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 39 of 85.
“Sir, I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister in regard to a point brought up by the Member for Cheng San GRC, and that is, in fact there is already a mechanism to control the number of taxis on the road. When ROV limits the number of taxis on the road, does it take into account the overall car population? So why is there a need to get the taxis into the quota system when their numbers are already controlled in the first place?”
“We have to take a realistic and practical approach, recognise that we are not, and we do not want to be, a Victorian society, but we want to maintain certain standards in our home, so that it may be dirty outside, but when you come back home, remove your shoes, wear your slippers, come in. A society where it is safe to bring up children, a society which keeps up with changes in the world without compromising on the wholesome quality of civic life.”
“" And the technology will not allow us to exercise these controls in the future. Yesterday, I talked about satellite broadcasting. Then you have CDs, laser discs. Now we go through the motion of checking every video cassette that comes in. We say, you declare, you pay a fee. We have a small platoon of censors who will go through fast-forward every video cassette. I do not think it does their eyes any good. Anyway, they have to go through, it is their job. That is possible with video cassettes. But how do we do a 100% check of optical discs? It is not possible. You can put the text of the whole Encyclopedia Britannica on a video disc. Furthermore, some parts may be locked by passwords and if you are scanning through, you may not even know that there are secret sections which you have not been accessing. So we have to take a practical approach that whatever we do, there will be leakages into our society. But what we do not want is for it to become blatant, for it to be sold in the shops, for it to be promoted in our media, particularly the establishment media, by which I refer to the Straits Times, Lianhe Zaobao, Berita Harian, Tamil Murasu and the television stations. They must maintain certain standards. Our schools also and the universities. They define what is respectable. In any society, there is the seedier, seamier, side. I think that can never be fully solved. It is like prostitution. You can control prostitution, but you cannot stop it. I would say we must maintain moral standards and the press plays a very important role but, at the same time, we must recognise the way we have been influenced by the world outside in which we live and from which we cannot be completely insulated.”
“And some Chinese Singaporeans will know dialects to a greater or lesser degree because they find that it makes it useful for them to carry out their business, cultural or political activities. I would now like to turn to the question of the role of the press in upholding moral standards in our society, the point raised by Mr Ho Peng Kee. I think the media does play a very important role. It is not the only player, but it does play a very important role. The role of Government really is to draw the outer limits. So we can draw the outer limit at R or R(A) or whatever. But within these limits, I think it is for different groups in our community to exert influence, to take moral high ground. It is very difficult for Government to say, "Look, see this film, not that film, because this film is more edifying than the other film." But parents can do it, religious leaders can do it, school teachers can do it, community leaders can do it, and that is fine. And I think this is how we should approach this problem. It is right that as a society, we are continuously vexed by concerns about moral standards, because like courtesy, the moment we show no concern, that is the surest sign of decline. It is because we are worried, we are anxious all the time, that standards are held up and maintained. But at the same time, we are not a Victorian society. We cannot be. Every year, we get over 5 million visitors through Changi airport, plus millions more down the Causeway. Every year, over a million Singaporeans travel overseas. We are a society utterly ventilated. Our trade is so many times our GNP. So there is no way we can put up a cordon sanitaire around Singapore and say, "Ok, within this area, it is hermetically sealed.”
“I say it depends on developments in East Asia, in South China, Hong Kong and Taiwan, because if those large population centres continue to use dialects, then it is natural that Singaporeans who do business there, who have cultural contacts there, will also want to use dialects. Because if they speak it and you speak it to a greater or lesser extent, it creates a certain empathy. As Parliamentarians, as MPs, when you go down to the ground, from time to time, you use dialects to show that we are one. This is a long historical process. How it will evolve, we do not know. In China itself, it is an issue. Recently, they are trying to promote the use of Mandarin in the south, because today in the southern cities, virtually only dialect is spoken. Last year, when I visited Swatow University, I called on the President and the first thing he did -- he is a Shanghainese -- was to apologise for speaking to me in Mandarin and not in Teochew, because there was social pressure on him. In China, in Hong Kong, in Taiwan, the debate is still going on. When we have to send someone to Hong Kong, we find a Cantonese speaker. When Dr Aline Wong went there to open a twinning conference a few months ago, she spoke in Cantonese. When we have to find a representative in Taipei, we make sure that, in addition to Mandarin, he speaks Hokkien. But these are necessities. We speak dialect in the same way as we have also to learn Japanese, German or Malay when we go out and trade, to make a living, to establish cultural contacts. We cannot make it an official language, we cannot promote it officially. So I would put it like this. In the long-term, Mandarin will become established as a common language of all Chinese Singaporeans.”
