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 35 of 85.
“He has already announced that he wanted to take part in the elections and it is only prudent, as a politician, for future records, of any accusation made against him, then he would have proof, and his fears in fact have come true. I do not think it was improper in the circumstances because politics is a serious matter and we do not know what kind of accusations can be made against him. So I would ask Dr Vasoo to in fact release the tape and let the House know what are the contents of the tape. Because I am sure he has got nothing to fear, and let us not insinuate into the matter. What the University rightly should have done was to appoint an independent committee, people who are knowledgeable on the matter and to examine all the theses and all of Dr Chee's research papers and see whether there is any relevance. He has written many research papers. I can see the whole list of them when I read through the papers. That is what any objective, unbiased person would do. But instead, they just jumped the gun and without any concrete evidence accused him of dishonesty. So I hope the Leader of the House would lift the Whip so that Members could vote from the evidence that they have heard and not be bound by the decision of the Whip.”
“On the delivery note, written very clearly, anyone who signs this would note that on the left hand side were the details of Dr Chee Soon Juan, and on the right were the names of the persons whom this parcel was to be sent to. Why did Dr Vasoo, as the Head of Department, not make enquiry at that particular point of time? He cleared it despite the fact that he knows all these particulars in the invoices and in the delivery notes. How can you put the blame on Dr Chee? If Dr Chee is dishonest, then I think Dr Vasoo is abetting and aiding the dishonesty. He signed it. He cleared it. These invoices are all similar in nature. So can you say that Dr Chee was dishonest? Another interesting point is this. At one time when Dr Chee asked for the invoices, you can see for yourself that Dr Vasoo gave this invoice with half the bottom blanked out. If Dr Vasoo is in the House today, we should ask him to explain why? Why does he want to suppress materials on the other half. The most relevant part that was hidden off contained his own signature and notes made there, Dr Chee Soon Juan's RT account No. 92009 - $74.50. With regard to this matter of using University funds, I think it is incumbent on the University to prove that Dr Chee has in fact breached the rules and regulations in the use of the University Grant. There is this incident of the tape recorder. I do not know why Dr Vasoo wants to bring up this matter of the tape recorder. If he is an upright man, as he alleges, then there is nothing to worry. Everything that is in the tape recorder would only prove that he is an upright person. Why should he be so concerned? Dr Chee has already explained.”
“As far as we know, with regard to the two parcels, the matter was already closed. Suddenly, six months later, we find that people were trying to dig out to find out whether or not those parcels contained relevant materials to his research. We can only ask why. It is quite obvious. The person who dug it out to find out what were inside the parcels was obviously trying to find fault with Dr Chee. There is no other reason. It cannot be for accounting purposes because the Head of Department had already cleared it and it was in order. So once the auditors find that the procedures are in order, they would not go and find out and ask what is inside the parcel. I have made enquiries of accountants and no auditors would do that. So we can only conclude other motives. Mr Chia has mentioned this procedure with regard to use of research funds. There are no other guidelines and no other detailed procedures to guide Dr Chee. So if there are any gray areas, what is he supposed to do? Is he supposed to take the advice of the University authorities in that letter to write to his University or other people's University, get a Committee to find out whether that is relevant and then he can send. But that is not stated anywhere in these procedures. So as far as Dr Chee is concerned, he has complied with the procedure and yet he is in trouble. Let us look at the invoices. These are also material matters. I am made to understand that when Dr Vasoo signed these materials, two pieces of papers were given to them. One was the invoice and the other was the delivery note. On the invoice itself, the addressee is clearly shown there, the name and the destination are also shown there, and the amount.”
“The first parcel was sent on 8th September 1992, the second parcel was despatched about 9th November 1992, and action was only taken on or about 4th March. So there is a time gap of six months in one case, and four months in the other case. If he was really that dishonest, why did they wait until such a long time later? There are also comments about the procedure of using University funds. If a lecturer gives a treat to a friend with a University grant, is it proper or not proper? The University will probably say it is not proper. If he were an SDP Member, they will straightaway try to find fault and get him out. But you have to look at the circumstances. The person whom he gave a big dinner treat or a lunch treat may help him in his research. You have to find out the facts first. You cannot just straightaway say, "Well, because it was not used for his own purpose but used for somebody's else, he is dishonest." I have looked through the documents and what are the rules and regulations governing use of research fund? I have here one document on the University's Terms and Conditions of Grant. I believe paragraph 5 is relevant. It reads: `Bills and Claims for payments must be certified by the principal investigator and approved by the Head of his Department before they are submitted to the Bursar's Office for payment. The vote chargeable and the item No. must be indicated. Only original copies of the bills are accepted for payment.' As far as we know, Dr Chee has complied with this condition. His bills comprising delivery notes and invoices were obviously checked by the principal investigator and approved personally by Dr Vasoo himself. Then they were sent to the Bursar. Payments were made. The whole matter was over because it was duly approved by the Head of Department.”
