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 56 of 85.
“I am not convinced. Encik Wan Hussin bin Haji Zoohri (Kampong Ubi)( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in support of the Bill today, I wish to make some observations on the PKMS proposal made in its representation to the Select Committee. The PKMS proposed giving two votes to the Malay community, one of which is to enable the Malay community to elect its own representatives. But if we look at the GRC proposal, its real aim is to ensure multi-racial representation in Parliament. In Singapore the Malay community is not the only minority community. There are other minority communities like the Indians and others. If two votes are to be given to the minority Malay community, would it not be possible that the minority Indian community would also demand two votes? So what would happen is that a few communities will be electing their own representatives. What would be the result? Once they are elected, as has been observed by the First Deputy Prime Minister, it would mean that they would once again raise demands or issues in their communities' interests alone, because they have received the mandate from their community to do so. If this continues, such a stance would draw the attention of the majority, that is, the Chinese and willy-nilly, within the majority there will be groups seeking to protect their interests. Each community, like it or not, would have to put up its own racial defences, and from behind these racial defences each would launch attacks of a totally racial nature. The result would be the creation of three communal groups participating in an arena of communal politics that supersede national political concerns. Mr Deputy Speaker, this formula ie, where a vote is vested in a particular community, would result in a conflagration of communal politics.”
“Sir, may I be allowed to make a point of clarification on what the Member for Bo Wen has said? He said that free market type of elections would bring about a host of problems. I would like to remind the Member for Bo Wen that, in fact, we have this system since 1948, For almost 40 years, we have this free market type of elections. I want to ask him: what are the problems that he is thinking of? We have no such problems in the last 40 years.”
“How can you define a Malay, according to the majority of Malays in Singapore, without bringing in Islam? But of course the Government circumvents that by having a Committee. It is not our responsibility. Whenever the Government wants to shift responsibility, it is very easy. Just shift it to a Committee - "We have nothing to do with it. It is the Committee which decides." But who appoints the members of that Committee? So it is for the Committee to decide whether Tan Ah Bah is a Malay or not, or whether Mohammed bin Abdullah is a Malay. But these names can be very misleading. As I have already pointed out in the Committee you can have in fact, under our present amended definition, three, four, five, or in fact more, persons not from the Malay race and are recognized as Malays by the Committee. Then if we look around, we see where are the Malay representatives in this House, we may not see any, if they go just by race. So I do not think you are really fulfilling your aim of wanting to have racial representation or minority representation which in fact is racial representation in Singapore. Hopefully, this amendment to our Constitution and to our Parliamentary Elections Act will not end up as "Cyprus" state.”
“You have your GRCs in those areas to preserve your candidates, make sure that they are elected. What happens if they are not elected because the tide is so great that even the GRCs cannot stem the change in voting pattern? What then? You want to think of some other schemes? Again, to quote the Member for Changkat, she says this is a very highly innovative idea. Well, this Government has got all kinds of ideas. What will be the next innovative idea if you continue to lose seats in the next election? The First Deputy Prime Minister has envisaged two scenarios - one, 20-30% losses, and the other one, a freak election, according to him. I do not think it is going to be a freak election. It is the desire of the people if they want to return the Opposition. In my mind, I do not think that even with this GRC you can stem the tide of the Opposition. We know the Government is nervous. We know the Government is lacking in confidence - the way they have reacted recently with the GRC, one arm of the pincer and the ISA on the other arm of the pincer, they tried to squeeze the Opposition, but I do not think they will succeed. But I think the most important thing in our mind is nation building. Is it really good for our nation? Do we want to perpetuate racialism as an issue at every election that issue will have to come up, and however you define Malay or who is a Malay, there will always be dissatisfaction. As it is already, there is dissatisfaction because the Malays in Singapore cannot do without Islam. To them, Malay is synonymous with Islam. This is a special feature in Singapore. It is true we want to be a secular state and I support that. But the Government is saying that we want a secular state on the one hand but, on the other hand, you are bringing in religion as an issue.”
