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 48 of 85.
“Yes, I will take them together. I am much obliged to you. Mr Chairman, just before I was elected in 1984 as Member of Parliament for Potong Pasir, there were three community centres there - two were modern and were new generation types and one was built as an extension of the void deck at Lorong 8, Toa Payoh. Soon after I was elected two of the said three community centres were taken away. There was no justification at all for such a move, especially the one at Jalan Wangi, Sennett Estate. That building was planned and built partly out of public funds, specifically to be used as a community centre. It was modern and equipped with all social, cultural, educational and sporting facilities. It was a popular community centre, especially with residents at Sennett Estate and its vicinity. When the Government took it over, the use of that community centre was changed, contrary to all Government planning regulations from that of social, cultural, education and recreational use to that of an office use. As for the other community centre at Lorong 8 Toa Payoh, it was left idle for over four years. Recently, I was told, it has been tendered out to the public. I shall welcome this move if it is tendered out to the private sector for use as a play school or as a creche. I have brought up this matter of community centres in my constituency in this House before. And I was not satisfied with the reasons given on why the said two community centres were taken away and the remaining one at Potong Pasir Avenue 2 not handed over to me. As far as I know, all the PAP MPs are made in charge of community centres in their respective constituencies. In the case of Potong Pasir, the situation is most perplexing. I have been elected into Parliament not once but twice with increased votes.”
“Sir, I shall be speaking on community centres in Opposition constituencies.”
“So I think we could do with three or four universities, instead of just an additional one. If we have another university here, I am sure we can attract a lot of students from the region. I think it would be good in a way to promote Asean closeness if they have students coming here to study. They would go back and they would not declare war on us, I am sure.”
“Sir, I rise to support the hon. Members for Ulu Pandan and Thomson's call for an additional university. They have made good points and I shall try to add one or two more. Sir, as the society becomes more affluent our middle-class society becomes larger, I think most middle-class parents would like to see every one of their children to be in the university. Therefore, I think there is really a demandfor a third university. And I think the number of children going abroad is not 11,000, but I believe it is 12,500. So there is a need really for a third university. As regards funds, there is really no excuse. Our Government can well afford to have a third university and maintain it. Sir, one of the fears of the Government of having too many university graduates is that they feel that it will politically destabi- lize our society. I can assure the Government that they need have no such fear because our society now is well educated. I do not think university students who come out will go about throwing stones and breaking windows. On the contrary, they will contribute to the economy of the country. And that is not my view, that is the view of Dr Albert Winsemius. He said that one of the ways of promoting indigenous entrepreneurs is to have more university graduates. All university graduates are supposed to be taught to think. If they are out of job, then they will really think and start business themselves, and that is where we can have our indigenous entrepreneurs. Sir, as regards the ratio, I think we are definitely behind most countries. I know that in New Zealand, where I had my first university degree, they have something like four universities there. At that time they only had a population of 2.5 million or so.”
“Mr Chairman, there are many altruistic and good Singaporeans who are willing to become teachers. Many of them want to become teachers. But the Government has made it just impossible or almost difficult for them to become teachers. They have to be loaded with all sorts of administrative work, they have to do all kinds of jobs that are not related to the teaching profession. You ask any teacher, and they can list the whole lot to you. I think that is the true position.”
“I believe the Minister is misleading this House. It was not for a short while. For your information, I was a teacher for more than 10 years, and I did it out of voluntary service. I not only taught in Singapore but I went to the jungles of Pahang to teach as well.”
“I think the Minister, instead of asking the question why there are not enough Singaporeans coming to become teachers, he should ask the question: why are Singaporeans not willing to become teachers?”
“No, you said you can't recruit teachers.”
“Sir, before the amendment is withdrawn, the Minister has not answered this specific question whether they are or they are not going to reduce the class size of our schools.”
“It will be today, Sir. It will be this afternoon.”
“Sir, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Westerners have entrenched in their political systems institutional checks and balances to prevent any one getting absolute power. Hence the recognition of the role of the media to legitimately criticize the Government of the day. They recognize pressure groups and the active role of the opposition to be a watchdog of the government and to make the Government account for its action or as an alternative government. Western political philosophy recognizes the role of the people. They have a right to actively question the Government on any one of its policies, even though they have given the government mandate to rule the country at a general election. These are the western influences the PAP Government does not like. It is now shifting its stand. The Government has gone against its earlier policy and now intends to revive mother tongue of the various communities and the teaching of Asian and core values.”