“Your research also provides a solid rationale to continue to examine the effects of culture on neuropsychological test performance as it will lead to a better understanding of the development of brain-behavior relations. Please keep me updated on your research. Sgd. George W. Hynd' From this letter, it is conclusive that the wife's work and his work had relevance. Sir, the University has sacked Dr Chee unfairly without even taking the trouble to find out whether there is any connection, any link, between his wife's PhD thesis and his own research work. I have already commented on the letter of dismissal. Then things developed very fast. On or about 1.45 pm on Saturday, 10th April 1993, the University sent one of its staff to hand a letter to Dr Chee at his home. That letter again sacked Dr Chee on the spot. But, surprisingly, the reasons given in that letter had nothing to do with the alleged dishonest conduct of Dr Chee. The University had shifted its ground and now says that he was behaving improperly because he has made instigation against the University by going on a hunger strike, by urging the SDP to put pressure on the University and probably by his general remarks. So what does it show? It shows that Dr Chee was never dishonest at any time. Now he is dismissed not on the grounds of dishonesty. In that letter, the University contended that even if Dr Chee's wife's thesis has relevance - now they are slowly admitting it - to Dr Chee's research work, it was still improper to use University fund to send his wife's dissertation to Pennsylvania State University. All this sounds very strange. If it was really improper, they should have punished him on the spot.”
“Yes. [Copy of letter handed to the Clerk of Parliament.] This letter is written by George W. Hynd, Research Professor, Director, Center for Clinical & Developmental Neuropsychology, Clinical Professor of Neurology. It says: `Dear Soon-Juan: I received your letter of April 8, 1993 and am somewhat surprised that anyone would question the relevance of these two research papers. You may recall that you sent me the reviews and manuscript abstracts (and additional manuscript pages) to read. First of all, you and I have previously communicated about research along these lines because I have previously published a number of studies addressing the importance of age, racial, sex, and cultural differences in neuropsychological development. These articles have been widely published and cited and as I recall you were going to follow-up with studies of your own there in Singapore. From the two papers you sent me it looks like you did follow-up and investigated supra-modal functioning in different cultural groups. The fact that differences are found supports the growing consensus that cultural effects do impact on evolving neurocognitive and sensory systems in children and these effects may very well manifest temperamentally as well. This is underscored by the second manuscript you sent me. The two papers are highly relevant to each other in this regard. I view your line of research as very important and cannot understand why there is confusion about the importance of these studies. They clearly provide sound data that can and should be published (I would suggest submitting your research to Developmental Neuropsychology).”
“He took the trouble to fax letters to his own university, the University of Georgia, to get one of his Professors there to give an opinion. The Minister is not here. I would like to give him a copy. Who will be answering in place of the Minister?”
“All right, you say I am slow. You tell me what is the meaning of that. I am sure you cannot. Firstly, he wants a panel of experts in Pennsylvania University who understands Dr Chee's research work to examine Mrs Chee's work. That is what he wants. In other words, before Dr Chee could send his parcel to America, he has got to write to Pennsylvania State University, which is a stranger to him as it is not his own university, seek out some people over there, whether they know or are familiar with his work. Then he should get them to examine his wife's research paper to see whether there is any relevance between the two. But Dr Chee has made it clear. He wanted the material quickly validated and sent back to him. He was anxious to get on with his work. The other point is a statement of fact. The panel of experts in Pennsylvania University who has something to do with his wife's PhD dissertation, of course, did not know that the wife's work was to be incorporated into Dr Chee's work. That is what he says. From these statements, he concluded that Dr Chee was dishonest. Because of his dishonest conduct, he was accordingly dismissed under clause 4(a). His reasoning is also twisted. If Dr Chee was really dishonest, then he should have been dismissed under clause 4(c), but instead under clause 4(a) which is contractual in nature. I think if this matter is brought to court, the writer would have difficulty defending his position. This is the letter that was sent to dismiss Dr Chee. You make up your minds whether or not the dismissal was politically motivated. The crux of the matter is whether or not the wife's research work has any relevance to his own work.”
“Convoluted. Much obliged. I want to use these same words against the writer in this paragraph. Did you understand what I read just now? I am sure you do not. I have to read it two or three times to understand what he means. An hon. Member: You are slow.”
“I really cannot understand. You see the biased nature of this letter. The second point he makes is that Dr Chee was dishonest in also not telling them that the materials that he sent was relevant to his research. Let us look at the reasoning of this writer. Paragraph 7 says: `First you suppressed information that it was expenditure for examination of your wife's PhD. After you admitted this, you nevertheless claimed it was justified because it was to incorporate into your research. But you had made no arrangement for any persons in Pennsylvania State University who were experts in your own area of research to review the results in your wife's dissertation. The members of the dissertation committee of your wife's PhD had nothing to do with your research. They were not concerned with incorporating your wife's research results into your work. Therefore, this claim that it was for incorporation into your research was not honest.' This writer, in rejecting Dr Chee's appeal, also wrote these words: `Your appeal has been considered. Your argument that you are justified to use University funds is convoluted and devious and has no merit whatsoever.' It is a very aggressive way of rejecting an appeal. I do not think even the Judges in court use this type of language to dismiss an appeal. But, nevertheless, he uses the words "convolated and devious". An hon. Member: Convoluted.”
