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 41 of 85.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have got it in my notes that the Minister distinctly said that Mr Liem was informed inlate October 1990 of the losses of UIC. I am not referring to the long period of time in which he could gather this information. That was mentioned earlier in the Minister's speech. But, in the course of his statement, he said that under section 103(11) of the Securities Industry Act, there was a good defence if the buyer knew of the losses and both the buyer and the seller would stand on the same footing. After that, he said that this information was given to Mr Liem in late October 1990. I want to know whether this information was given orally or in writing to Mr Liem. If it is in writing, can he give us the date of the letter?”
“Can I ask the Minister to clarify? He said that Mr Liem was informed in late October 1990 of the losses of UIC. Was he informed orally or in writing and, if in writing, can he state the date of the letter?”
“Can the Minister say that, in fact, the logo of the PAP Community Foundation is similar to that of the political party? The main thrust of the logo is the lightning. Is that not very clearly identified with the political party?”
“Sir, the PAP logo is used in all these kindergartens, not only on the outside but also in exercise books and sometimes even on uniforms. Is that not a political purpose?”
“Sir, can the Minister say that the money spent is purely for educational purpose and not for political purposes?”
“Sir, it is true that Chinese medicine has been practised for thousands of years and, as has been mentioned by Mr Peh, for at least four thousand years. But that does not mean that there will be no quacks and unqualified persons claiming that they are qualified Chinese physicians. Especially with the pressure of modern society, more people are getting sick and fees for proper medicine by qualified doctors are beginning to rise, definitely the poorer Singaporeans will resort to Chinese medicine. So this danger in fact will rise with time and not diminish.”
“Sir, I am surprised to hear from the Minister that he is not taking any action to register Chinese physicians. One would think that after the problem has been aired in this House he would look into this question. By not registering Chinese physicians, there is a loophole for Singapore citizens to practise medicine without proper qualifications. And when that is done, it is definitely a danger to the public, as Mr Peh has rightly pointed out. He has read in the papers that a few Singaporeans have in fact suffered from treatments given by unqualified Chinese physicians. I would have thought that the Minister would at least say that he would look into this very important issue.”
“Sir, I hope what the Minister has said is true, because many Singaporeans have come to me on this point. The foreign spouses formerly may have been work permit holders, but they have stopped working in Singapore, and there are also cases of spouses from India which have been refused permission. Nevertheless, I withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $562,992,300 for Head Q ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $143,855,000 for Head Q ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.”
“Sir, does the Minister not know that any Singaporean wanting to marry a foreigner has to go to the Registry of Marriages? The couple has to register their names and they get a letter referring them to the Controller of Immigration. When they get clearance from the Controller of Immigration, then they can register and solemnize their marriage. This is in regard to marriage of Singaporeans to foreigners.”
“I can bring up cases where they want to marry Malaysians, they want to marry spouses from India, spouses from the Riau islands, and they are refused. I have done this personally and I know that. How can you say that no Singaporeans are prevented from marrying? That is absolutely not true.”
“But the Government is stopping Singaporeans from marrying all the time. Some hon. Members: No.”
“Sir, I am really astounded to hear the Minister say that the Government cannot prevent anyone from marrying. Is he referring to marrying in Singapore or marrying elsewhere? He must clarify it. An hon. Member: Marry in Singapore.”
“Sir, for a Government which prides itself on being so rational, the Minister says that the spouse who is a foreigner is told that after marriage, he may not be allowed to stay in Singapore. This is the most irrational policy I have known of. Fancy allowing a couple to marry and then they say, "Look, one of you may have to be kicked out from Singapore." What sort of policy is that? I think the Minister should look into this.”
“Sir, I am dissatisfied with the Minister's answer. In the case of England, he quoted that once the citizen can prove that he is economically viable, he will get permission to marry a foreigner almost as of right or to bring a foreigner in. The Minister has stated that basically the citizen must be able to look after himself, the spouse and the family and as of right he would be allowed to marry a foreign spouse. I think it is no consolation to say that the approval rate is high at 70%. The 30% Singaporeans who have married foreign spouses will be in a dilemma. They will soon have a nervous breakdown and any time the family will be broken up. I think there must be a more permanent and more predictable policy. The Minister has also not answered this point that I have brought up in my speech. How can they reconcile Government's policy of wanting to promote the family on the one hand - even in our law books, husbands and wives must promote the union - and on the other hand, the Government, by administrative means, is breaking up families? I think this is the most unsatisfactory situation in Singapore. Many people are quite concerned about it.”