“I have got one more at amendment No. (7), Sir.”
“I know, but I have got another cut. I will forgo even that, if need be.”
“Sir, it is a western philosophy. I have got another cut, Sir. I can use that up.”
“No, I am pointing out what the Government has done.”
“That is right. I am pointing out that the Government has gone astray on all these subjects except the class size. I think I have a right to do that. I am not straying, Sir.”
“No. I am pointing out that the Government has not addressed this specific issue of class size.”
“We have emphasized English as a key factor for Singapore's economic development and as a common working language in our multi-racial society.' Then suddenly the Government had second thoughts on the emphasis on English language alone. This is what the Minister said in this regard: 'Today, all pupils learn English as a first language. As a result our children are increasingly exposed to Western influences, particularly through the media.' What are the Western influences which the Government is unhappy about? Disco dancing? Surely not. The Government has given its official stand on disco dancing and by implication together with all the loud metallic music and the way of life that goes with disco dancing. What about the Western capitalist concept of making vast profits? Is the Government against that? Surely not. The Government through one of its Ministers has said that profits is not a dirty word. Then what is the western influence that the Government is so fearful of? The western influence that this Government fears most is western political influence. Westerners, through their long eventful political history, have found that no single party, group or person must be given full political power.”
“If the Government really wants to promote excellence in education, I say reduce the class size in our primary and secondary schools, other than the independent schools now. I know it is going to cost the Government hundreds of millions of dollars but it is well within the budgetary means of the Government and the Government should not use the lack of funds as an excuse. This priority to further invest more money in education with a specific purpose to reduce our class size is even more pressing in my view than the intended increase of salaries of selected top civil servants and Ministers. This is what I really think so. Thousands of our future citizens' livelihood depend on whether or not they get a good education. I say that many of them will not get a good education, especially in the primary school level if this Government persists in maintaining over-crowded schools. It is within our economy to maintain the average class size of our primary and secondary schools at 30 students per class and I advocate that and I call upon this Government to implement this policy straightaway and not to drag its feet anymore. I know at the last time the Minister has assured that he will take steps to ease the overcrowding in the school, but the question is when. I want the Government to give an assurance that it will do so now. We do not want any more excuses. In the addendum to the President's Address to Parliament on 9th January this year the Minister had only nice things to say and that was about all. There was nothing in the addendum specifically spelt out which will benefit the pupil. The Minister said: 'Since 1980 we have achieved significant progress in unifying and improving our education system.”
“The sad part is that it is through no fault of these pupils at all and they have to suffer the traumatic experience of a failure in the start of their academic life at such a tender age. It is our education system that is the culprit and it is squarely to be blamed. The structure of our education system still maintains large classes in our schools. It is impossible for our teachers to teach pupils the English language effectively if the pupils come from homes which do not have that language as a background. Educationally, it is difficult to teach an average pupil to master enough English in three years to sit a national examination if that pupil did not have a head start in that language. The reason why many of the pupils who are able to pass Primary 3 examinations and also the Primary 6 examinations three years later in their school life was not due solely to the teaching in their schools, but due to private tutors employed by their parents to coach them to pass those examinations. I am not against parents employing private tutors to coach their children who are weak in any particular subject. But what I am objecting to is that poor students will be at a disadvantage. Their parents are too poor to engage tutors to give them extra lessons and their schools, due to the large classes, the teachers will not be able to teach them effectively. As a result, of course they fail. An innocent victim of our education system. No wonder many teachers of the schools have been advising the parents to engage private tutors for their children if they are weak in any particular subject, especially in the Primary 3 and Primary 6 levels.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I have brought this question of class size up last year in this House. The Minister promised to look into it. At that time I said our schools were overcrowded. The situation today is still the same. The average class in our schools has an enrolment of about 40 to 43 pupils, except the independent schools. It was announced by the Government that each class in an independent school would have about 25 pupils. In this respect, Sir, the right move has been made as far as the independent school is concerned. But why is this same policy not extended to other schools? We know that a teacher can never teach effectively when his or her class is large. A class of 40 pupils is definitely too big. It is impossible for a teacher to teach meaningfully a class of this size. This is particularly more so in primary schools, especially in Singapore where language speaking is so important. Many Malay, Chinese and Indian families do not use the English language at all in their home. Many Chinese still use dialects. The children of these families are enrolled in our primary school at the age of 6 years and they are expected to master the English language and in the case of Chinese pupils, also Mandarin as a second language. Within three years, these children are expected to sit a national examination where the English language will feature prominently. It is a great achievement for many of our pupils to pass the Primary 3 qualifying examination in view of the fact that these pupils do not have a home grounding in the English language and also a class size of primary schools which is so large. Of course, pupils have failed in the Primary 3 examinations and were sent to the Monolingual or Vocational stream.”