“One is that the writer of this letter accuses Dr Chee of suppressing or not telling him that the materials in the parcels had to do with his wife's PhD examination. But Dr Chee did not suppress or hide anything. In his letter of explanation of 4th March, he came out very forthrightly and said: `In this instance, I used the funds for the above-mentioned purpose to enhance the chances of getting my research published. To the best of my judgement, I feel that I am justified in using the funds in my research accounts for mailing the completed dissertation to the university involved so that the results could be quickly reviewed and validated, and subsequently incorporated into my own research.' Let us look at the word "dissertation" first. Obviously, the University authorities still need English lessons. They do not know what is the meaning of "dissertation". To Dr Chee, it is very clear. "Dissertation" means materials for PhD examination. I looked up the Penguin dictionary, 2nd edition, it states: `dissertation - discourse or treaties on a particular subject especially one written as a requirement for a university degree.' What else can Dr Chee say? This is like a person telling this University chap, "I am going to send a gun to America in one of your courier service parcels." Then later on when he discovered it was a gun, he says, "How come you never tell me it was a weapon for destruction, for killing people?" It is the same. It is so obvious to the person. A handgun is for killing and for causing grievous hurt. I do not have to tell you that I was sending a weapon, you know, with bullets inside and can kill people. When he says "dissertation", it is understood. It is for examination purposes. But here this writer says that he suppressed materials.”
“Four times, yes. The letter accused Dr Chee of dishonesty or lack of honesty three times. And yet the termination was made under clause 4 of the agreement for service which is contractual in nature. I have already explained this. Either party can give three months' notice to terminate the contract, not based on clause 4(c) where the University can terminate a staff immediately because of misconduct. It was not done under clause 4(c). If the University really thought Dr Chee was guilty of dishonesty, then, as I have mentioned, he should have been terminated forthwith, but it was not done. If the real reason for terminating his service was not for dishonest conduct, then one can only surmise that it was for political reasons. Perhaps it is useful for me to read this letter to you written by one of the University staff. I will not mention his name. I understand that he is a lawyer by training. I have the letter in front of me. I will just read to you paragraph 5. It states: `In your letter dated 4th March 1993, you said you wanted the results of your wife's dissertation quickly reviewed, validated and subsequently incorporated into your research. But you suppressed the material fact that you have in fact sent your wife's papers for the purpose of her PhD examination.' Paragraph 6 states: `Only at the next meeting on 11th March 1993 when I was present did you admit that you had used University research funds to send your wife's dissertation to Pennsylvania State University for the purpose of her PhD examination. But you nevertheless maintained that this was in order because your wife's dissertation contained materials relevant to your own research.' There are two points there.”
“Dr Chee was not just an ordinary university lecturer and his abrupt termination of service cannot be viewed as just a straightforward employer-employee matter. The public see more into it than just that.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Leader of the House for lifting the Standing Orders to allow Members to speak up to one hour. I would also like to thank the Nominated MP, Mr Chia Shi Teck, for moving this motion but I thought he was, at times, in his speech a bit sarcastic. I would like to remind him that, as one who has been in Parliament for nearly nine years now, it is not wise to speak in that tone. If he wants the truth, I think that is a very honourable thing to ask for but, at the same time, I do not think he needs to ridicule Dr Chee. When Dr Chee Soon Juan joined the SDP and took part in the Marine Parade GRC by-elections in December last year, the general public opinion was that his job as a neuropsychology lecturer in NUS was in jeopardy. Many people said that he shall surely be sacked. Public opinion is often self-prophesying. And sure enough, Dr Chee was not only sacked once but was sacked twice within a short space of less than one month. The Prime Minister, in his walkabout in Punggol last Sunday, had commented on Dr Chee's sacking. He said that it was a disciplinary action taken by an employer against a staff member. I believe the general public do not view it that way. Dr Chee is the first university lecturer in the last 25 years to join an Opposition party and contested in an election, not merely against any PAP Member but against the Prime Minister and three others in a Group Representation Constituency. After the by-elections, he was featured in the press through his exchange of letters with the PAP and his name was mentioned in and out of Parliament for promoting the politics of envy.”
“Did the HDB demolish the MP's office for political reasons?”
“I notice that the Residents Committees' offices in Potong Pasir are not bigger than the MP's office. Why can it not be used by the RC? I think it is better than demolishing it.”
“Sir, the Minister has said that the office of the MP was not centrally sited. Does it mean that when it gave this office to the Member for Potong Pasir it was also not centrally sited?”
“I wish to inform the Minister that we have a letter from the HDB stating that the MP's office will be used as a Civil Defence office. Why was it not used as a Civil Defence office?”