“And naturally, this was also promoted among the overseas Chinese communities in South East Asia, including Singapore. No traditional dialect speaker disputes this. The older Singaporeans who speak only dialects, no Mandarin, they will readily concede that Mandarin must be the common language of all Chinese. And if you are able to speak good Mandarin, it is the mark of an educated person. So I found the views expressed in the Straits Times recently rather puzzling and rather sadly lacking in a historical understanding of the progress of Chinese culture and the Chinese nation. The question then is: should we also support dialects? I say it is very difficult. We already have four official languages and if we also support dialects - and there are so many of them, six or seven - where do we start, where do we end? So it is not possible for the state or the Government to promote dialects. Having said that, should we suppress dialects? Should we make it so uncomfortable for people to use dialects that those who use it feel suppressed? Actually, that is also wrong. In Taiwan, for years, they kept down dialects. And when the political system there was loosened, as part of the campaign against the mainlanders, Hokkien , min nan hua, became a big issue, because min nan hua was promoted and politicians had to use min nan hua. So ke jia, Hakka, also came to the fore. I think about 15% of the Taiwanese are Hakkas. Whether or not Singaporeans will continue to use dialects does not depend on developments in Singapore alone.”
“I assure Mr Goh Choon Kang that Government's commitment to the Speak Mandarin Campaign remains unchanged, and I would go so far as to say -- I mentioned this in the House last year -- that the problem now is not so much dialect versus Mandarin, but mother tongue versus English. It becomes so convenient to use English in our place of work, in Government, in the shopping centres, that there is a danger that we may give less emphasis to the mother tongue, which would be wrong because that will deprive us of the life blood of our cultural heritage. So we should continue to promote Mandarin, we should continue to promote the other mother tongues. Concerning the recent spate of articles in the Straits Times about dialects being the mother tongue, I think those views are mistaken and lack a historical understanding of the promotion of Mandarin in the whole movement of Chinese nationalism. The first Speak Mandarin Campaign in Singapore was not 10 years or 12 years ago, it was in the 1920s. Someone sent me an article the other day showing that as early as the 1920s, we had Speak Mandarin Campaigns in Singapore. And this is not surprising because it was an integral part of the Chinese Republican revolution. In 1911, when they threw out the Manchus, a Chinese nation had to be forged, big debate at that time in Canton as to which would be the national language of China. Should it be Cantonese or should it be Mandarin? In the end, they decided on Mandarin because Mandarin was the kuan hua. Mandarin was the official language in imperial China. Mandarin is from the word man da ren, the Manchu big shot, the Manchu official. So by a narrow margin, they decided on Mandarin as the unifying language of China.”
“Sir, he asked for ideas. I think the proper place to cultivate courtesy would be in our schools. Each child goes through six years in primary school, four years in secondary school and another two years in pre-university. You have got 12 years to teach courtesy to our children. The Courtesy Campaign has been going on for 14 years. That is more than the number of years a child spends in school. I think it would be the proper thing to make it a way of life of our people and this can be done in our schools, rather than spending $700,000 every year, which I think is a waste of money. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Sir, we do promote the courtesy campaign in the schools and it has been a multi-faceted comprehensive approach. The idea of a campaign is to give it a special emphasis for a short period of time so that it will eventually become a way of life. That is the objective, to make it a way of life. How do we get there? By campaigns. So the two are not in contradiction. In fact, our idea should be to get the message not just to the schools, but in the end to the homes, which means to the parents. The parents themselves might not have had the training or the education in their own times. Let me now move on to the Speak Mandarin Campaign. I would like here to report that good progress has been made. A survey conducted last year showed that for last year, in markets and hawker centres, 24% of Chinese Singaporeans used Mandarin as compared to 1% in 1979. A survey conducted by SPH recently showed that, compared to six years ago, among family members, the use of Mandarin had doubled. These are again rough indicators, but it shows that we have made progress and I think this is confirmed by our own subjective impression when we go around.”