“The cases that I have personal knowledge of are that either the foreign spouses are here on a work permit, or I believe they have got a long stay. And their stay here has been on a regular basis, as long as over two years, and that is the reason why they have two children.”
“These are cases of Singaporeans given permission to marry foreigners.”
“They have children and they have bought HDB flats and roots were allowed to grow here. Then suddenly they receive a letter from the Controller of Immigration, requiring either the foreign husband or the foreign wife to leave Singapore at short notice. Can you imagine the panic and the trauma of the family? Sir, at this point, I have to declare my interest. I have professionally acted for a few of them. These are not isolated cases. I have been involved with at least over 10 of such cases since I was elected as a Member of Parliament. The situation was particularly bad in 1985 and 1986 when our economic situation was not so good. There was widespread retrenchment then. Many foreign spouses lost their jobs and when they were unable to get alternative employment, their work permits would then lapse. Once that happened, the Controller of Immigration would ask the foreign spouse to leave Singapore. Sir, when the spouses are separated, how can they protect or safeguard the union of the marriage and in particular the children will suffer. As we know, children need both the father as well as the mother for good upbringing. Will there be widespread breaking up of marriages when there is the next big downturn of the economy? From whatever point of view we look at it, the tearing apart and breaking up of marriages is certainly a bad policy. The Government should review it. It is harsh, cruel and inhuman to forcibly break up families. The real sufferers are of course the children of the marriage. I wish that the Minister will seriously look into this problem and allow these marriages to continue once a Singaporean is given permission to marry a foreigner.”
“I am much obliged to, Sir. Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by $10 in respect of Code QH 1500 of the Main Estimates. Sir, recently Parliament had a long debate on the National Ideology or Shared Values. The Government by the second Shared Value expected all Singaporeans to make the family the building block of society. Such sentiments are in fact already contained in our legislation. Section 45 (1) of the Women's Charter, Chapter 353, makes it mandatory for the husband and the wife to safeguard the marriage and to care for the children of the marriage. That section states: "Upon the solemnization of the marriage, the husband and the wife shall be mutually bound to co-operate with each other in safeguarding the interest of the union and in caring and providing for the children." Members of this House, I am sure, are aware that the Women's Charter was enacted pursuant to a PAP election promise in 1959. The PAP promised to protect the rights of women and the Women's Charter made marriages in Singapore monogamous and it regulated also the relationship between husband, wife and children. This is a good piece of legislation and I support it. The aims of section 45(1) are good. It is only right that marriages should be protected and safeguarded and that both parents be made responsible for the care of the children. The aims of the Government in respect of the family in Singapore cannot be challenged, yet in practice, what do we see? For many Singaporeans the high sounding aims of the Government in respect of protecting the marriage are flouted, not once but repeatedly flouted, and even today! Many Singaporeans have been allowed to marry foreign spouses. They have a happy married life.”
“Is the Minister saying that it is not likely that he would be carefully observed at night and that in the day he can be observed more carefully?”
“Sir, another point which I do not really understand is that if he were to be allowed on the mainland for most of the time and if he were really bent on trying, as the Minister claims, to overthrow the Government by force, he could have done it. So what is the difference? He has eight hours away from Singapore and he has got 16 hours here. Why do you not allow him to come to the mainland completely? I do not see the logic in allowing him most of the time here and still wanting him to go back to Sentosa. Why do you want to cause him so much inconvenience?”
“May I have a clarification from the Minister. Since there is no more threat of communism in Singapore, should Mr Chia Thye Poh be made to disavow his claims of trying to overthrow Singapore by force? Since there is already no communism, what is there for him to disavow? I cannot understand the Minister.”
“Sir, since the introduction of the car quota system last year, many batches of the Certificates of Entitlement (COEs) were not taken up when the period of bidding expired. It would appear the car quota system was either prematurely introduced or was unnecessary. For the first two quarters in May and August last year, there were 151 expired COEs unused. For the third tender in September 1990, 9% of the quota expired unused. For the fourth and fifth tenders in October and September, there were 15% and 4.5% respectively of the COEs not used up. It clearly shows that the supply of COEs exceeded their demand. All the large sums of money paid for those quotas appeared to have been wasted as far as the car owners are concerned. But they are revenue for the Government. The 9% run-up of new motor car vehicles in the early part of 1990 was an anomaly. In actual fact, no such increase occurred over the year. I would ask the Minister to declare a COE at zero dollars when a quota is not fully taken up. This would discourage the speculation of the quotas. The intention of the quota system was to limit the growth of cars. But since there is no excessive growth in the number of cars, the Government should not make profit out of the quota system. The costs of cars in Singapore are not cheap even without the COEs. In September 1990, the public had to pay $2,649 for one COE for the 1,000 cc to 1,600 cc category. This is a sizeable amount when the cost of the car was about $50,000. Usage control is a fairer method of reducing car congestion. I would urge the Government to speed up the implementation of the weekend car.”
