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 57 of 85.
“Article 12 of our Constitution says that all citizens are equal before the law. And how is it that some Singaporeans are allowed to marry foreigners and stay here for good and others are not allowed to do so? I believe that even in the Women's Charter, there is a provision which says that it is the duty of both the spouses to maintain the family and to take care of their children. Perhaps the Minister could answer these points.”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman. I shall be brief. I have to declare my pecuniary interest in this matter. It has come to my knowledge that there are two groups of Singaporeans. One group of Singaporeans consists of those who marry foreign spouses in Singapore. The Registry of Marriages allowed them to register their marriage in Singapore. Then they proceeded to set up home, often one of the spouses, a Singapore spouse will purchase an HDB flat, and very soon they have children of their own. There are cases which I have come across. Their foreign spouses were subsequently asked to leave the country. This creates a very serious problem when the family has already been established and roots have already grown. I would just like to ask the Minister. I think they should take into account of Singaporeans marrying foreigners. If once they allow a marriage, and especially if they allow them to proceed to set up home and even after having purchased a flat and having children, the family is split up - I think this is a very serious matter which the Minister must look into. The other cases are those Singaporeans who go abroad and then they stay there and after a while they meet a girl and they marry abroad, and then they bring them back, and the Registry of Marriages allows their foreign marriage to be registered in Singapore. Again, these people subsequently set up home and again they have children, and then they receive a letter asking the foreign spouse to leave Singapore. So this is really breaking up the family. I believe it is bad breaking up a family. As the Minister has just said, the family is a social insurance in time of need. Now you are breaking up the family. I think this is also against the law. I believe it is also against the Constitution.”
“Sir, I was cut off by the guillotine. If there is time tomorrow, can I squeeze in and make my speech?”
“Sir, do you allow me to make a quick clarification?”
“I have not submitted a cut, but may I be allowed to speak?”
“I was not referring to some benefits that taxpayers get. I am referring to places like a police station. When a person goes to the police station to make a report he is asked to pay $10 for a search fee and $10 for his own report. These are the kinds of charges I am thinking of. The Leader of the House (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, I think this question is out of order.”
“Government departments are already supported by tax from the people. What is the rationale for charging tariffs and other charges when the public goes for a service in a Government Department? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, I do not know whether the question is relevant to the original one. But just to give an example of what we mean by tariffs and charges. When you buy electricity, you pay for it; when you use water from the tap you pay for it. When you rent land or factory building, you pay rent. I think that is fair.”
“In view of the security reasons, the Minister does not want to reveal the number. Are there unmarked police cars on patrol?”
“Sir, do these 164 patrol cars include unmarked police cars? If there are unmarked police cars in use, how many are there?”
“Sir, why is there a necessity to change textbooks so frequently?”
“Sir, of course, excellence in education would also mean that not only the child is socially adaptable but is also culturally developed. I think he must be taught to love sports and culture. The material aspect of taking up sports to improve one's health is not a good way of going about encouraging sports. You go for sports because you love to play the game. That should be the emphasis, and do not tell our pupils, "You take up badminton or swimming, and you can live to 100." I think that is a materialistic way of encouraging sports.”
“But the structure of streaming is till intact in our schools, and I would like the Government to really look into it and to change it, and perhaps have compulsory education, as I have just spoken earlier on. Our results, although highlighted in the papers, are still, I think, not good enough compared to the other four countries that I have named earlier on. Again, this has to be looked into. Of course, on the practical aspects of teaching, I think our classes are still too large. Much talk has been heard of the Government trying to reduce classes but certainly we want to know the progress - whether something really substantial has been done in regard to reducing our classes from 42 or 43 down to, say, 30 pupils. Because it is really impossible to teach a class of 40, 41 or 42. I am speaking from experience. As regards university places, I would urge the Government certainly not only to give places to those who qualify, but also, I believe, at this stage of our development there is room for a second university. Why is there a need for a second university? Because this goes hand-in-hand with the long-term education of an individual. Education must be a life-time process. Those who have missed the chance earlier must be given a chance to advance themselves or even to develop their brains. I think education must also have its ancilliary support, like libraries. If anyone of you visited London, you would see that there is a library within walking distance of any part of London. I hope one day we can also have library facilities like that in Singapore, within walking distance of any HDB or housing estate. I think this ancilliary support of library services is very important.”