“Sir, before the Minister moves on, can I get a clarification with regard to courtesy?”
“Now that the Government is going to privatise SBC, will it allow other private TV companies to come in? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: I have already announced in public the proposed privatisation structure. Over a period of time, we are prepared to bring in private participation at both the operating company level and at the holding company level. So this is certainly on the cards in the longer term but we cannot rush into this because TV is a very powerful medium and we have to take a conservative approach and to make rules as we go along so that we do not allow for excesses. But that is on the cards.”
“I just want to ask the Minister a question.”
“So we have to keep at it and make sure that we get the best people, and let them do their professional job in educating our children.”
“Computers checked the development of verbal and other skills in more than 1 million mainly American youngsters, and correlated these with the things educationists had said mattered most, such as greater state spending per pupil [put more money in] and on themselves [on the teachers], smaller classes, [Mr Chiam's favourite point], more modern buildings. They found nil or negative correlation, almost each time.' This was a detailed computer study done by experts in America and in the UK. Again, I quote from the same article: 'The most successful Japanese schools have classes of about 55 while the schools in America and Britain that breed most juvenile delinquency have twice as many teachers per pupil. The school districts in Britain that spend most taxpayers' money tend to have the worst exam results.' So, let us be careful when we advocate small class sizes. One reason why the independent schools have been forced to raise the school fees has been that they cut down the class size. If you go down from a class size of 40 to a class size of 30, it means that you need one-third more teachers. As a result, you need more spending. But is it worth spending that money? This is the main point. As Dr Tay has said, the key factor which determines whether a school is a good school is the quality of the principals and the teachers. This is the area where you should pay the most attention. I think we should not be overly optimistic about the situation. There are a lot of career opportunities amongst the young and wedo have to compete very hard to get good teachers. Although Dr Tay has quoted figures to show that we have been able to increase the recruitment rate, at the same time the older teachers are also retiring.”
“If you teach in front of a class of 20 or a class of 40, what is the difference? You are teaching, right? Of course, if you want to have an interactive method, then it is better to have a smaller class size. But you must remember that sometimes when you interact with the pupils, in fact, you may be spending more time with one pupil at the expense of the whole class. That is a problem that is discovered in the western system. The problem with the western system is that their children tend to be very indisciplined. While the teacher is teaching, the class will be playing basket ball behind or doing something. Our situation is very different. Our pupils are very disciplined and they want to learn, and their parents want them to learn. So we have discovered that, in fact, with a class size of 40 we are doing very well, and should be proud of the results that we have been achieving year after year. I think they compare very well with international standards. Personally, I am amazed at the number of students who score straight A's in 'O' level and 'A' level. Studies have been done of the education system in Japan as compared to, say, 2America, and it has been found that, in fact, the Japanese tend to score the highest rates in any common test, say, mathematics, as compared to the Americans. The Japanese have a larger class size, as compared to the Americans who have class sizes of 20 or 25. I would like to quote here an example of some recent publication by the London Sunday Times, 12th January 1992, by a person called Norman Macrae. Some of you might have read this article. I quote from the article: 'Recent US computer studies of educational achievements started in America in the 1960s and 1970s ...”