“We are not afraid of GRCs. An hon. Member: Have a GRC.”
“Well, Potong Pasir, all right. An hon. Member: Are you sure of winning?”
“Yes, since 1964, that is what I said. 1969 - in Malaysia. So there were really no serious problems in which the Government could not contain. Of course, as the Member for Changkat has said, there will be extremist pressures. There will be, but they will not beof such a national scale that we have to tamper with our Constitution and change it to give a quota of Malay seats in this House. What will be the next step? The Malays will be clamouring, "Well, Parliamentary repre- sentation is not good enough. We also want a quota in the civil service. We want a quota in the statutory boards. We want a quota in the schools. We want a quota in the university." There is no end to it. In fact, they have a right to demand because in Article 152 of the Constitution makes them a privileged group. They are the recognized indigenous people of Singapore and they have a right to special privileges - in education, in economics, social and other areas. So you have started the ball rolling. You have given a quota in Parliament. Parliamentary representation to them is not enough. They will want more because that is the next logical step, and how is the Government going to explain that? To us in the Opposition we know the true reason why you are going to implement these GRCs. Keep the Opposition away. Perpetuate the PAP rule. The Opposition has got no Malay candidates. They cannot find credible Malay candidates. That is what the Government thinks. But if the people of Singapore do want an opposition, they will return the Opposition, whether there is GRC or whether there is single seat constituency. What happens in the areas where the Opposition are strong? They say in the Bedok area and in the Bukit Merah area the Opposition are purportedly to be strong. You have your GRCs there.”
“I am not sure whether the Minister of State understands my question. Because there is a gap between the ground floor level and the earth. The earth has sunk down and there is a gap in between. There are still places where animals could still go in and hide there.”
“Does your Ministry intend to cover up the sunken soil beneath the ground floor of the building? Because I hear complaints that snakes and other dangerous animals are hiding underneath it.”
“Not again, please. What is the date for this debate, Mr Speaker? Please let me know.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have got a supplementary question for the Minister following what he has just said. Is the Government now admitting that without ISA, the Government is unable to deal with security problems?”
“Supplementary question, Mr Speaker. Is the Minister aware that over 30 lawyers from Pennsylvania, USA, and also over 70 US Congressmen have written to the Prime Minister and also to Mr Tommy Koh, our Ambassador in the United States, to voice their concern and ask for the release of the detainees? Is the Minister saying that these men are less than honourable in their intentions?”
“Mr Speaker, with due respect, both the ---”
“Yes, in regard to Mr Francis Seow. Why is the delay necessary?”
“Mr Speaker, there are two supplementary questions. The first is whether or not Mr Seow has already made a statement; and if he has made a statement, whether the Government is going to release it. And we have heard that the Minister for Trade and Industry say that in a fortnight's time the Government shall be making a statement.”
“"Six strokes or more". You cannot get three, can you?”
“I beg to differ, Mr Deputy Speaker. They are very relevant because once this Bill becomes law you would have powers. So it is related to the use of this law. Are you going to use against these people that I have mentioned?”
“You gave an example where a robber goes across the Causeway. I believe there is a provision also for those who have absconded. If he has absconded with his benefits out of jurisdiction, in what way can we get the benefits back? I think it is the last clause.”
“How is the Government going to get back benefits which are out of jurisdiction? It is almost impossible, is it not? If it is, then why do we have it in the statutes?”
“Sir, just one small point of clarification.”
“Sir, may I just be allowed to say that in fact the reason why we are confused is because this is the first time I am hearing Government's policy on marriage of work permit holders. So perhaps this point can be more highlighted, especially among the workers. I think we in the Meet-the-People session would have less of these cases.”
“Sir, can I seek a clarification on this application to contract marriage between a Singaporean and a work permit holder? Is it not true that the practice of your Ministry is that, as soon as a work permit holder attempts to apply for marriage, he or she is sent out of the country? Is there such a policy?”