“And I think, more importantly, our citizens must be taught to think independently, to work independently, show initiative and not wait to be given a job or expecting something to be done for them. I think we also want citizens who have courage. And in a fast moving society in this 20th century, especially the coming 21st century, a very important aspect is to train our citizens to adapt to change. This is a very important aspect of education. We do not want our students to serve a fixed system because in a fast, technological, age, because of technological changes, attitude changes, value changes, and also social changes, it is important to get our students to adapt to change. Now in Singapore we appear to stress more on materialism, and with this also goes elitism. I think we should not stress so much on the material benefits of education. In its place, I would recommend that our students be taught to lead a simple life. I think this is really an important aspect of nation building. This is the sort of lifestyle we should teach our students. If we look at the concrete situation in Singapore, what is our situation with regard to education today? First of all, we note that there are something like 53% of our workforce who have no secondary education. Something must be done about this. I know it is a massive problem, but I think the Government should really take concrete steps and not just to get the political party to arrange classes, make a lot of noise, a lot of show, and the problem really is not tackled truthfully. I think the question of streaming must be looked into once more. I know the Government has changed or adapted its policy to give the parents a choice of allowing the pupil to go into the express stream or the vocational stream.”
“Sir, I would like now to dwell on excellence in education. This term is a very catchy term, and it is also a convenient term for the Government when it comes to election time. I think everybody believes in the excellence of education. We would, I am sure all Opposition, would support the Government's policy of trying to attain excellence in education. But just to say it is not enough. I hope the Government can be sincere in carrying out its policy of achieving excellence in education. What does excellence in education really mean? I suppose it means many things to many people. But I say that excellence in education would be the achievement of the end-product of our schools and higher institutions of learning. We have to have the ideal situation of a student who has completed his or her education - the end-product - what sort of a citizen we would like to have? Let us all work our full resources to produce, as many as possible, that kind of a citizen. If we can achieve, of course in totality, then we would have complete excellence. But we would try, of course, to get as many of our students to end up the type of citizens we want. It has been said many a time that we want well-rounded, developed students. I think in Singapore's context of nation building, we should get students who are not only loyal to their country but also loyal to their fellow citizens, loyal to their employers, loyal to their friends. This ideal of loyalty is very important. We have heard of job-hopping and other problems. Perhaps this question of loyalty has not really been cultivated in our workforce or our students. What else do we want? He want citizens who are self-confident, must be physically fit, good citizens.”
“It is important for our children to get basic grounding in the core subjects during those years. I believe there should be no problem for Singapore in regard to supervision if we have a law to make it compulsory for all parents to send their children to school from age 6 to 14. I think it is time we revamped our education system and if we really want to put our teeth into the problem and not find easy solutions, like streaming our children which is really not a way out. In fact, it aggravates the situation. Politically, of course, it will look good for the Government. At the third year of schooling you have already creamed off the so-called slow learners or those who have not shown good results and then those who apparently have passed their Primary 3 examinations and advanced on, naturally you will get better results at PSLE and in the 'O' level results. At the last 'O' level results we have seen, I think, 84-85% of our students who sat obtained three 'O' levels and above. But we must remember that these are the balance of pupils who have advanced to that stage. Many of them who have not passed their Primary 3 examinations have already been taken off. In fact, for those who have not been given the chance to advance up to age 14, we are not doing them justice. I would urge the Government to look into this question of compulsory education because we are now supposedly to be a developed country but our education system, without a compulsory education, is really still colonial in nature. If we really want to get into the advanced country's level of development, let us have compulsory education in our schools.”