“[entered the Chamber] Can you repeat it again?”
“As long as the Emperor carried out his duty to provide food, shelter and clothing for his subjects, they were obliged to obey him. We have heard the Minister for Finance on 14th March in this House announce that the Government has discharged fully its primary duty to the people by meeting all their basic needs. By implication, Sir, is the Government saying that it then has the right to rule Singapore in an absolute manner? There is no room for democracy, there is no room for open debates on government policies, no room for opposition in Singapore's political system, since they have provided the basic necessities? Once the Government begins to talk in the Confucian language and to behave in an authoritarian manner, just because it has carried out its duty of providing Singaporeans with the basic necessities, then our society will surely begin to rot from within. Corruption of power will set in followed by widespread nepotism, just like the old empires in China. Confucius' teachings had been misused by Emperors in old China to the detriment of that country. If we launch an all-out effort to establish Confucianism in Singapore, could it not also be misused by a later govern- ment? Who will give us that assurance that future governments will not use Confucius' teachings once it is established here for their own benefit?”
“Mr Chairman, the proposed teaching of core values in our schools, to in my mind, is going to be a regressive step in our efforts of nation building. In nation building, we must aim for unity, we must remove all divisive factors. For 30 years since attaining self-government, racial harmony has been a cornerstone in our society. What is going to happen when we teach the core values in our schools as has been suggested in some quarters? Chinese Singaporeans probably will be made to study Confucianism, our Malay and Muslim Singaporeans will study Islam, and our Indian brethrens will be taught Indian traditions. Each ethnic community in Singapore will eventually be different. They will not be able to attain a common Singapore identity. The Chinese, through the influence of Confucius teachings, will become more Chinese. The Malays will be drawn closer together as a group with Islam as a strong rallying point. And the Indians will be more Indian. They will identify themselves strongly with Indian traditions and culture. Sir, the teaching of core values will thus be a disruptive effective on our multi-racial society. It will undo what we have achieved in racial peace and progress over all these years. Sir, the other point I want to bring up is that teaching of core values will also impede our progress towards a truly democratic society which is the aim of our national pledge. Confucianism will feature prominently in the teaching of our core values. Confucius lived in fedual times and he had never heard of words such as democracy, opposition parties, or general elections. Confucius advocated filial piety which is a philosophy in itself. When translated into political terms, it means blind obedience to authority. In Confucius' time, authority meant authority of the Emperor.”
“MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1989 TO 31ST MARCH, 1990 Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [3rd Allotted Day]. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 2.27 pm Head O -”
“I have given you the reasons slow promotions, better prospects outside, some felt that their CEP was unfairly assessed, which really meant that they were promoted too slowly. I have not heard of anybody who left because he belongs to the wrong political party. And in any case, the Government does not promote. The Public Service Commission promotes. And I do not know which political party the PSC belongs to, unless Dr Lee is making the same suggestion apropos the PSC, as his colleague and he himself was making apropos the Supreme Court. But I take it that he isn't. On study leave, Dr Lee has a point. It is a great desire of officers to go on study leave. They have got Bachelor degrees, they want Masters degrees. It is like collecting stamps. If you have one, you want another one, and want to collect it at the right point of a person's career. There are people who say, "We want to go on study leave." That's all right. "I will send you when you are 33 years old." He says, "Too late." Why? Wives have jobs, children born. "So when do you want to go?" "Must be at the eighth year." I am not sure that we can be so generously accommodating as all that. It is subject to the exigencies of the service. But I think study leave is one area where we can be very competitive, relative to the private sector. I told you that the SAF is going to do this. And I think the Civil Service will do this. But let me also tell you that we have already been generous. The trouble is not that we do not have scholarships but we do not have people to give the scholarships to, because the worthy candidates have resigned by the time it comes to go on mid-career programmes. So it is a really serious problem.”