“Sir, the obvious question is: why do you make the Member for Potong Pasir an exception and demolish the office almost immediately upon taking possession of the premises?”
“Is this "reasonable amount" that is allowed confined to Singaporeans or to all other people as well?”
“Sir, it would be rather difficult to gauge this "reasonable amount" that the Minister is talking about. Does the Minister require those who come back to Singapore from Johore Bahru to produce receipts of their purchase to prove the amount?”
“The more properties you own, the more tax you pay and the more you get the more return you plough back to society. Income tax is also based on income. The more income you get, the more tax you pay. I think this is something that is acceptable to everyone of us. But for GST, whether you have any income or not, whether your business is profitable or not, you still have to pay the tax. Whatever you are, so long as you have to live and you have to eat, you have to pay the tax all the same. This is something which is very unacceptable. Unless it is absolutely necessary, unless you can justify it, we should avoid GST at all costs. On the other hand, in the long term interest of the nation, because of the regressive nature of the GST and its accumulative multiplier effect, if we should have an economic recession, and ever rising cost of living, then would the Government consider giving more help to the poor and the lower income group? Then the Government will have a greater burden and what will happen? I hope we will not live to see this happening. Sir, to summarise, my points are as follows: Firstly, the reasons given for implementing GST in 1994 are unconvincing. Secondly, the Government has under-rated the impact of GST on the people. Thirdly, the Government has also under-rated the multiplier effect of GST on prices, especially the effect on the poor and the lower income group. Fourthly, the Government only thinks of GST as an effective tax system and on the assumption that there will be rising wages and greater economy, but there is no consideration given to the economic recession like those in 1985 and 1986. I, therefore, oppose the Bill. 2.00 pm”
“So it is an increase of more than 20%. Although the tax rate of GST is 3%, the price increase will bring up more than 3% of tax increase. The Government can therefore reap higher tax revenue without increasing the tax rate. When prices of goods go up higher, the tax of the Government goes even higher. So my point is that the GST mechanism will enable the Government to collect increased tax revenue imperceptibly. On the face of it, the rate is low. It appears to be not so very important, not painful, but when the whole body is aching, you do not even know where the ache is. This is GST! So the impact of GST will increase the burden of our people and that is not something which the package offered by the Government can offset. Is GST a better system? GST will tax everybody whether you are rich or poor. Because of that, the Government has to provide the so-called tax offsets or incentives and rebates because they admit that GST will have a very great effect and it is unfavourable to the lower income group. Whatever it is, the Government insists on implementing the GST, and defends itself by saying that it is a better tax system. I really fail to understand. Do you think the lower income group will not be affected by the GST? According to the multiplier effect that I have just pointed out, I doubt whether the argument of the Government can hold water. The Government says that because of the system, 74% of taxpayers do not have to pay tax any more. But I would say that with the implementation of GST, 100% of Singaporeans will have to pay tax, from cradle to death, and there is no escape. So from the tax principle, property tax will have to be paid by those who own properties.”
“Thirdly, although companies, firms or hawker stalls with an annual turnover of not more than $1 million are exempt from GST, they have to buy materials from their suppliers who are certainly subject to GST. So the cost increases and therefore the prices will also increase. As a result, the people in general will be affected. Furthermore, in the case of income tax, people can ask for payment of tax by instalments, but in the case of GST there is no such concession. Unless you do not eat, otherwise you will have to pay. A Member of Parliament said that in the case of GST, only those fish that are willing to take the bait will get caught. But in Singapore, GST is omnipresent and very pervasive. Even rice, salt, fuel, and every necessity in life is subject to tax. So it is like a large net. Every fish, big or small, will get caught. There is no question of willingness or not in this case. So the impact of GST on the cost of living is very important. There is also the multiplier effect of the GST. Without increasing the tax rate, the Government will get more and more tax revenue. Let us look at the table that I have distributed on the fees of the Polytechnic. Assuming that the GST was implemented as far back as 1983 at the rate of 3%, without any increase. Then the fee increase will also not be subjected to any additional profiteering because, I believe, the Polytechnic is not unscrupulous. You look at Table 1. Since 1983, without any GST, the fees have been increased by 157%. Table 2 shows that under the GST system, the same amount of fee increase will be very much more. In the end, the fee increase will exceed 209%. So without the GST, the students pay only $1,080, although the tax rate is only 3%, but with the multiplier effect of GST, the actual fee increase is $1,301.”