“Mr Chairman, can I have a clarification from the Minister? He says that as far as his Ministry's investigation goes, there is only a marginal difference in prices between the food at private hawker centres and at the Government ones. Could the Minister tell me which private hawker centres he is referring to? I have personal knowledge of this matter. There is one private hawker centre at High Street Centre and there is a neighbouring Government hawker centre at Empress Place Transit Hawker Centre. The price differential there is about 20-25%. A bowl of mee at the Government hawker centre costs only $1.50. The minimum price at the private hawker centre is $2. As for coffee, without milk it is 40 cents at the Government hawker centre and 50 cents at the private hawker centre. With milk, it is 50 cents at the Government hawker centre and 60 cents at the private hawker centre.”
“Workers are quite dependent on hawker centres. The present system seems to be doing well and should be preserved. Government runs substantial budget surpluses every year. Why the need for additional income? In any event, the Government will soon be introducing the consumption tax and it can get additional revenue from that source and need not earn additional money from hawker centres. Is the Ministry of the Environment finding it burdensome to run hawker centres? If it does, then it should follow the example of the HDB. The HDB has divested all the common property in housing estates to Town Councils for them to maintain. Likewise, the Environment Ministry can hand over the management of hawker centres situated in each town to the relevant Town Councils. This is one way out, rather than turning hawker centres into commercial ventures to reap hefty profits out of them.”
“Sir, privatisation of hawker centres like the privatisation of Government hospitals will only mean one thing, ie, costs will go up. It is estimated that when the hawker centres are privatised, stall rentals will go up four or five times from its current levels and food prices will cost between 20% and 25% more. At the more lucrative hawker centres, stall rentals will become quite substantial and food prices there will also be higher than the less lucrative spots. Hawker centres are traditional places where cheap food can be bought. The Government has declared that its policy is to maintain reasonably low prices of food at hawker centres so that workers need not pay too much on food and also to keep the cost of living down. In the past, when hawkers raised their food prices unreasonably, they were quickly warned by the Ministry not to do so. As a result, food prices at Government hawker centres have been kept fairly low and stable all these years. Due to low food prices at hawker centres, nearly all workers eat at hawker centres. Families also regularly eat out at hawker centres. Often they do so out of convenience. Both spouses in the family have to work long hours and they just do not have the time to cook and neither can they afford to employ a maid to do the cooking for them as the salaries are now quite prohibitive. Many Singaporeans therefore are quite dependent on hawker centres for their food. When privatisation comes, food prices will increase. Workers will have to pay more and they naturally will want more pay. Privatisation of hawker centres will thus be inflationary to our economy. I think it is not right for the Government to change its policy. Instead of preserving the low price of food at hawker centres, it wants to make money out of them.”
“--- lessees of HDB flats who would like to engage their own private solicitors. But the scale fees at the moment are quite prohibitive.”
“Sir, there are large transactions of resale of HDB flats. I wonder if the Minister is willing to look into the scale fees in relation to the resale of HDB flats. At the moment, I believe the lawyers in the HDB are charging a rate which is very much below the present scale fees for private properties. I wonder whether the Minister can look into this area and have a set of scale fees which is perhaps lower than the scale fees relating to private property but slightly above that of the HDB rate because there are many ---”
“Educationally, I would say forcing our school children to sit for a common examination at an early age is not sound and I would in fact advocate that even the common examination in the fourth year be scrapped. There are other bad effects. A child at an early age is a very sensitive person. Once he is branded as a failure at age nine or 10, it is very difficult for him to rehabilitate himself. So I would suggest that instead of taking the easy way out, the Minister should look into the source of the problem.”