“And by the year 2000 people are going to have $100,000 in the CPF. Some of the executives will have $200,000 to $300,000 in the CPF, if not more. Clerks may have over $150,000 to $200,000. A young man who starts work now, say, age 20 or after national service, let us say, 21, starts at $800. In 16 years he is going to have about $150,000 plus a house on which he is paying installments. So it is really up to him.' He ends up this particular topic, and he says: 'And I think it is important that they should be given the chance if they think they can do better, well you invest it.' So there is really ample funds in the contributors accounts, according to the Prime Minister, and so there is really no need to increase the CPF rate. So this argument that we have to increase the CPF rate really does not hold water. Perhaps I am just looking from the Government's end. The reason why they are afraid to have an additional use is because ---”
“Because they are told what to do with the money and they cannot decide for themselves. I agree to use of CPF for of old age, home ownership and for taking care of the health of its contributors. I am for this additional use of CPF for education. Sir, as we can see in the case of approved uses, not all the money is locked in by the Government. In the case of buying houses and property, if you sell it, you will have to return the money back to your CPF account together with interest. So in this way the money is held by the CPF Board. But there are two schemes, Medisave and the Home Protection Insurance schemes, where the money is paid out and you do not get them back. So there is already a precedent set by a scheme in which you say there are leakages to the CPF. So if the additional use of CPF for education brings fear that there might be a leakage in CPF funds because the contributor himself or his parent might be unable later on to repay the money into the CPF account, I say that a precedent has already been set. So it should not be used as an argument against the use of CPF. Sir, as regards whether or not there is need to raise the CPF rate, I believe there is already enough contributions. The issue is whether or not a contributor has enough money. If he has got enough money in the CPF, I do not see why it should not be used for education. This is what the Prime Minister said in December 1984: 'I think having set up this fund which has been of great value to Singapore's stability, not only because it is good for our economic development, it has also changed the thinking and the actions of the people. Because if you are having 20, 30, 40 or $50,000 in the CPF plus your house, you are not going to act stupidly or recklessly.”
“It would appear that the funds are certainly not the workers' money because, as it can be seen, if it were their money, now they have to come before the House and plead with the Minister for an additional use of their CPF. So the Government still has the control, no ownership, but very much in control of the money. Of course, it sounds good to say that Government are trustees of the money and the money belongs to the people. It sounds good politically. But in reality the CPF money does not truly belong to the contributors.”
“Of course, we know that by 1985 the rate has gone up to a massive contribution of 50%, 25% from the employers and 25% from the employees. With this high contribution rate, the Government has accumulated massive funds and the Opposition has said that these funds are, in fact, cheap funds for the use of the Government. The CPF in its report has said that it has helped to meet social and economic goals. The role of the CPF in supporting national social, economic goals has been very evident in 1986. This is the report given in 1986 of the CPF Report. Sir, it has been said that Singapore is reaching a very high stage of its physical development. The Minister for National Development has said that most of the roads that are needed to be built have already been built. So in this respect the need to use the funds from the CPF Board for national development perhaps will not be as urgent as before. Of course, the other use of CPF is to lock up loose cash so that our inflation can be kept very low. The annual inflation rate for consumption, I believe, increased by only 0.5% last year. In 1986 there was, in fact, a drop of -1.4%. Sir, this CPF is a forced savings scheme. The Government has accumulated a lot of funds through CPF but the people are not cash rich. That is probably one of the reasons why they are in need of money for their education. It has also been reported that the CPF Board are the trustees of the money of CPF contributors. It has also been said that the CPF savings are the workers' salary, but in reality is that the case? It does not appear to be so. Because if the CPF Board are the trustees, then they should take instructions from the owners of the money, but they are not.”