“They must make some sacrifices to pay out of their income in the form of a tax so that the country can survive. So when it is necessary to raise taxes or to impose another form of tax, the Government must prove to the people that there is a need to do so. The Government must explain very frankly to the people the kind of tax burden and the impact that they will suffer from. They should not pretend that nothing will happen, and it is just for the purpose of preparing for a rainy day. Even if you want to prepare for a rainy day, you must also consider the actual circumstances. The Government makes a lot of money. The Government companies make a lot of money. So some of the money can go into the Government coffers to prepare for a rainy day. Even now, with the tax rebates announced, our income tax revenue is still increased by $476 million. So why should we have this kind of GST which has a far-reaching effect? I think it is irresponsible to do so now. If the Government wants to increase the tax revenue they must justify to the people the necessity to do so. We just cannot say that we are collecting the GST to prepare for a rainy day, and thereby setting the GST mechanism in place. Let me deal with the impact of GST on the livelihood of the people and the increase of pressure on the people. The offset package by the Government cannot offset the impact of GST, because the GST will cause price increases. The people will worry about the higher cost of living and therefore greater stress in life. Secondly, so long as the people need to eat, to clothe and recreate, they must pay the GST too. Every day there is an impact. This impact cannot be offset simply by the tax package offered.”
“The tax burden will also fall on the young people and it is not fair. Sir, personal and corporate taxes account for only 44% of our total Government revenue. This is less than half. Why cannot the Government consider increasing the tax on the profits made by the Government related companies and other corporations so as to cut down the dependence on personal income tax? If you think we should rely on the consumption tax, then the ageing population, with more and more retirees, will have to carry a greater burden of taxation and they will suffer a lower standard of living. The savings deposited in the CPF Minimum Sum would also suffer a devaluation in real terms. Will the Government ask them to increase their Minimum Sum and Medisave to provide for their old age? The Government also says that it is only changing the tax system and not to increase the tax revenue, and this is only in preparation of a rainy day. The primary purpose of a taxation system is to get tax revenue. If the intention is not to get more tax, then what is the purpose of having this tax system? Is this something which the Government, which brags so much about efficiency, will be prepared to do? Although next year, there may not be any tax increase or revenue increase, in the long term the tax revenue will increase. Every Government will have to tax the people because the Government has to depend on the tax revenue to maintain all the necessary services and to achieve the objective of redistribution of wealth. So it is something that the Government has to do because the Government has to maintain the social services and the survival of the whole country. The people also have the duty to pay tax.”
“The success of Singapore's economy, is it because we are a tax haven or is it because of other factors that the Government has been bragging about so much? As an investor, he does not consider so much the tax rate, but whether he can make money or not. Put it simply, to say cutting down the tax rate can attract investment is plain lunatic ravings. Even if you cut the tax rate to zero, companies that do not make money will not come here at all. According to the latest investment news of the Economic Development Board, as at the end of 1992, investment in the manufacturing sector reached a record high of $3.5 billion and I quote from Singapore Investment News: "Investments in Singapore's manufacturing sector hit a record high of $3.48 billion in 1992, reflecting investors' strong confidence in our Republic." Thirdly, the White Paper states that the GST will provide a more stable source of revenue because property tax will fluctuate according to the market situation and corporate and personal income tax will also fluctuate according to changes in the economic cycle. It is true. Unless Singaporeans do not eat, otherwise whether the economic condition is good or bad, every day they have to pay the GST first. To the Government, of course, the GST is a stable source of revenue. But to the people it is an inevitable tax burden. Fourthly, the White Paper states that the GST system is a good tax system to avoid evasion. Of course, this is true. But the effectiveness of preventing tax evasion is so great that even those who do not normally pay tax will have to pay tax and their burden will be increased. Fifthly, the White Paper states that an ageing population means that we must cut down our reliance on income tax, because it will be diminishing.”
“The Member for Brickworks GRC says that with GST, we will encourage investors and there will be more funds. In fact, Singapore has always plenty of funds. As far as I know, our banks are bulging with money. Look at the interest rate. We hardly get anything when we put money in the bank. Our Town Council is getting something like 2.25% return from fixed deposits. What does it show? It shows that there is plenty of money in the banks but no takers. If Singaporeans are better entrepreneurs, I think that is the more important point and they should make good use of this money that is readily available for business and bring profits to Singapore. I think that is probably a greater priority. We should encourage more entrepreneurs and the only way to do that is to have a more open society. 1.45 pm Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, let me begin with the White Paper on GST. I feel that the reasons for the proposed implementation of consumption tax as given in the White Paper are not convincing. The White Paper states that the high income tax rates will reduce the willingness of people to work, to save and to invest and will even cause a brain drain. Has our income tax rate reached the stage where it is meaningless to work harder? The UK, US, Korea and Thailand have higher rates of income tax. But have their people refusrefused or are unwilling to work? Furthermore, what are the factors for brain drain? Is it because of the high tax rates? Singaporeans who emigrate may even go to countries where taxes are higher, for example, Australia where the income tax rate is as high as 47%, New Zealand, 33%. Secondly, the White Paper states that high corporate tax suppresses entrepreneurship and it will also reduce the attractiveness of Singapore.”