“Sir, I just want to touch on one point, and that is the postponement of the third year of primary school common examination to the fourth year. This has been very much highlighted by the Government and was said to be an improvement. But, Sir, I do not think that it would help those that are slow developers. As far as that group of children is concerned, if they cannot pass the common examination in the first year of schooling, they probably will not do so in the fourth year or the next year after. It is well known amongst educationists that the development of the cognitive abilities of the average child does not markedly develop at ages nine and 10 years old. For the average children, they begin to do so only after 11 years old. So if you postpone it by one year, it will not make any difference to this particular group of slow developers. As far as we can see, this is the so-called major change in delaying this common examination by one year. And to me, this is not based on educational considerations but on political ones. It is well known that in the early years before the Goh Keng Swee Report was implemented, which introduced the common examination at the third year of primary school, the rate of attrition of the PSLE examination was very high, something like 45% to 48%. It was a source of embarrassment to the Government. To solve that problem, it is not to weed out the so-called weaker students but rather to improve the quality of our school system such as having a low pupil-teacher ratio, which I have advocated for many years. I welcome the single session school. This is an improvement on our education system. We want more effective teaching. We want our teachers better trained and better motivated, and then perhaps we can really tackle the problem at its source.”
“Well, the important point for the Minister to look into is whether the HDB has lost its aim of providing social needs at affordable prices. It would appear that the HDB has gone overboard. It has forgotten that it is a public body and that it is not a private company, all out to make profit. As has been pointed out, with all these high rentals and purchase price, the residents at HDB flats will have to pay a higher cost of living, if the HDB continues to maintain this tender system. I would ask the Minister whether or not he will balance the social needs and the probability of the HDB bringing down the shop rentals and purchase prices to a reasonable amount. The Minister has asked for suggestions. I would say that although there is an actual shortage of shops, the prices could be pegged to a reasonable market price. The HDB can never lose money.”
“I am much obliged, Sir. Sir, I would like to touch on this tender system again which the Minister has answered just now. The high cost of renting and the sale of purchase flats were first highlighted by the hon. Member for Nee Soon South yesterday. Of course this system is good for the HDB because there is a shortage of shops and there is a great demand for them. When there is a tender, the prices will skyrocket. The Minister himself has pointed out the vast difference between the prices of the old system of renting out and the present tender system. There is almost a difference of $20 per square metre. We have also heard of absolute prices of $3 million sale of shops and $3,000 rentals and I myself have similar experience at Potong Pasir. I was astounded to learn that one coffeeshop was tendered out at $36,000 per month rental. And I was just wondering how such high rentals can survive in the market. How can the tenant do such a great amount of business to make a profit? And sure enough, three months later, he had to give the shop back to the HDB and this was not that long ago. The Minister has said that there were safeguards. I wonder whether the safeguards really have been implemented or not. The important question is: why does the HDB accept such high tender price? I think it is in a way irresponsible on the part of the HDB. Surely, after 30 years of experience in the real estate business, it must know that such high tender price is not sustainable.”
“But the "guillotine" time is at 1.10 pm, Sir.”
“Yes, I passed the chance yesterday. But I want to speak today.”
“Sir, I have an amendment to Head U, item (7), and I would like to claim my right to speak on this amendment.”
“Sir, I have made enquiry of the development of the hot spring in Sembawang in 1989. At that time, I asked whether the Government intended to develop the Sembawang hot spring into a tourist and recreational facility. Up to now, the Government has been very quiet. There is no news that any development has been intended or carried out. I should like to ask the Minister what decisions have been made, if any, in respect of the Sembawang hot spring. In the early days, the spring was opened to the public. It was a popular spot and it is the only hot spring in Singapore. Many Singaporeans visited it regularly and even visitors from Peninsular Malaysia came to use its water. It was reputed to be able to cure skin diseases. The area, unfortunately, in which the hot spring is situated, has been sealed off for many years now. The public cannot have access to it. It is regrettable that many young Singaporeans do not even know that a hot spring exists in Singapore. I would like to say that since the hot spring is the only natural phenomenon that we have, it should be converted to a public park and made accessible to members of the public. I would urge the Government to quickly develop it so that it can be used as a tourist and recreational spot.”
“Yes, Sir. There is a good case for shortening the full-time national service training period and I urge the Minister to look into this seriously, perhaps with the SAF think-tank boys. 2.00 pm”
“Many male youths have complained that their female classmates have a two-year headstart on them in the university. Their female classmates graduate earlier. They start work earlier. They also get income earlier and they are more senior in their jobs. A shorter full-time NS period can mitigate this situation. Some of the school leavers need to help their family immediately and they are required to start work perhaps to supplement the family income to help their sick parents or their brothers and sisters who may still be in school. One of our major economic problems in Singapore today is the acute shortage of workers. There is therefore a crying economic need to release may of our male youths into the labour market rather than tie them up doing longer full-time NS than is necessary. In the early days when national service was first introduced, there was perhaps justification in rounding up all our male youths to make them do lengthy periods of NS training. There was mass unemployment at that time. Therefore, national service was a good means to keep male youths off the streets. If not, they would surely create social problems. Times have changed. There is full employment today. Our economy is kept going by massive imports of foreign workers. Therefore, it does not make sense to keep our male youths off the labour market at great cost to our nation. Two hon. Members last year pointed out that we are in fact spending more than 6% of GNP on our defence. The country has to spend more than that if we take into account the great number of foreign workers we have to import to take the place of our male youths who could have entered the labour market if not for the necessity to do full-time national service for longer periods.”