“You are right. Mr Lee Yock Suan: In looking at the education system, we have a tendency in Singapore to look towards the West, USA, the UK, and so on. Some of the Opposition Members might have been teachers before. So they have certain philosophies built in them. If you have been following the press, in the UK, for example, recently their Education Secretary has come out with a new study to show that in fact they were for many years, for generations, influenced so much by this so-called Plowden Report, which says that you should never teach a child, you should let him discover by himself, and you should not even have structured learning and so on. As a result of this, the education system in UK has been blighted for generations and now they are trying to recover. So we must see this in perspective if you want to study and try to improve the education system. We must also compare the situation in Japan, Korea, Taiwan and so on. As has been mentioned by Dr Tay, in fact the class sizes in Japan and Taiwan are 40, 50 and even above. In Singapore's case, our standard class size is 40; some schools have less. In fact, the average figure for secondary schools is about 36 pupils per class. Those schools that are less popular tend to have smaller classes. The popular ones tend to have big classes, sometimes as big as 44, and their results are better. So it is not so much the class size alone. Let us not over-emphasise this point. If you want to reduce class size, for example, you go from 40 to 20, as advocated by Mr Chiam, you will have to increase the number of teachers by a factor of two. Instead of 20,000 teachers, you need to have 40,000 teachers. Where do you find that number of teachers? And what is the value of so doing?”
“Can I just have one more question? I want to ask the Minister this. Assuming that the schools under all conditions are similar, in one school you have got a class size of 25 and the other with a class size of 60, which school would you send your child to?”
“But the standard of the teaching of mother tongue has been dropping in our schools. Why? Because there is an acute shortage of teachers and there are too many pupils in a class. The shortage of teachers is a very basic fundamental flaw in our schools. The Government says that it is trying hard to solve this problem. In fact, I think the Government has no choice. The Government should solve this very basic fundamental educational problem. Otherwise, all the talk about Edusave and the full-day schools will be of little use. Last year, the Minister said that the Institute of Education was not producing enough teachers. I know the Ministry is doing everything it can, but I hope this will not be seen as an excuse. The Chairman: Mr Low, can you seek your clarification now?”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to speak. Sir, I am heartened to hear that the recruitment of teachers has improved to over 1,000 last year. The Minister could perhaps enlighten us as to the attrition or drop-out rate of teachers from their jobs. I am always concerned. In fact, every year, I bring up this subject of shortage of teachers in our secondary and primary schools. When there are not enough teachers to go around, the teacher-student ratio will naturally be high. I complained of this many times in this House of the class size in nearly all Government and Government-aided schools. If the class size is too large, when they are between 40 and 43, pupils in such a class can never get effective teaching, in particular, in these days, when the workload imposed on our school children is so heavy. The teachers are given a very wide syllabus to cover and they have to go very quickly through them. And of course the average pupils would find it difficult to cope up. Then they do not do so well in the examinations and the parents get very worried. Working mothers are left in a dilemma whether to continue working or to stay at home, stop work and help out their children in their studies. In the past, normally only those who could afford would employ private tutors to coach their children. But in these days, when academic qualifications are so important to get good jobs, even those parents who really cannot afford to have tutors, tighten their belts, make sacrifices and save money to employ tutors to help out their children in their studies. Of course, this will cause a great financial burden on these parents. The Government wants to encourage the learning of mother tongue in our schools. This is something which I support.”
“You are not giving your life for the nation.”
“Okay, I will try. In any event, we have a great pool of reservists. Sir, another point is our GDP is in fact greater than 6%, because of the number of boys taken up to do NS. And also this shorter period will not disrupt our NS boys in their studies and in their work. Furthermore, in the past, to take them off to do NS was to solve some social problems. But that is not the case now. Sir, there many other points which I believe are good; in fact, at this juncture, with a better world situation, to cut our national service period.”