“The Government openly says that it does not owe anyone a living and it wants all Singaporeans to be self-reliant. So its welfare spending is minimal. Therefore, we do not need augmented revenue from GST. The Government says that GST will make Singapore more competitive. I think this is a fallacy, because business people who come to Singapore do not just look at our income tax alone. They look at the total costs. If the Government is saying that our land cost is going to be very high, I hope it will do something to keep land cost down, because it is in control of the land in Singapore with the Land Acquisition Act. I notice in the last two years land prices in Singapore have shot up so high. They have gone through the roof from the prices that I know. Why are land prices going up? Because there are indications from the Government. HDB prices are already going up above the $300,000 mark. So when private developers think that HDB prices can go that high, they can also push up land costs. If land cost is a problem, I think the Government should take note and do something about speculation on land and about the unrealistic situation of land prices. That will keep down the costs. The other character of Singapore is that it has got a CPF scheme. This compulsory savings scheme is not minuscule. It is very substantial. The savings rate of workers in Singapore is not 2% or 3%. At one time, it went up to 50% of their savings. So CPF savings is a factor. There is plenty of money for Singaporeans when they retire and the Government need not support them. There is no need to go into Government funds and take money to support Singaporeans when they get old. So we do not need a GST for additional revenue.”
“I think you got it all wrong, Mr Lim Hng Kiang. SDP stands for Singapore Democratic Party. It is not Sweden Democratic Party. The maximum income tax rate has dropped to 50% but it is still high by Singapore standards. The SDP says that there is no need for GST at this point in time. In fact, for Singapore, there is a case to be made out. There should not even be a goods and services tax at all. Tourism is one of our big income earners. I understand that the cess which is now slightly reduced will soon be going up again. Because the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board is a self-supporting body and it needs funds to sell Singapore and to give wide publicity for Singapore. It does need the funds and the cess will probably go up again to 3%. So, with the GST, Singapore is not going to be a cheap place to come to. Probably tourists will not find it attractive to come to Singapore when the GST is implemented. Tourism is also a big employer of labour in Singapore. And if less tourists come, of course, more Singaporeans will be out of work and there will be more problems for their families. Another character of Singapore, which is probably against GST, is that it is a traditional entrepot. It is a distribution centre. It does a lot of re-export trade. I have spoken to local businessmen who have done a lot of re-export trade, in particular to Indonesia, Burma and Bangladesh. They told me that there will be problems for them. I hope the Government can really solve their problems because they are really concerned. I do not want to go into the complexity of their kind of business. Unlike the OECD countries and other countries like New Zealand which have a heavy welfare burden, Singapore does not have a welfare scheme. Every Singaporean earns his money and takes care of himself.”
“I can only think of one reason why the Minister will oppose this. Because if libraries are set up in Opposition wards, he is afraid that Opposition reading material will be stuffed in these libraries. So I will ensure that there is a neutral committee and the reading material will be non-political.”
“If there are neighbourhood libraries and they are easily accessible to young children, this can be a tool to promote good reading habits in early life and a love for books which will certainly serve these children well, both in their school studies as well as in later life. I note from the budget that the number of books loaned out to students in Singapore - students are mostly using the libraries - has not increased for the last two years. The number has remained stagnant at about 9 million or thereabouts. Therefore, in order to promote good reading habits, I think there is a need for easily accessible libraries in the constituencies. These are all compelling reasons. But I believe the Minister will still have reservations, and I have been thinking why it is so.”
“By the great number of advertisements in SBC's programmes, one would have thought that SBC has earned enough money from the advertisements to be self-supporting and does not need funding from MITA. Therefore, I do not see why MITA should be so generous in its allocation of funds to SBC. Much of the funds due to SBC could easily be diverted to the Library Services Programme. I hope the Minister will take note of this point. Sir, I can think of at least three good reasons why neighbourhood libraries should be set up. Firstly, it is accessibility. Young children can easily go to these libraries. The last time when I brought up this subject, the Minister refused permission to establish a library at Potong Pasir. He gave the reason that there is a branch library at Toa Payoh Central. There may well be a good branch library at Toa Payoh Central. But it must be noted that it is situated about 4-5 kilometres away from Potong Pasir and I think it is not reasonable to expect parents to allow their 3-4 year old children to travel by bus from Potong Pasir Estate to Toa Payoh Central. The more reasonable thing to do is to build a neighbourhood Library at Potong Pasir which is within walking distance of young children living in that estate. 1.45 pm The second reason is the high cost of books. Books in Singapore are still prohibitively expensive and they are not affordable to most working parents. The prices of books these days are only within the reach of the well-to-do in Singapore. Children from poor homes should be helped by making books readily available to them. The third reason for wanting a neighbourhood library is to promote the reading habit and the love for books.”