“Sir, unfortunately, we cannot take a vote on this issue of whether or not to use CPF for education. The tally up to date is five for and three against. Even those two who are against, the Member for Kebun Baru and the Member for Geylang Serai, I believe they objected because they feel that, under the scheme proposed by the GPC for Education, it is rather limited only to tertiary Education. If you expand to include both primary and secondary education, they might want also to agree. So we have got, in fact, seven against one. Sir, I am for the scheme, in fact all the way, both primary and secondary as well as tertiary. Sir, it has been said that primary and secondary school education does not cost very much but, in fact, there are parents who cannot even afford to pay some of the fees for the secondary school. I am sure Members would know that. Sir, it has been said that probably one of the reasons why the Government is unwilling to allow use of CPF for education is that you are going to extend the scheme further. But I think education is, in fact, the key to nation building. It is the cornerstone and I am surprised that education is given even lower prority than schemes like buying of SBS shares and the Approved Non-Residential Properties Scheme, where money is used to buy commercial properties. Of course, the other one is the Approved Investments Scheme, the buying of approved stocks and shares, gold, silver and diamond. Sir, I really cannot understand. I think education certainly has a higher priority than these schemes I have mentioned. CPF should be allowed to be used for education. Sir, the CPF scheme was started in 1955. I believe the contribution was 10%, 5% from employees and 5% from employers.”
“Are you willing to look at it on a case by case basis, on merits?”
“I think the rationale for foreign workers in this particular area is because the mother is involved. The mother is tied up with her job and is away from home from 10 to 10; long hours. And what happens? The children are usually taken care of by a foreign maid or have to be fostered out. So I think the principle involved in this particular case - the Minister should say whether or not priority is to be given to such cases because the mother who should be looking after the children, in particular children who are under 12 years of age, should be given a chance to stay at home by employing a foreign worker to assist in their business. And also, if you look at statistics, although under Other Services, it says here 256,000 workers are employed, but under the column, Own Account Workers, it amounted only to something like 12,860. So even if a concession is given to this particular area of workers, I think it would not exceed 10% of our foreign workforce. So I hope the Minister will look into this area because I believe there are many applications in this particular type of business.”
“Sir, we are all quite aware of the Government's policy in regard to foreign workers. The Government allows foreign workers to work in shipyards, construction, manufacturing industries, and also as domestics. The Government has said that it will not encourage foreign workers to work in the service industry. I hope this will not be a blanket policy because the service industry covers a very wide area. I think it is fair if we stop foreign workers from being employed in hotels or in large departmental stores, in particular, the foreign departmental stores such as Sogo, Yaohan, Isetan and the like. I know that we have an acute shortage of workers in certain areas, in particular, the service industry. Now what I would like to do is to highlight the plight of a very specific area of Singapore employers. These are the husband and wife team who opens a small business, in particular, snack bars, small restaurants or eating shops, canteens and the like, and also wives who run the neighbourhood beauty salons. These two types of employers have come to my notice. In fact, they have spoken to me about their difficulty in getting local workers. It is almost impossible to get local workers in these two areas. I think this policy of not encouraging foreign workers in the service industry should be altered to a certain extent and be selective in these particular areas that I have mentioned. This type of industry involve extreme labour-intensive work. In fact, you have to be on the job all the time. They are long working hours and they are not the most pleasant of jobs. The people who are in this kind of work have spoken to me and they have tried to get local workers. They advertised for local workers. The young people come to work for a while and off they go again.”
“Sir, can I just get a clarification on the Minister's answer on the promotion of quality awareness among the top level management? He said that SISIR organized all kinds of conventions and seminars. But what about the awareness of the workers down at the production line? Are they made aware of quality? I think that is more important. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, if the Member had listened to me, he would have heard me say that amongst the initiatives of SISIR and NPB, is a module on quality and total quality improvement in the COSEC programme. That means core skills for worker level training, conducting lectures and training programmes on quality and on measuring quality. That is worker level. I trust it meets the Member's requirement.”
“What about value added? BG Lee Hsien Loong: As I told you, Sir, I will look into the figures to see what is the explanation for the decline in value added per worker.”