“Because when we talk of security in Singapore, what is the lesson we have learned from the Japanese invasion? I read through all the reports, and it occurred to me that the most important lesson is that our soldiers must learn street fighting, and that is the most important factor. The Japanese commander had that greatest worry in his mind because his army was already quite exhausted at that time. And he was fearful that if they had to be involved in street fighting, they would have lost. So our national service boys in school must be taught that in case of war, there is a wall behind them, there is nowhere to run, we have to fight in Singapore. No enemy would want to demolish Singapore. There is nothing for the enemy to take Singapore. They want to take Singapore intact, if possible, and that we will deny them. And this is important. In order to instil in them that kind of duty to nation, I think our $1,500 income tax relief will not instil in our boys such kind of patriotism. It must go on a higher level. Our level of instilling patriotism in them must really be of a high level and not through material rewards. It is said that if we reduce our national service period, our level of security will drop. I do not think so. I would disagree. If we have got a proper programme and regular in-camp training, they can be just as good. Our security level will not drop. Investors will not run away. Foreign savings will not be taken out. I am sure our economy can still prosper. And if our economy drops, it is certainly not because of our security unreadiness. In any event --”
“Thank you, Sir. Sir, I rise again to make the usual call for the reduction of our national service period. Each year, as I have been making this call since 1987, the world situation seems to improve. Now we see the dissolution of the old Soviet Union, we see China. Cambodia is settled. And Vietnam is now making great attempts to get its economy on the way and, therefore, it would not be thinking of military adventurism. In the horizon, there does not seem to appear to be any possible enemies, and that is a good thing. But I know the standard answer of the Minister. He will say that we must be prepared. If we are not prepared, the enemies will arrive. Sir, I believe that the period of our national service can be reduced, because Switzerland has got only a 19-week stint for national service, and I believe Germany has only one and a half years. So the time period is not a factor. It is important, I believe, to integrate our national service with our school extra-curricular activities. I believe that is how they do it. The Minister has just said that our national service boys need to spend three, four, even five months to do BMT. This is not necessary if we have got a good sports and recreation programme in our schools. We must make fitness part of our school programme, especially developing not only stamina and fitness but also strength. That is important. When they leave school, the kids should be fit. I remember I was very fit because I was a school swimmer. I am more prepared for national service, and it is not necessary to go into BMT or what-have-you. If the boys are fit after leaving school, then we already would have saved five months. You could cut it down, and perhaps even teach them marching, discipline, patriotism - these are important factors.”
“I note that the hon. Member for Nee Soon South skipped this subject. He did not speak on it, although he had submitted an amendment. Therefore it has not really been disposed of.”
“I am not speaking on HDB shops. But I would like to speak on resettlement.”
“I would like to speak on resettlement. The Chairman: We are not discussing resettlement. That has been disposed of already. We are now on HDB flats and shops.”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to speak. I would like to speak on resettlement under Amendment (4). Do I need to move that amendment?”
“From what I heard from the Front Bench, apparently there are only "Ayes".”
“There is no change of plan and we will be participating vigorously at this debate if Mr Speaker gives his consent and the House do give its assent. Sir, may I also ask for permission for the other two members of the SDP to speak, if they so wish to speak.”
“Thank you. Sir, I have only followed precedents. The past practice of Parliament was to send to me the notices of amendments in a 6" x 4" brown envelope. So I was in fact waiting for the envelope to come but there was no envelope. That was the reason. This year, apparently, they just slipped one or two forms into the thick Budget book. That slipped my attention. Nevertheless, you can see that the SDP is in fact not going on a holiday. An hon. Member: Change of plan.”
“Sir, it is for the House to decide. It is not for the Leader to decide.”
“Sir, I have not submitted my notices of amendments. May I seek your consent and the general assent of the House to submit motions for amendments in the Committee of Supply.”
“The soldiers are defending the whole country. And it is for the whole nation to show appreciation and respect to them. It is not the little group of people who call themselves "Government". They do not serve this little group of people who call themselves "Government". They are serving the nation. They are in fact the defence of the whole nation. So why do you say the Government is grateful and so must show appreciation?”
“Sir, may I make a further clarification? Why should the Government be grateful? It is the people of Singapore that should be grateful. Dr Yeo Ning Hong: That is what I said.”
“Sir, may I raise a point of order?. Just now, Dr John Chen spoke up in favour of the tax relief. I was not aware that he is an active officer. I have just been told that he is an active officer. He should have declared his interest because he is going to get monetary rewards.”
“But certainly, it is not for the money. That is the last thing in mind.”