“If you have only six years of compulsory education and the child is only allowed to attend school six years, we cannot really tell for sure whether the child has developed to his full potential or develop to an extent where we can gauge the progress of the child. It can also be seen that all the other countries taken, they have better results in their secondary and pre-university classes. You will see that in the case of Japan, if we take a cohort of 100, in the secondary schools they have got 100 students still intact. In the case of France, it is 84, Taiwan 92 and UK is 100. Probably this is because of compulsory education. When it comes to the Pre-U level, Singapore's cohort of 100 has dropped to 14. In the case of Japan, 93; France 34, Taiwan 52, and UK 19. The attrition rate of Singapore is very high - from 100 to 14. Of course, the best results are obtained in Japan - from 100 to 93. There is a strong argument for compulsory education. From the educational point of view, really, a child from 6 to 14 years of age has to be in school. His only place in those years must be in school and nowhere else. It would be wrong to take a child out to work or be left running in the streets. These are his formative years and they are most important years. The learning capacity of the child is greatest during that period of time. I have never heard of any well-known persons who have succeeded in life and who have not gone through school during that period. Sometimes when we read the life history of authors or writers who have written good books, we find that they have attended school for up to 15 years. They leave school at 15 years of age and not earlier. I have not heard of any famous persons who has not attended school during those years.”
“I am much obliged to you, Sir. I shall be speaking on the subject of compulsory education for the first eight years of school. Sir, this is not a new subject. My Party has brought up this issue before. One of the glaring points which is missing in the Goh Keng Swee Report published in 1978 is that there is nothing mentioned about compulsory education in our primary and secondary schools. That Report concentrated more on the problems of the high attrition rate of our school children, especially at the PSLE examinations, and the language problem of the pupils. In that Report, Singapore's education system was compared to four other countries, namely, Japan, France, Taiwan and the UK. As mentioned yesterday, Singapore seems to come out the worst of the five countries taken, including Singapore. One glaring point in the comparison is that of the other four countries taken, each of their education systems includes compulsory education. In the case of Japan, a child by law has to attend school for nine years. In the case of France it is also nine years; Taiwan is nine years and UK is 11 years. This is a very important issue and I am surprised that the Government has never really come out and discuss it in the open, as far as I know. Why does my Party suggest eight years and not nine years? The reason we are thinking of is because of the economic factors. We would say that eight years is within our reach at the present economic development level of ingapore. Why eight years? Because for the first six years in school, the child has not really fully developed. Educationists will tell you that there is such a thing as slow learners or late developers. By the time the child reaches 13 and 14 years, there is a better chance to know whether the child is fully developed.”
“Sir, are the measures spelt out by the Minister to prevent pollution only in reference to the Singapore River or other rivers as well in Singapore?”
“University graduates must be told that they are not privileged persons where a job is guaranteed for them. It does not mean a student going through his secondary school, 'A' levels and come out with a good honours diploma in whatever course from the university, is guaranteed a job by society. I do not think the society owes him a living. If he comes out from the university with a good degree, it is only a start for him in life. I think it is a mistaken idea, especially in this part of the world, in the Asian world, that the university graduate is a special person who has to be given special privileges. I think this whole acceptance of university graduates has to be abolished or done away with. Then we will get them to work for themselves and, in fact, also to create jobs for others. This is the sort of attitude we should have. You are a university graduate, so what? I do not think the Government or the private sector is privileged to give a university graduate a cushy job in an air-con room. I would argue for a case where the more university graduates we have, the more benefit it will be for the nation. In fact, education must be tied with nation building. Without education, without university graduates, how are we going forward with our development? We must increase the talent pool.”
“I think we should not carry this policy of requirements of manpower needs too far. There is a case, indeed, for a university education to develop a person to his potential. I think we should learn lessons from America. There is no such thing as a course where it has no economic value. Every course has got an economic value. It is only how you develop it. There is also a fear of producing too many graduates. I do not think there is a case of having too many graduates in a country. I think there must be something wrong with this education policy or how they train their citizens. If you train a citizen right and give the citizen the right attitude and you train him to think, to work individually, to show initiative and even if there are no jobs available to them they can creat jobs for themselves. This is what Dr Albert Winsemius has in mind. He says the only way if you want to create indigenous entrepreneurs is to have more university graduates and more idle university graduates. Then they will start to use their brains and think and really create jobs not only for themselves, but more businesses for others as well. This is almost a reflex action of the PAP for fear that more graduates will create more problems for them. But please, I do not think that if a person who has been properly trained in the schools, in the universities, he will create trouble. But of course if there are injustices or unfairness to be dealt with, I am sure a properly trained person will not fear to speak up. I do not think the Government should fear of political mischief from idle graduates. The Minister has quoted Dr Mahathir, in the case of Malaysia, so many of their graduates are not getting jobs. There must be something wrong with their university system.”