“I am glad to hear that Dr Michael Lim supports the idea of a neighbourhood library. This subject of neighbourhood library is not new. I had brought this issue up in this House before. Potong Pasir Town Council has made a request to the former Minister-in-charge of library services to set up a neighbourhood library in Potong Pasir Estate. But the request was refused. I hope the present Minister is more amenable to the idea. If he is, the Potong Pasir Town Council shall certainly be reviving the request. At this juncture, I must declare my interest, Sir. I am the Chairman of the Potong Pasir Town Council (PPTC). What the PPTC is requesting for is a library of about 300 to 400 square metres to be built at a void deck to house between 7,000 and 10,000 volumes of books. The PPTC shall be responsible for the acquisition of the books and the day-to-day running of the library. What we really want is just the consent of the Ministry and the assistance of the HDB to wall up a space in the void deck. I think that is all we request. Libraries are important social organisations. They are store houses of knowledge. Monies spent on libraries are not a consumption item but are good investments for the future of the citizens. Libraries are certainly not luxurious items but are indispensable educational tools. Last year, the total expenditure for the Library Services Programme was about $23 million. This amount could easily be increased by one quarter. I note that MITA allocates about 18% of its funds to the Library Services Programme while a big chunk of 32% goes to the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation (SBC).”
“Our newspapers have been controlled by the Government for the last 30 years. Do we want them to be controlled for the next 30 years? Do we want better quality reporting by local journalists? If so, then I believe that we must have more newspapers to balance up the reporting. If so, then it is time we also reviewed the issue of press freedom in Singapore. The words "press freedom" in Singapore today means only one-sided press freedom - the freedom for journalists and others to praise the Government and scold and denounce the Opposition in the press. There is a ruling in Singapore that only those in the political parties can take part in politics. But it would appear that journalists are given the licence to criticise the Opposition and take part in politics against the Opposition in a widespread manner and nothing appears to have happened to them. But if anyone who is not in a political party and who criticises the Government, all the press laws and the law under the Internal Security Act will be thrown at him. I wonder how long more this situation will persist. If it does, then it will not be healthy for Singapore. We shall never become a truly mature society.”
“Sir, it is time more newspapers were started in Singapore. All the major newspapers, at the moment, are owned by one company and, basically, they have one editorial policy and they have become the voices of the PAP Government. They have been controlled by the Government and consistently toe the Government line, unashamedly, pro-PAP and anti-Opposition. Anyone who reads only the Straits Times and the Lianhe Zaobao would think that the PAP makes no mistakes and is infallible, whereas the Opposition are made to appear trivial and inconsequential. Just look at the reporting of the last by-election at Marine Parade GRC. By reading local newspapers only for the news of the said by-election, who would know that 20,000 to 30,000 people attended the SDP election rallies, and who would know that there was such spontaneous and enthusiastic support for that Party. On the other hand, no report was made that the PAP had to transport senior citizens and others by the bus-loads to attend their election rallies. Without the organised support, PAP rallies at the Marine Parade by-election would look quite empty. The issues highlighted by the SDP at the by-election were distorted and slanted. The SDP's issue of the two-party system was made out to appear that only two parties were allowed, the PAP and the SDP, to the exclusion of all the other parties. On the other hand, the HDB Upgrading Programme was so touted that voters at Marine Parade were made to think that they would immediately get their flats upgraded once the PAP won the election there, which was not really the case. Despite the biased reporting, we have to give credit to the voters at the Marine Parade GRC for giving the SDP four percentage points more votes.”
“That confirms what I said. We have got good management. We clean the place up. As soon as they are littered, we clean the place up. What I am saying is that we do not have a littering problem. All these photographs were taken before 6.00 am. I think this is absolutely hitting below the belt. It is unfair.”
“I want to know how you define a littering problem. I would say a littering problem is where litter is thrown on to the ground and it is not swept up and it is still there. That would be a problem. As long as it is cleaned up in the day, I do not think it is a littering problem.”
“Litter must be thrown somewhere. I think it is question of degree, Mr Speaker. I say that Potong Pasir does not have a littering problem because if you come in the day, mid-morning or mid-afternoon, you will see the place is spick and span. Our contractors will make it a point that all the litter is swept up.”
“Yes. Firstly, I want to ask whether or not these photographs were in fact taken before 6.00 am. Although it is stated here "6.00 am to 7.00 am" I can see the darkness in the photographs. You can see, with a flash, you can only cover the relevant parts. The background is all dark. So the first question is whether or not these photographs were taken before 6.00 am. The photographs appear quite dark to me. Secondly, how do you define a littering problem?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been informed by my contractors that they start work to clean the estate at 6.00 am. I was also informed that, in fact, the Ministry of the Environment's officers came at 5.30 in the morning to take photographs before the ground was swept. If that was the case, it would be unfair to Potong Pasir, because the photographs were all taken with overnight litter. Normally, litters are thrown only after the residents have come back from work. I think we better get this point clear. What exactly do you ---”
“As usual, the Minister has not answered the queries fully. But, nevertheless, I withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $403,382,530 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $4,118,551,000 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head P -”
“Second, by such doing, would it not amount to a contempt of Parliament? Thirdly, what is the reason for this loan? What was the criterion used by the Ministry of National Development in approving this loan? How much was the loan and has this loan been fully paid up? If the loan has not been fully discharged, then what is the term of this loan? What would be the criterion for other town councils to apply for such a loan?”