“Small numbers. BG Lee Hsien Loong: I am glad Mr Chiam has such confidence in the system. It is so, but no private company pays people automatically, regardless of performance. So why is the Government special? Yes, performance bonuses have failed before. And in certain schools, teachers did not want to assess and did not want to be ranked. Everybody is a good teacher. That is why we are starting small with Superscale officers and the Administrative Service, and only taking steps which we are confident of taking. Beyond that, let us prove the scheme first. When it works, we will extend it further. Just because it has failed once does not mean it is a bad idea, because we are not the only people in the world to use performance bonuses. All private companies do, big ones even. So if they can tell who is good and who is bad, why should the Government be so blind as to be unable to distinguish? In fact, one of the complaints which many people have is that in the Civil Service, we are not discriminating enough and many free riders benefit when the deserving few are rewarded. So we have to find some way. I do not minimize the difficulties, but a way has to be found around it. I do not know how many foreigners we recruit. I think we take those who are suitable and capable, and for the key services, of course, being a permanent resident or being a citizen is a consideration, because we might be in a difficult position if we had a Permanent Secretary of Defence who is not a Singapore citizen. And there are some other sensitive jobs too. So we do watch it, but when an able person comes in, we bring him in. Dr Lee asked how many resigned and emigrated. I do not have the numbers. I think many have remained. We have asked those still in Singapore why they left the Civil Service.”
“You have selected him. BG Lee Hsien Loong: We have selected him, true. Once in a while we make mistakes.”
“After all, you get the people you want. BG Lee Hsien Loong: That is a good philosophy. In fact, we are putting it up, but we prefer to do it in a flexible way. The amount may be the same. But the mood is different, in a Civil Service where a person knows that his superior can affect his advancement and his reward, from a Civil Service where he gets paid the same amount of money, knowing that performance does not matter, he cannot be sacked, he cannot be demoted, he cannot have his bonus removed. That is an iron rice bowl. Socialists used to believe in that.”
“Put it up. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Put it up. He prefers a fixed amount.”
“Share options, or whatever. So that would mean that only in good years these Executives will get a higher salary. Whereas in the Civil Service, once you are pegged as Superscale, you remain there. The Government always makes money. So I think there is no comparison. Can the Minister comment on that? I think it is not really a fair comparison. I notice from the scheme that the Government is proposing so many variables performance bonuses, annual discretionary non-pensionable bonus, end-of-the-year bonuses, other than the end-of-the-year variable bonuses. And in the case of the Legal Service, they have got the special non-pensionable allowance. Now that you have all these variables and it depends upon the senior officer to decide whether a person should be entitled to this bonus or not, would it not make the junior officer ingratiate himself to the senior officer? In fact, I think the Government has already introduced such a scheme, and it failed. I understand that in schools it was difficult for the principal to decide who to give these additional bonuses to. And I am surprised to learn that SJI is introducing this scheme which failed before. My question is: would it not, in fact, lower morale in the Civil Service? The third question is whether there is a ratio or quota to take in foreigners into our top Civil Service posts.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I ask the first question in regard to the top salaries of Executives in Annex C? I did not realize that top Executives in Singapore were earning that much; in fact, the figures there are really mind-boggling. I was going to ask the Minister where the source of all these salaries came from. But he did mention that it was from the IRD. He also said that probably it took into account some of the shares that these Executives got. But in that case -- An hon. Member: Share options.”
“Implementation The revised salaries will take effect from 1st April 1989. Conclusion In the private sector, most multi-national companies conduct annual surveys of salaries and benefits to ensure that they are paying the market rate. For those who want the best, they pay a premium. The present Civil Service revision will not be a one-off exercise. It does not completely close the gap between public and private sector incomes, especially at the higher grades. The Government will continue to carry out regular surveys of private sector salaries to stay competitive. As the economy grows and private sector incomes rise, we will regularly adjust Civil Service salaries to keep in step. I do not believe we will allow such a long interval as we have this time: from 1982 to 1989 has been seven years. Paying civil servants adequately is absolutely essential to maintain the quality of public administration which Singaporeans have come to expect. Thank you, Mr Speaker. 1.30 pm”
“The Civil Service resignation rates are below 5% per year, no higher than they were before the 1985 recession, and much lower than the rates experienced by many private sector companies. In fact, those Members who have raised the private sector's problems will agree with me that if the private sector had 5% a year, they would probably withdraw their Oral Questions. For this exercise, therefore, the Government has decided that for the rest of the Civil Service, timescale and daily-rated employee salaries will be increased by 4%, and the Superscales by 7%. In addition, the 1/2-month variable bonus will apply across the board. Statutory Boards This salary revision does not cover statutory boards. The intention is for them increasingly to set their wages in line with overall market levels, rather than solely by reference to relativities with the Civil Service. Statutory boards are not all the same. While some are self-financing entities subject to market discipline, others are really extensions of ministries wholly dependent on government grants, and there are others yet which are betwixt and between. The more a statutory board is like a commercial company, the more it should compare its wages directly to market rates rather than indirectly through Civil Service relativities. The Government expects statutory boards to conduct their own salary revisions with these principles in mind. The appointment and promotion of Chief Executive Officers of statutory boards will continue to be subject to the concurrence of the PSC. Financial Implications The total cost of the pay revision is $169 million per year: Administrative Service, $4 million, Professional and related services, $49 million, and the rest $116 million.”