“All right. I will get on with my speech then. Sir, I have called for the reduction of full-time national service (NS) since 1987. I am making this same plea to the Minister again. My view is that for the majority of our NS boys, there is no need to spend so much time on their first instance military training. In Switzerland and Germany, full-time national service periods are 19 weeks and 1 1/2 years respectively. For many years, German male youths need only to do nine months in full-time national service. A few years back, they extended the period to 1 1/2 years, but it is still a much shorter period than ours. Switzerland, a country which is so intent on national security, can manage with 19 weeks of full-time national service period. Sir, at this point, I would like to make it clear that I am not for a moment advocating that we do away with national service or for not building a credible defence force. National security must always be on the top of our list of national priorities. But there are merits for a call for the reduction of full-time national service for the majority of our male youth citizens. There may be some NS intakes who may need to spend more time in full-time national service if they man the more sophisticated weapons. It is perhaps justified for them to spend a little bit more time, if it is needed to train them to use modern, complicated and sophisticated weapons. The Gulf War has illustrated quite clearly that future wars have to be high-tech wars. But for the majority, if they are only to be infantry soldiers, there is no real need to spend up to 2 1/2 years for full-time training. A shorter full-time NS period will definitely help our male youths in both their higher studies and in their job careers.”
“Sir, before I go on with my speech, I would like the Member for Serangoon Gardens to clarify one point.”
“All this goes to show that there is need for closer scrutiny on the expenditure of public funds.”
“One would think that library services are something which would rank as important as any school needs. More money should have been expended on this very important area, but it has not been done. Then on page 199 of the financial statement, one sees that a large sum of about $340,000 is given to upgrade furniture of 30 Residents' Committees. I do not know why they need so much money to upgrade furniture. At my MP's office, we buy chairs at only between $12 and $15 each. Why do Residents' Committees need to expend thousands of dollars of public money on furniture? I think this is a sure case of over-extravagance. Residents' Committees must be told to practise economy. One Member has already commented on the sums of money spent unnecessarily by the Government. On page 199, we note that the People's Association is given a capital grant of nearly $6 million. As far as I know, only PAP constituencies enjoy that money. At Potong Pasir, as an Opposition Member, I do not see one cent of that large sum of money paid out at public expense. There is another item which has perplexed me. On page 117 of the financial statement, I note that the Ministry of Defence spent about $1.4 million on official celebrations. Why that large sum of money? I would like the Minister to explain under what circumstances and for what occasion or occasions such a big amount has been approved by him. I have only picked up a few items from the financial statements to show that the Government can improve and be more prudent in spending public money. It has been shown that in areas that the Government needs to spend more money, they do not do so, and then in areas that are seemingly unimportant, large sums of money have been freely disbursed.”
“Will it be the CPF Board (and starting early to have each citizen have an account at the CPF Board) or the Ministry of Education? Why incur all the additional expenses to maintain this massive Edusave Scheme? Would it not be better to plough back the added administrative cost to our school children? As regards the goods and services tax (GST), the people of Singapore await with trepidation the arrival of the implementation of the goods and services tax. When the Bill comes before Parliament, there will surely be a full debate on it. Meanwhile, I can only say that the GST is a backward step. Such a tax was widely opposed in Japan, and I am certain it will be equally unpopular in Singapore. Effectively, it will make Singapore lose its free port status when nearly all the goods will come under this tax. Cost of living in Singapore will surely rise, and Singapore will be less competitive as a tourist designation. The working people of Singapore generally will surely suffer. The SDP will oppose the GST. I have the opportunity of going through the financial statements. On pages 198 and 199, I note that the Government spent only about $880,000 (less than a million dollars) towards grants for development of day care centres. I would say that that amount is surely not enough. There is a crying need for more day care centres, especially when there are increased births over the last two years, and many mothers need also to work to supplement the family income. The funds allocated to building of child care centres must be increased by at least two-fold. On page 198 of the financial statement, we see that less than half a million dollars ($450,000) was spent in direct development of libraries. Why this small amount?”