“If the Opposition Town Councils receive grants from the HDB, they will be in a very happy state, because they do manage their Town Councils economically and they would probably not increase their service and conservancy charges. Whereas in the case of the PAP Town Councils, or at least some of them, after having received the grants, they still have to increase their service and conservancy charges. That position is not acceptable to the HDB, because it would not look good to the Town Councils of the PAP wards, if they do increase their service and conservancy charges and the Opposition do not. Therefore, the HDB, I believe, has come up with this clever package of disbursing grants and at the same time, force the recipient Town Councils to take more of their service and conservancy charges to put them, or lock them up, into the sinking fund, so that their operating funds are reduced. And so if they cannot get along with less operating funds, they are forced to increase the 5% or more of their service and conservancy charges. In fact, if what I said were true, this scheme will encourage inefficiency and penalise those Town Councils that are efficient. Mr Low Thia Khiang( In Mandarin): Sir, I am very surprised to find in this year's budget, an additional item under the development estimates for the Ministry of National Development, that is, loan to Town Councils. I have checked through the budgets for the last few years, there was no such provision. This is unprecedented, as far as town councils are concerned. There was no such provision in last year's budget for development estimates. Yet, the amount was spent in last year's accounts. I would like to ask the Minister the following questions: First, who approved this loan, as the amount was not budgeted for last year?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head U of the Development Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code UJ 5200. I would like to speak briefly on grants to Town Councils. I believe the HDB's offer of making grants to Town Councils under the package given by the Minister is not reasonable. Why must the increase of HDB grants be tied to such unreasonable conditions? Firstly, why is it necessary for the Town Councils to take 40% of the service and conservancy charges collections, instead of 25% to be put in the sinking fund, and at the same time, to increase the S&C charges by 5%? Why can the Minister not peg the sinking fund at the current rate of 25%? As far as the Opposition Town Councils are concerned, this seems to be enough, if the Town Councils are properly run and their finances are prudently managed. As far as I know, none of the Opposition Town Councils have requested the HDB for increase of the service and conservancy charges. This shows that the Town Councils of all Opposition wards are managed efficiently. The Minister today has not answered the hon. Member for Nee Soon Central's question when he asked the Minister twice, how many of the PAP Town Councils have requested for more grants. Since the Minister has refused to answer this question, I must assume that there are PAP Town Councils which have asked for more grants from the HDB and that the HDB is amenable to give those Town Councils more grants. Of course, if that is the position taken by the HDB, then it would leave the HDB in a dilemma. If it gives the PAP Town Councils more funds, then they also have to disburse funds equally to all other Town Councils, including the Opposition ones.”
“Sir, the inconsistency in the price is not the price payable by the residents. I am talking about the cost of the upgrading. Why is it that during the Demonstration Phase it seems to cost more, $45,000, whereas in the latest figures given by the Minister, the highest cost of renovation per unit is only $34,800 and this is in relation to Executive flats. Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Sir, the $45,000 that Mr Chiam quotes include the space-adding item. I believe the $34,000 that he is quoting is for the Standard Package, which does not include the space-adding item. If it includes the space adding-item, I think it is over $60,000, which is the same in the old situation and now. Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay: Sir, I thank the Minister of State for his replies. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 2.15 pm”
“Yes, I am much obliged to you. Regarding HDB flats, I would like to ask the Minister several questions. Firstly, why is it that the HDB does not abide by building plan guidelines in relation to private housing? If it had done so, then it would not be necessary to have the Upgrading Programme in relation, in particular, to the repair and renovation of the lifts. I understand that the construction of the lift structure of HDB is not in accordance with private housing. For private housing, I believe, the lift has to stop at every landing, whereas for the HDB it does not. Of course, we in the Opposition object to the tying of HDB Upgrading Programme to the voting of candidates. I would urge the Minister whether he would remove this condition from the upgrading of HDB flats. There is some confusion in regard to the Town Council, ie, whether they need to pay 5% in the end. Reports say that we do not need to do so. This position is not very clear. The other point I would like the Minister to clarify is this. There is some inconsistency as to the cost of upgrading of each flat. In the last Marine Parade GRC by-election, the cost of each flat was purportedly alleged to be $45,000 per flat, and each flat unit only has to pay 10% of that. But from the figures given recently in the Ministerial Statement, I know that the highest amount payable by each flat owner amounts to only $34,800. There seems to be some inconsistency in the figures given.”
“I have got another amendment under Amendment No. (5), and that is on Upgrading of HDB flats. I do not know whether there is time for me to speak.”
“Sir, I wish the Minister of State would not be so emotional. I do not think any SAMH centre would be built in the sea. I have asked a simple, straightforward question, and I expect a business-like answer from him. The Minister of State says that there is nothing wrong in building a child care centre next to the SAMH premises. My question to him is this: If there is nothing wrong, there must be other places which have got a creche next door to the SAMH half-way house. So that is my simple question. Do not go about beating around the bush. Give me the answer, yes or no.”
“A clarification from the Minister of State. Is there any other creche or child care centre built next door to the SAMH premises in any void deck in Singapore?”