“Then we can be more competitive and discriminating in rewarding our better officers. Other Services Mr Speaker, Sir, the Administrative Service and Professional Services cover about 9,000 civil servants. The remainder of the civil service comprises 67,000 people. They belong to 126 services and 120 salary scales. No single percentage of salary revision can fit all of these services exactly. Indeed one of the terms of reference of the Committee is to study how organizational changes and further delegation of personnal management functions by both PSC and PSD can help the public sector to adjust more flexibly and responsibly to market pressures. It is such a large structure that if we try to manage everything in the centre, we freeze up. Every move leads to so many arguments about relativities and corollary adjustments that no moves are made, and everybody suffers. We must find some way to carve it up so that each piece can move on its own, not necessarily in step. We know that several of these services need fundamental reviews, especially the Executive Service and the Clerical Service. These will be done. However, unlike the Administrative and Professional Services, these services are in general not grossly underpaid. Ministry of Labour surveys show that from 1982 to 1987 (1982's last salary revision; 1987 has the most recent figures), average monthly earnings in the private sector for bargainable employees went up by 39%, in the public sector, for roughly the same categories, went up by 29%, a difference of only about 10%. The Occupational Wages Survey last year (1988) showed that for Division IV employees and for DREs, the public sector for some vocations was paying more, for other vocations was paying less than the private sector, but not systematically less.”
“The Government therefore prefers to delay implementing performance bonus scheme for the Professional Services to a subsequent phase. Meanwhile, the Public Service Division (PSD) and the departments concerned will lay the groundwork for such bonuses in these services. This 7% revision will not by itself enable all the Professional Services to attract and retain good officers. These services are too disparate for a common set of scales to solve all their problems. For example, Foreign Service officers, Engineers, Inland Revenue officers, Accountants and Teachers, each have their own intricacies. The individual services need separate and more detailed reviews. This is being done. The Government is also considering several additional changes for the Professional Services. (a) We will revise the consultancy fees and specialists' allowance schemes for the medical and dental services. (b) We will create a Legal (Senior) Service, or we may call it the Administrative Service (Legal Service Branch), in order to recruit and to retain some of the best Law graduates, those with First Class or Upper Second Honours degrees. This is similar to what we have done in the Foreign Service. The Foreign Service is really in two parts. There is a Foreign Service (Departmental) and the Administrative Service (Foreign Service Branch). The recruitment criteria are different, the salary schemes are different. The Legal Service does not have such a scheme. We will consider introducing one. (c) We will also consider having different entry points for different qualities of recruits; and (d) We will consider giving the better officers an early promotion, resulting in a substantial pay rise, within two to three years of joining the service, as is done in the private sector.”
“Not true. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, I hate to digress, but there are about 1,000 lawyers in the private sector. Those at the top (and there are more than 40 of them) earn more than half a million dollars a year. On the other hand, there are about 40% at the bottom who earn less than $50,000 a year. The Member for Potong Pasir may find that information enlightening. The Government is therefore raising the Legal Service starting pay by two increments. It is also increasing the market adjustment allowance for Legal Officers by 50%. Annex H (Cols. 479 - 480) gives the present and revised amounts for this special non-pensionable allowance. This was intended as a market adjustment allowance; in fact, it is just a small correction to reduce the disparity a little bit. Annex H - SPECIAL NON-PENSIONABLE ALLOWANCE (SNPA) FOR LEGAL OFFICERS (Cols. 479 - 480) Performance Bonuses What I say about performance bonuses for the Professional Services will also apply to the Other Services. In principle, the Government is prepared to introduce performance bonus schemes for Superscale officers in the Professional and the Other Services, similar to that for the Administrative Service and for the other pensionable services. However, performance bonuses will only work if several stringent preconditions are met, as I explained earlier. These include a fair and well accepted assessment system, and assessors who are willing to make tough judgments about officers. If you do not have the guts to make a distinction and stand up for it, then you cannot have performance bonuses. It will take some time to put these requirements in place for the professional services.”