“It is high time the Minister reviewed this issue more seriously and come up with fiscal policies to assist our local businessmen more meaningfully. It must be remembered that they do not have ready-made international markets like the multi-national companies. If there is a new fiscal policy, it is almost certain that there shall be an increase in cost to our local businessmen. This has been the trend. It is common knowledge that the local Chambers of Commerce have been asking the Government to keep down the costs of doing business in Singapore, but they have all not been heeded. One concrete step the Government could have taken in this budget to assist local entrepreneurs is to have lowered the corporate tax rate to 30%, but the Government has refused to do so. Now, as regards Edusave, the majority of people in Singapore do not believe in the sincerity of the Government in introducing this programme. They see it as a political gimmick to win votes at the next elections. Education must surely be the responsibility of the Government, in particular to those children in the lower-income group, regardless of whether there is an Edusave programme or not. Under the Edusave programme the Government apparently gives $100 per child per year, but at the same time it will inevitably take back that money through higher ECA fees, higher school fees and university fees. Then, one would ask: Why bother to have the Edusave Scheme at all, if it were not for a political reason? The administrative cost of administering the Edusave programme for 500,000 school children must be substantial to the Government. Which department will take care of the Edusave programme?”
“The Gulf War had made the latter half of 1990 and the beginning of this year a difficult time for the majority of our local shopkeepers. It is well known that the tourist arrivals during that period were low. Our local businessmen reported a drastic drop in business over the December peak holiday season. I was also told that hotel occupancy rates were low. I was informed that one five-star hotel had only 45% occupancy in January of this year. Therefore, I would say that an additional 5% income tax rebate, and also taking into account the cut in one-half percentage point of the employee's CPF contribution, would not contribute to an inflationary pressure on our economy. The extra money that would go into the hands of Singaporeans would quickly be mopped up by the higher costs imposed on the people by the Government, and not go to overheat the economy, as some people would fear. Because, in any event, the people already have less money in their hands due to the bad economic situation over the last half year or so. Business people in Singapore say that this year's budget is a letdown. They expected the corporate tax and the personal income tax rates to be reduced. I agree with them. The income tax rate for both companies as well as individuals should have been lowered to 30% each. A lower corporate tax rate would make Singapore more competitive internationally and, in particular, a great help and boost to our struggling local businessmen, in view of the fact that they now have to pay a higher employers' CPF rate. There is only lip-service given by the Government to help our local small and medium-sized enterprises. In reality, almost nothing effective has been done for them.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. This year's budget is a great disappointment to the man-in-the-street. The one-time 5% income tax rebate is really parsimonious when compared to the hefty surplus which the Government has again accumulated. If another 5% tax rebate had been given, it would have been more reasonable. A 10% income tax rebate would have been more reflective of the reward given to the people for their contribution towards making last year another successful one for Singapore. The Government always commends itself for the success of Singapore. Actually, the people of Singapore play an equally important part. The people of Singapore are responsible and always respond to the call of the Government, whether it is in relation to wage restraint, to be economically more productive, to serve in national service, to be more productive in terms of having more babies, or whatever policy of the day, which needed their cooperation. Yet, what do the people get in return at budget time? This year, it is a miserly 5% income tax rebate, at a time when the Government can well afford it, and the average working man can barely make ends meet due to the high costs imposed on them by the Government, in particular over the last two years. Is there Asian-style gratefulness on the part of the Government given in return for the wholehearted support of the people for the various Government policies? I would say, No. The people of Singapore have to fend for themselves all the way, whether it be overcoming poverty, often through no fault of theirs, health care, education or housing. The people have to pay, often at great sacrifices, for these social services.”
“Therefore, he would agree with me then. He should not say that he cannot believe his ears.”
“I am sad to say that my friend from Cheng San GRC has not answered the questions that I have put to him. Does he not agree with my statement now that some Singaporeans would object if Singapore forms an economic union with Malaysia? He has not answered it. He is talking about businessmen.”
“Does he not agree that how a man dresses or what car a man drives, it does in a way reflect on his character, his attitude? My point is that this book "The Next Lap" is so extravagantly published, it is like a commercial glossy magazine. Does it not reflect also on the leadership? My point is that it does. I hope the Member for Cheng San GRC would clarify and agree with me on these two points.”
“I want to make myself clear so that he understands me.”
“Yes, Sir. I want to clarify. After hearing my reasons, he may want to change his position.”