“Japan, out of a cohort of, say, 100, have 38 university graduates. In the case of Taiwan, they have 20, and in Singapore we have the lowest, something like 9. Even this figure has been confirmed recently. The increase has not been that great. I think there is also a case for a second university, as has been mentioned, because of the large number of our students going abroad to seek university places. Of course, it is a heart ache for those who have failed to gain entrance into our local university and cannot afford to go abroad. I have also read recently that, in fact, the Singapore Government is making great efforts to recruit professionals from abroad, in particular from Hong Kong. So the fact that we are going to make efforts to recruit university graduates or professionals from abroad shows that our pool of graduates or engineers is insufficient in Singapore. The policy of the Singapore Government seems to be to provide university places only for manpower requirements. As has been mentioned, of course, this is a big subject whether to have a university providing enough for our manpower needs or to provide a university for the fulfilment of each individual. I would say, of course, both are needed. But I think the Singapore Government should not be so materialistic as to cut off those who desire to get into the university and who qualify to put them into another faculty. I have heard them saying that too many of our students want to apply for the Faculty of Medicine and many of them have very good grades and they were forced to go into Engineering or some other faculty. Of course, these students who love Medicine refused to accept the alternative courses given to them. So they go abroad instead.”
“Sir, I would like to speak on the need for a second university. In fact, this is not a new idea. In 1984 my party in its election manifesto has called on the Government to create a second university with an open university concept where further higher education is encouraged for all who wish to further their personal development. This objective in fact is in line also with the Government objective of developing every citizen to his fullest ability. I am glad to hear that the Minister has plans to develop NTI into a second university and make it into a technological college and the present NUS to expand on its curriculum. I think this is a step in the right move. Because, as the Minister has said, it is not possible to expand the university indefinitely. In fact, this is what I had in mind when I debated on the need for a second university. As has already been mentioned and explained to a certain extent by the Minister, as regards the large number of applicants to the university who have been unsuccessful. If we look at another table we would note that in the Estimates Committee project, budgeted projects, up to 1992, in fact they have only plans to increase the NUS intake by about 300-400 per year. This is indeed fairly low compared to the number of students who want to get into the University. As regards NTI, that is about doubling the intake in 1987 and after that the intake tapers down. So there is really a case for a need for a second university. If we compare our university graduates with Japan and Taiwan, I am just taking countries in this region, we will find that we have the lowest output of university students. The Goh Keng Swee Report on Education published in 1978 showed that we had the lowest.”
“That is what many people are doing in Singapore.”
“Can I be allowed to clarify? I think the Minister has gone off in a tangent to compare the situation in England with that in Singapore. On the one hand, in England, as far as TV broadcasting and commercial stations are con- cerned, the situation there is already an overcrowded one. But in Singapore we have not even got off the ground as far as commercial TV broadcasting is concerned. I do not think it is fair of him to quote out of context really on the Singapore situation. As regards the other point about PAP MPs and PAP Ministers hogging a lot of news time over radio as well as on TV, I would like to tell the Minister that this is not my complaint. This is the feedback from the ground. So I think he should take note of what the ground is saying. Of course, they have the privilege, they have the monopoly to broadcast Minister's activities as they like. But just walking about, kissing babies or such like activities - I do not think those activities are really related to policy. They are, I would say, to put it more crudely, just electioneering.”
“I am sure out of 2.6 million people in Singapore, there must be a lot of activities which are newsworthy and are not broadcast in our news programmes. I think, if we have a commercial TV station, the whole attitude towards TV viewing will change for the better. I think there would be greater expectations of better programmes and I am sure in the long run, TV broadcasting will improve because of the competition. And I am sure advertisers will welcome commercial TV programmes and greater business activities will be generated. Government revenue will increase and, of course, there will be training for more jobs in respect of commercial TV broadcasting. If you look at it as a whole, I think there are many advantages of starting commercial TV programmes and I think the Government should think about this suggestion. 12.00 pm”
“- I can listen and watch the news perhaps without looking so much at only PAP Ministers and PAP MPs highlighted in our programmes. Some hon. Members: No.”