“Sir, there are two points I want to raise. Firstly, whenever I put up a criticism, they will point to Potong Pasir: Potong Pasir can always opt out. Where are we going to end? Very soon, there will be more than one Potong Pasir and what is going to happen? They can all opt out. If they are not happy with their income tax, can they opt out? I would like to ask the Minister for Finance for that. If we are unhappy and we criticise income tax or property tax, can we opt out? That is the first point. The second point is in regard to this matter of giving tax relief to reservists. The whole idea is wrong. It is not a question of quantum. The quantum is no longer an issue. It is the principle that is involved. If you are going to give monetary rewards for service to the nation, where are we going to end? Because service to the nation cannot be measured in terms of money, and we all know that. Public service, services to charity, this kind of services, are all in the same category. In this kind of work, we do it out of commitment or service or duty to the nation or for the love of it.”
“Thank you. Money is given in all kinds of ways. But if you give it in the form of a reward, then it is wrong in principle. But if you give it to compensate for his transport allowance, for loss of earnings, I think that is fair. Then that is a completely different principle. Payments are made out on a different principle. But if there is going to be appreciation, you can give him a plaque, you can put him on a pedestal and give him a clap; or you can put up a statue. These are different kinds of expressing appreciation. If we must appreciate, what sort of appreciation are we giving? We should not dish out money and say, "We are happy that you are doing reservist service." I think that is wrong in principle. That is my point.”
“Sir, can I clarify? Does he give way? Dr Yeo Ning Hong resumed his seat.”
“How can you compare girlfriends with soldiers!”
“But, this is only a short-term benefit. In the long run, heavy subsidies or recourse to national reserves, I believe, will result in the depreciation of our Singapore dollar. The moment the Singapore dollar is depreciated to a point when it is lower than the Malaysian ringgit, then as a country without natural resources, we will have serious inflation and prices for our daily necessities will go up and skyrocket. This will affect our economy and our livelihood will be affected too. Therefore, we have to consider and reconsider very carefully when we want to make use of our reserves to subsidise our people. Secondly, he talked about the Government competing with the people, and the NTUC Cooperatives. I do not understand how the establishment of NTUC Fairprice Cooperative could do harm to the people. I believe everybody in Singapore today enjoys going to the NTUC Supermarkets for their shopping because the prices there are cheap. They can stabilize the prices of commodities. The prices of rice, salt, oil and the daily necessities remain so stable today because of the establishment of the NTUC Fairprice Cooperative. This, in turn, has resulted in the rapid expansion of the NTUC Fairprice Cooperative. Their supermarkets are set up in every nook and corner of Singapore to serve the people. If the NTUC Fairprice Cooperative is like what Mr Low Thia Khiang has described it to be, then I think these supermarkets would have been closed down long ago. They would not have prospered and expanded the way they do today. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion. 4.30 pm”
“There are altogether 239 amendments to this year's budget allocations for the various Ministries and Government departments to be moved in the Committee of Supply. Yet, much to my surprise, none of the three Members of Parliament from the Singapore Democratic Party has given notice to query any of the Ministries or Organs of State in the next seven days' debate on their expenditure. I do not know what is their objective and motive for not taking part in the debate. Is it because they are leaving the country for holiday in the next seven days, or is there any other reason? To me, if the Opposition Members want to check on the Government, they should be taking part in debates and raising queries in Parliament on the various Ministries and Government Departments. Yet, they have not made any "cut" to any of the expenditure heads. I just find it most surprising and difficult to understand. Just now, the Member for Hougang touched on two points - reserves and big corporations. My Parliamentary colleague, Mr Choo Wee Khiang has already rebutted Mr Low Thia Khiang's allegation of Government establishments monopolising the market. In fact, the Government establishments are competing with the foreign enterprises and not with the local enterprises. Let us be very clear about this point. Furthermore, it is not the existence of these large establishments that brings inflation to us. In fact, it is when we start to make use of our national reserves that inflation will follow. To allocate some funds for subsidies only when we have surpluses is the right thing to do. If we subsidise heavily, what will be the result? It would be like what Mr Chiam said yesterday, the people would derive some short-term benefits. For example, the people would be able to buy more daily needs.”