“So we have been measuring the service sector activities and our success in promoting service sector activities in terms of total business spending, how much do the firms bring in, in terms of the size of the firm, in terms of their spending every year, add it all up and make a comparison year by year. I do not know if it has been included in the annual Economic Survey. If not, we will include it next year, and we will find further measures.”
“May I be allowed a clarification from the Minister? This is arising from what the Member for Whampoa has said. Being a Professor of Economics, perhaps he knows the answer, but I do not. Something which he has said, I think, has not been clarified by the Minister. The Member for Whampoa has said that value added per worker has dropped below even the 1982 value and at the same time, fixed assets have increased and also the quality of the investments has gone up. The Minister answered and said that the problem is probably in the petrochemical and petroleum investments. Then the Member for Whampoa rose to say that the figures excluded petrochemical and petroleum investments. So I am at a loss. It is just like a person sitting down for a 3-course meal and then you say his weight has not increased! The fixed assets have increased, quality of investments has gone up, and yet the value added per worker has dropped. I do not understand. Can you explain? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, I am very befuddled because, first, I am asked whether I have a million dollars to invest in a factory which I do not, then I am asked whether I put on weight after a 3-course meal which I also have not had. I stand corrected by the Member for Whampoa. If he says these figures do not include the petrochemical and petroleum sector, it must be so. I will have a look and see what is the explanation. As for the service sector, we have been collecting some data. Investment volume is not a good measure. Because it is the volume of activities which count, not the amount of hardware. For example, you can have a very sophisticated software development industry without having very powerful computers, because you can work with terminals and the equipment can be elsewhere.”
“Give the private sector the same conditions. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, perhaps I may be allowed to complete my explanation.”
“You are serious about it? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Yes. JTC has built efficiently, good quality factories, in sufficient numbers so that we could industrialize. If we did not do that, we would be in a position which some other NICs are today.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is there a possibility of receivers getting contaminated blood?”
“Sir, I note that the MTI's study of manpower needs of Singapore is related only to the economy at all levels, as the Minister has said. But does this also include professions like teachers and nurses? There seems to be a shortfall in these two areas. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, teachers and nurses are part of the economy. So when we consider the needs of the economy, they are also calculated in.”
“Sir, in the Minister's answer I notice that he has not mentioned or identified any organization or bodies which help the blind. Perhaps he could enlighten us whether or not the Government has any organization set up or any voluntary organization set up to assist the blind?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, are these courtesy campaigns aimed more at civil servants who are serving the public or the workers in the private sector who are serving the tourists in particular?”
“Well, I do. But if the House does not so allow me ---”
“All right, I will withdraw it then. If the House so allows me, I will put two questions to the Prime Minister. Some hon. Members: No.”
“I will just go barely touch on it and then I go on to something else.”
“Well, there are a lot of announcements made in the past few years and I think in 1984 ---”
“Well, it is up to the Prime Minister whether he wants it or not.”
“All right. I will just move, That the sum to be allocated for Head U be reduced by $10 in respect of Code UA 1000 of the Main Estimates.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I do not propose to go on with the cut. Since the Prime Minister is here and in the past there is a precedent set, the House usually gives some latitude to the Prime Minister. I believe this topic of the Senior Minister has been thoroughly covered. I have looked through the Hansard and we have got half an hour. I wonder whether the Prime Minister is amenable to enlighten us on some very important points. Perhaps he could ---”
“As regards educational activities, what is the level of Malay participation in them? I would also like to ask whether there are tuition classes given to Malay pupils in the CC?”
“Sir, is there an increase in the intake of Malay pupils in our junior colleges in the last two years?”
“Sir, I believe and the Minister of State also believes that there is a problem of education amongst the Malays and of the low enrolment in our local university. Has he got plans to set up a committee to study in-depth into this education problem amongst the Malays? If he has not, whether he is willing to set up a committee to study the problem?”