“Sir, in regard to TV broadcasting, may I ask the Minister whether or not the Government has intention to set up a commercial TV station. Sir, it has been said more than once by the Government that its intention is to make Singapore a communications centre of this region. It wants Singapore to be a Total Business Centre and its policy is also on privatization of government firms and it has also said that the private sector should be the engine of economic growth in Singapore. Yet the Government has been rather silent on its position whether or not there are any enquiries to the Government to set up a commercial TV in Singapore. And if there is none, whether or not the Government will take the initiative to set up a commercial television station. I believe if there is a commercial television station in Singapore, only good will come out of it. There will be only benefits to the Government and to the people of Singapore. I believe there would not be any political disadvantages to the Govern- ment. Across the Causeway, there is already one and the Malaysian Government seems to be quite happy with TV 3 which is the commercial TV station in Malaysia. If we have a commercial TV station, then we would have an additional window to the world and also to local domestic affairs. It would mean that there will be a greater variety of programmes. As it is now, TV broadcasting is a monopoly. The Government has full control and ownership of all TV stations. If we do have a commercial TV station, then there will be a competition to the Government, and I believe this competition will only result in improvement of programmes. It will be good for TV broadcasting. I for one, in particular, would welcome a commercial TV station and at least -”
“Sir, I have always wondered why the HDB has not bothered to construct public toilets close to the playgrounds or at convenient places in the housing estates. Can the Minister of State give the reasons?”
“I think we are going to have a repeat of the last four years. Is the Minister going or not going to answer my question?”
“As I said, the public would go along with the Government and allow their land to be compulsorily acquired if they know that the land acquired is to be used for public purposes, for the national good. But if the market value fixed by the Government is so high and it can be deemed by the public that, in fact, the Government is using the Land Acquisition Act to make a profit on their land, then I am afraid it would be very difficult in future for the Government to acquire land. There will be more resistance to it.”
“Of course, we in the SDP have said to the contrary. We do not believe that the flats are subsidized in the sense that the HDB has taken money, out of pocket, to top up what they have lost in regard to cost per flat. And also we say that the HDB does make profits in the sale of their flats. As regards land, I think everybody knows that when land is acquired compulsorily, normally the compensation is based, in the past, on 1973 values. But after the new law was passed, land value is taken at the price in January 1986 for those lands that are acquired after November 1986. Somebody asked the Minister why the price of land was taken at January 1986, and he was quite forthright: "because prices of land at that time were at its lowest point." We can see that the land acquired by the Government is almost for a song. We know that land in outlying areas, was acquired and compensation was paid at something like 60> per sq ft. And not long ago I even read of rubber land at Mandai being acquised and the Government compensated the landowners something like 15> per sq ft. So it would be interesting to see what is the market value of the various estates which the HDB has taken. I think this is an important point because I think the public would go along with the Government to allow their land to be compulsorily acquired at a very low value, and not only at a very low value but, in fact, a lot of hardship has been endured by those people who have been evicted from their land forcibly against their will. I think many MPs have spoken about resettlement and, in fact, the story of the human side of the resettlement has not really been fully told.”
“I am much obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. There are two questions which I would like the Minister to answer, both in regard to the pricing of HDB flats. The first one is, would the Minister be willing to announce or make public the market value of all the land in the housing estates used by the HDB? Now the Minister has come out quite forthrightly, unlike his predecessor, to say that the pricing of HDB flats, in fact, includes the land cost at market value. This market value is a very volatile concept or a very unsure one because market value can mean really anything, depending on what the HDB would like to peg the market value on. If the HDB could give an indication, then I think the public would know how much their flats really cost. Because successful tenders of construction cost are usually gazetted, so we have information on that. But up to now, the land cost has been a complete mystery. I think the Minister should have this cost of land value because he put up a table which was distributed yesterday, and this table does not really give any details of how the price of each individual flat is arrived at. The other question is the unit cost per flat. The Opposition has been at this since, I think, 1984 but we were unsuccessful every year. All kinds of excuses were given. If the Minister would remember, the former Minister said that it was difficult to give the unit cost because it varies from area to area. To make it easy, perhaps we confine ourselves to each particular New Town. I am sure he has figures of each unit cost. Until the Minister can enlighten us on that, I think the two points which the HDB has always been canvassing cannot really be cleared up from the air. No. 1 - HDB has been subsidizing the flats; and No. 2 - the HDB has not been making a profit.”