“What worries me is that some Singaporeans, for example, the Member for Hougang, Mr Low Thia Khiang, have misunderstood the Government's intention for introducing such measures, and they think that the Government is gradually turning towards welfarism to subsidise the people. That is why he said this was an unprecedented move on the part of the Government to please the people. They may even mislead the other people into thinking that under the open and consultative style, the Government is beginning to go for softer policies. More seriously, some may even harbour the misunderstanding that the Government is acceding to the people's request to make use of the reserves to subsidize the people. I believe we should let the people understand and appreciate the Government's motive and sincerity. I hope that hereafter, whenever the Government is making any move to help the people, it would be more prudent and careful to prevent our people from cultivating the attitude of shou zhu dai tu (standing by a stump waiting for more hares to come and dash themselves against it), which means "trusting to chance and windfalls". If this is the case, it will be disastrous. Therefore, hereafter, when the Government implements such measures, it should exercise more prudence so that the people of Singapore will not receive the wrong signal. Otherwise, it may be detrimental to the long-term economic benefit of Singapore, and it is not in line with the Finance Minister's emphasis on thrift and frugality in his Budget Statement to save for the predicted slowing down in economic growth in the years to come. There is another point which I would like to raise here. It is a pity that both Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Ling How Doong are not here.”
“This is something which the Ministry of National Development should take note of. Another special feature of this year's Budget Statement is that the Government will pay the December 1992 service and conservancy charges for residents of 1-room, 2-room and 3-room HDB flats. This is equivalent to the income tax rebate granted to those who pay income tax. It is the Government's gesture of rewarding not only the high income earners but also having the interest of the lower income group at heart. A $1,000 tax relief for all active reservists and $500 for all who have done National Service but are not in the active service is yet another form of appreciation for the service rendered by all those who have served National Service. These tax reliefs are good measures. Therefore, I understand and appreciate the Government's good gesture. However, behind these tax reliefs are some causes for concern. Because, soon after the Government's announcement of the Edusave scheme where funds will be allocated to primary and secondary school students, the Government is expending another sum of money to pay the December conservancy charges for the lower income group in the 1-room, 2-room, and 3-room HDB flats, and allowing tax reliefs for reservists, in this year's Budget. This has created a worrying reaction among the people. The general reaction is that the handout is too little. To quote what Mr Chiam said yesterday, this is "peanut". There are also some who misconstrue the good gesture as the Government's attempt to please the people because of the coming by-election.”
“In this year's Budget, the Government provides heavy subsidies on public housing. On the development of public housing and estate management alone, some $1.11 billion has been allocated, taking up approximately 55% of the total expenditure of the Ministry of National Development. I feel that the Government should consider building smaller 4-room and 5-room HDB flats. This will help to avoid over-subsidy by the Government and also prevent the selling prices of HDB flats from escalating, resulting in many young Singaporeans complaining about the selling prices of new HDB flats being too high. They are under the misconception that the Government is intentionally lifting the selling prices on HDB flats without realising that the Government is actually subsidising heavily. Therefore, in order to meet the demand of these people, one possible alternative is to build some executive flats of smaller floor areas of, say, 800 sq ft for a 4-room flat or 1,000 sq ft for a 5-room flat. This will not only alleviate the purchasers' financial burden but also cut down the Government's expenditure from excessive subsidies. The savings from the subsidies could then be re-channelled to education and health care, thus benefitting more people at large. As for the larger and more luxurious apartments, they can be left to the private developers to build. There is no need for the Government to subsidize the building of this category of flats. Moreover, I notice that younger Singaporeans are very anxious to purchase a flat, the moment they get married. This has created a situation of demand exceeding supply for HDB flats. In a family, each sibling will own his own HDB flat the moment he or she gets married, which in a way has indirectly disintegrated the system of a traditional large family.”