“Sir, can I seek a clarification from the Minister?”
“I must say that it is absolutely not true. I am opposing it on ---”
“Why is there a necessity to talk about racial balance then? Let us just call everybody to reproduce more. Once you talk about racial balance, racial proper, racial mix, I think we get into very serious problems.”
“May I ask the Minister one question? Is there a quota on population in Singapore?”
“Tell all Singaporeans to reproduce more.”
“Sir, I think this is an important issue and has to be cleared up. Sir, I am not playing racial politics. I am trying to stop Members from doing so. We can call on all Singaporeans to have more babies. Why should we only call on the Chinese to have more babies? Why do we say that we must have a balanced racial mix? Is that not racialistic? Why must we accept this so-called balanced racial mix and to keep up the quota? Why do we need that? Why can we not say, "All Singaporeans, we are not reproducing ourselves enough. Let us reproduce more." Why should we call on one particular race to do so? If you do that, then all kinds of connotations will arise. I think I do not need to elaborate but it is there.”
“So I want to ask her. If she says it is enough, say so. Let us go on record.”
“No. She implies that it is enough. I say that it is not enough.”
“No, no. I said that the $2,500 given to disabled persons as a relief is cosmetic in nature. But she says it is not so. Can I ask her whether she is saying that this is sufficient to maintain a dependant who is disabled? Are you saying that it is enough?”
“Sir, a point of clarification from the hon. Member for Yuhua.”
“I would like to ask the Government to relax the rules which provide that only those living together with their handicapped dependants could enjoy the relief. As Hon. Dr Aline Wong said yesterday, this is because in certain situations there are taxpayers who are unable to live together with their handicapped brothers and sisters. Mr Speaker, the importance of maintaining the competitiveness of Singapore has been outlined in the budget. Generally, the budget offers incentives in this direction, in the form of rather attractive tax reliefs and rebates. Though corporate tax has been cut down by only 1% from 33%, it is already among the lowest corporate tax rates in the industrialized countries. Incentives to encourage companies to reduce their work force through automation are also included. I am sure that the savings to be enjoyed by local companies will increase. Singapore goods and services will thus be able to compete and our position as an exporter in the world market will remain strong. Mr Speaker, the present budget gives more emphasis to social aspects, the benefits being especially felt by those who have families. I am confident that with this budget, the Government's desire that the people focus more serious attention to family life will be achieved, because in the long term it might become an important factor in the future survival of our country.”
“No Malays and Indians will agree with you. 2.45 pm Encik Abdul Nasser Bin Kamaruddin (Hong Kah GRC)( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to express my support for the Budget moved by the Finance Minister, Dr Richard Hu. In the budget strategy tabled before us, I believe there are several aspects especially welcomed by most of the people of Singapore. Although the impact of the pro-family package with its tax incentives is too early to know, it would at least give complementary effect to the Government's population policy. The savings to be gained as a result of this package will help couples to put aside some extra funds for the benefit of the family. Mr Speaker, in this connection, I agree with the views of Hon. Encik Ibrahim Othman, who called on the Government to launch a comprehensive family education programme to raise the awareness of parents so that they may enhance the quality of family life. Family life is a very heavy responsibility and a very difficult task, particularly for young couples whose priorities are now in their careers. Among the concerns are the financial costs of raising children and caring for parents living under the same roof. Hence, the tax rebate of $20,000 for children and tax reliefs for wife, aged parents and handicapped dependants must be sufficient if the trend of having large families is to be maintained. Mr Speaker, here I would like to urge the Government to carry out a comprehensive programme to emphasize the importance of family life and having children. We must find ways to change the attitudes of the young people of Singapore who nowadays prefer to marry late. Mr Speaker, the tax relief given for the care of handicapped dependants has been long awaited and is in line with our objectives.”
“That is right. Answer my question? Who decreed that the balance of races must be 75%, 15% and 8% in Singapore?”