aspects, from the taxi users' point of view and from the taxi companies' point of view. These factors include the cost of owning and operating taxis, the earnings and patronage of taxis and the profitability of taxi companies. Apart from these factors, the PTC also considers the overall principle on which taxi fares are based, that there must be a parity of statutory cost between taxis and cars so that our available road space is used more efficiently. So this is the totality of factors which the Public Transport Council has to consider and not just the particular factor which the Member has raised.”
“I am sure the Minister has such data from the Public Transport Council. Unless, of course, he does not have it, then I will let it rest. Cdre Teo Chee Hean: Sir, the information is available to the Public Transport Council. I do not have it with me today. But this is data which the Public Transport Council will take into account together with data concerning other issues which are relevant to the area of taxi fares before it decides on whether taxi fares ought to be adjusted.”
“Sir, has the increase in COE prices eaten into the income of taxi drivers? Cdre Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, this information is available to the taxi operators/companies and perhaps the Member would want to direct his question there.”
“Sir, I think many Members like me are unaware that there are the Interim and Major Upgrading Programmes. Can the Minister explain the differences of these two programmes?”
“In fact, they are also seeking jobs abroad which are more lucrative. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion)”
“This present system is not perfect. Look at Teh Cheang Wan. What had happened? Despite his high pay, he was still tempted to be corrupt. So corruption is not necessarily prevented if you just have good pay alone. If there are more scrutiny and more checks, there will be less chance of corruption. Therefore, in this light, I think the Government should look at the long term to make sure that there is good Opposition in Singapore. The other two little points that I would like to make are in regard to two classes of employees, ie, the teachers and the nurses. I notice that the overall increase in the Education Service is only 7%. We know that the Education Service is losing a lot of men teachers. There is a big proportion of teachers who are women. In fact, it is quite lopsided. There have been comments that it will not be good for our children if they are influenced only by one sex. I am not demeaning women. I think there must be a balance. Probably the pay is not lucrative enough that good people are not being attracted to the teaching service. Because of that, a separate industry has developed in Singapore - the private tuition industry. Why is that so? It is probably that the Education Service is not attracting enough good teachers to make sure that they do not need private tuition. But that is not the position at the moment. Perhaps the Minister can look into this in regard to the Education Service. The other group of people who have complained that they are poorly paid for their services rendered to Singapore are the nurses. If I am not mistaken, I think they are in Division IV. I hope the Minister would look into the salary scale for nurses because I know that many are in fact leaving the service and going into the private sector.”
“Then the Minister should become a lawyer and not go into politics. We have a transparent system. It is true that it is working well. In 1985, the Senior Minister put it very succinctly: Anyone coming to Singapore would be very impressed. The system works. At least for the last 30 years, Ministers have been doing well in Singapore under the present system. But in the long term, the Government has to account to the people and the only way the Government can account to the people is to have an equally good Opposition. In the long term, the country must make sure that it has a viable and good Opposition. We cannot depend on one party alone. This is my point of view. People may differ with me. They have their right to differ. But I would say that the best way to check the Government is not from within the Government. There must be some institutionalised good Opposition in Singapore. I see nothing in this Statement to provide incentives for the Opposition. I know this is so in England. I am not asking for myself. The Government is talking about pegging a person's worth to the market value. I think if you want to attract good people into the Opposition, there must be a scheme to say that good Opposition Members will be equally remunerated. Otherwise, how can we attract good people towards the Opposition? An hon. Member: You are here!”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would support the salary increases for the civil servants, but for the Ministers' salary increase, I think it is very difficult for a man from the grassroots to straightaway agree with whatever has been argued in the Statement that has been presented. As Members have spoken, we are looking at the other end of the telescope. We are comparing Ministers' pay to the best paid people in Singapore, and even not at the best time, because we know that last year was a bumper year for the stock market and we cannot take the remisier's salary and compare. Anyway, most speakers are referring to what the stockbrokers have been getting. In any event, the main principle of pegging the Ministers' pay to what other CEOs are getting in the market is, of course, one practical way out. But still we have to build a system where there is a sense of mission, a sense of altruism, and a sense of commitment. Ultimately, that will have to be our aim. I would think this is only a temporary measure. I hope it will be a temporary measure. Because in time to come, people who want to serve the nation cannot look to the pay alone. We are serving the people. The man-in-the-street is earning one-thirtieth or perhaps a pittance compared to what the Ministers are getting. As Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon has pointed out, it is difficult for them to comprehend. It is difficult for them to understand. A worker has to work 30 months whereas a Minister only works for one month. An hon. Member: What about a lawyer?”
“Sir, does the Minister not agree that if there is a problem of drop-outs, then the Ministry should do something more concrete, rather than leaving these drop-outs to clan associations and charitable organisations?”
“Yes. I hear that there are 500,000-600,000 of these drop-outs in our labour force.”
“Sir, I am a bit surprised at the answer given by the Minister in not wanting to implement compulsory education. He says that we can make a child attend school but we cannot make him learn. If that is the case, the Minister is not doing anything about this huge number of drop-outs. Some hon. Members: No!”
“That is all. CLEANING OF BURAN DARAT/PULAU RENGGIT AND LAZARUS ISLANDS (Recall of tenders) 8. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Trade and Industry why there was a recall of tenders for the cleaning of Buran Darat, Pulau Renggit and Lazarus Islands; and why the awarded tender sum of the re-tender for Pulau Renggit and Lazarus Islands was higher than the initial tender sum for the three islands.”
“I am asking the Minister whether or not COE increases demand by virtue of this in-built fact of the residual value. Cdre (Res) Teo Chee Hean: The prices of COEs have gone up and they have gone down as well. And it depends on a variety of factors. One of the strongest factors is the economic situation as was shown in the recession of 1985 and 1986 as well as some seasonal factors. So the prices go up and go down. While the Member may be advancing a particular theory, I am not sure that it holds a very strong basis for it. Mr Chiam See Tong: I will leave it at that, but I still have not got my answer. Can I go on with the next question? With the rapid increase in COE prices, would taxi fares have to be increased soon to cover the increase in COE prices?”
“The issue is, in fact, not supply and demand here. In fact, it is in-built in your COE system, because you have now given each car a residual value. It has even been reported that people who buy cars are making money on them. So why do people not go into the market to buy? And as for foreigners or expatriates who bought a Mercedes in 1990 and if they leave Singapore today, they will sell it at a handsome profit. So the demand for cars will be increased because of this.”