“So I feel that Mr Low has too deep a bias against our Government companies and Government-linked companies. Of course, I am not saying that it is a perfect system. In the event of there being any shortcoming, I believe the Minister for Trade and Industry and other Government officials will remedy the situation. In any event, Mr Speaker, Sir, judging from the situation at the last General Election and the way we debated in this House, I hope that we would not fall into the trap of democracy. Philippines used to be the second richest country in Asia. The process in which they fought for democracy, and the consequences of their having fallen into the democracy trap, clearly demonstrated the fact that democracy and democracy alone cannot solve the imminent and real problems for the Philippines. If our Opposition Members keep on saying that they are looking after the interest of the people or trying to please the public with claptrap political arguments, then this is the democracy trap. If our democracy is not supported by national consensus and the rule of law, then we would not be enjoying our present prosperity and progress and the vision of many good years ahead. Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar GRC)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this year's Budget Statement. This can be said to be a budget which is not saltish, not bitter, but slightly sweet. It is also one which is circumspect and far-sighted. From the speeches in this House, yesterday and today, particularly from the Opposition MPs, we can safely conclude that there is no serious complaint or criticism on this Budget. What they talked about are mostly on the use of reserves and heavy subsidies. I have just a few observations to make.”
“Point of order. Mr Choo Wee Khiang( In Mandarin): Please let me finish before you talk. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question of land, population and cost of doing business here in Singapore, I truly agree with Dr Ow Chin Hock's view that we must allow the free market system to allocate our limited resources. But for the sake of public interest, Government intervention is still very important. Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that the Government should spare no effort to ensure that we have higher productivity and that wage cost is in direct proportion to labour productivity. At the same time, we must also give our enterprises, particularly the small and medium-sized enterprises, more assistance, especially in business management, consultancy, etc. I think this positive assistance will, in the long run, help our entrepreneurs who have the potential, to become more competitive and to grow even faster. Mr Speaker, Sir, just now, Mr Low said that Government companies and Government-linked companies are having a monopoly in the market in Singapore, much to the detriment of our Singapore enterprises. Is it a fact? Take a look at Singapore Airlines (SIA). How much profit and benefit have SIA brought to Singapore and what kind of good reputation has SIA built up for Singapore! Yes, it is a monopoly. However, if there were no support and assistance by the Government in the early stages, SIA would not be what it is today. At the same time, SIA also wants to get the best employees. Surely, if you want to perform well in the international market, in the business arena of the world, you must have a team of able and efficient people at the helm to steer the company through. Otherwise, it would not even survive.”
“I think it is not proper for him to make fun of other races.”
“A single person cannot buy a 5-room flat.”
“I think a better solution would be to give them more equal opportunities in relation to education and jobs. At one time the Government had this policy of giving priority of jobs to our national service boys, but it was found that one section of the community was not doing national service and I believe that policy was scrapped. I would urge the Government to look into this policy again. The national servicemen have to lay down their lives for the country. How are we going to peg an amount to their lives? This is an issue which cannot be equated to material benefits. And the end result is that this material benefit will in fact lead to greater dissatisfaction. Although one Member has said that the Minister has thought of innovative policies, this one policy must not be allowed to continue if we really want cohesive and patriotic national servicemen to defend our country. 1.50 pm”
“For a long time now, there should be an adjustment to give a little more benefit to our workers who have really helped Singapore's economy progress in the last 30 years. I would favour a cut in the workers' CPF contribution to 20 percentage points instead of the miserly half percentage point. 33If we do give the workers more money, this would put more money in the market and it will help our local retailers. When they have got more money to spend, it would lift some of the hardships of our shopkeepers. The one-off 5% tax rebate and refund of the service and conservancy charges for one month in respect of 1-, 2- and 3-room HDB flats is only a token amount. I now refer to the relief of $1,000 and $500 given to our national service boys. This material incentive, I say, is wrong in principle. It is too big an issue to settle it with material perks. As expected, most of our national service boys think that the tax reliefs given to them are peanuts. I am surprised to read that the Minister for Finance tried to justify the reliefs given as not insignificant when compared to the personal and earned income relief of $2,000 and $1,000 respectively. He must surely know that the personal relief and earned income relief have been fixed since 1967 and in fact they have attracted criticisms from all sectors of the public in that they are too low. Our national service is a necessity and our young boys must do compulsory military training under our law. They have got no choice. But what should be taught to them surely must be patriotism, duty to the country and to defend our way of life. That must surely be inculcated in all our national servicemen. And once an incentive is given there is no end to it. Of course, the end result is mercenaries. Surely we do not want that.”