“I am not speaking but I am asking questions.”
“Can I ask two questions arising from what he has said?”
“I am going to ask him two questions on what he has said.”
“I did not expect the proceedings to proceed so quickly. The Chairman: As you were absent when I called your name on the three occasions, you have deprived yourself of the opportunity to speak.”
“Mr Chairman, may I be allowed to ask two questions on what the Minister has said?”
“I have a clarification for the Member for Paya Lebar. He is appreciative of the Budget and he cannot find an appropriate word to show his appreciation. According to him, he says the most appropriate word is "xie xie". I am sure I also speak on behalf of the Malay MPs here, and I say that the most appropriate words should be terima kaseh.”
“But there is an inference that the Government's policy was to have a workforce of foreign workers not higher than 25% of our total workforce. In any event, my argument still holds. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Thank you.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the thrust of my argument in today's Budget statement debate was that we have here at the moment only 3% intake of foreign workers in the manufacturing sector out of the whole workforce. And my inference was that the Government would seem to have a limit in any event much higher than 3%. Therefore, what is the hurry in introducing this particular levy at this point of time? It would appear that there is a discrepancy in Government policy. I may have said that the Minister said that the upper limit was 25%. If he wants me to clarify, I would say that he did not specifically say that the upper limit was 25%. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Thank you.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I read here, the reply of the Minister says: 'Our policy is to have a controlled inflow. We do not have an absolute limit in mind. But I very much doubt that foreign workers would exceed one-quarter of our labour force.' Sir, in the light of his answer, anyone listening to him could easily infer that what he meant was that our foreign workers' intake should not exceed 25% of our workforce. Any reasonable person could infer that."We do not have an absolute limit in mind." It could be even above 25%. Do you agree with me? "We do not have an absolute limit in mind." So that sentence could imply that the level of foreign workers in Singapore could exceed 25%. Then he went on to say, "But I very much doubt that foreign workers would exceed one-quarter of our labour force." In one sentence, he says there is no limit. In another sentence, he thinks that our level of foreign workers would not exceed 25%. So it is natural that anyone listening to him could have inferred that our upper limit is 25% and I do not think I was wrong by inferring that. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir is entitled to his inferences but he should beware of attributing them as direct quotations to me when I made a precise and a different statement. So I request the Member to have the honour to concede this to the House.”
“At least 80% of the ships under the larger ship management companies visit US ports. Sir, three of the larger ship management companies estimate that the direct spin-off to the economy was $324 million for shipowners and managers of ships. They also estimate that there is an additional spin-off of $250 milion from related shore activities based on 1985 statistics. I hope that the Minister for Finance will give this matter his urgent attention. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if I may pursue my point of clarification. The exchange took place on 31st August last year [Hansard, Vol. 49, col. 1539]. The Member for Potong Pasir asked me: "To what level the Government will stop the inflow of foreign workers, 10%, 11% or 12% of our total labour force, or what? Or when the need arises, it can expand as high as it could go? Is that the policy?" And my answer was clear. "Our policy is to have a controlled inflow. We do not have an absolute limit in mind. But I very much doubt that foreign workers would exceed one-quarter of our labour force." Sir, may I ask the Clerk to hand this to the Member so he can compare that with what he said this morning. [Copy handed to Mr Deputy Speaker.]”
“Half of this income deemed to be US-sourced income will be slapped with a tax of 4% without allowance for deductions, which means the tax has to be paid even if the ship incurs operating losses. According to these owners, the tax places their ships flagged in Singapore at a disadvantage once they call at US ports. Official sources say that because Singapore - the country of registration - does not have reciprocal exemption provisions with the US, these ships will still be subject to freight tax even if Norway, for instance - the country of beneficial ownership - already has a tax treaty with the US. Why have I highlighted Scandinavian owners even though NOL will also be similarly affected? This is because of two reasons. Firstly, Scandinavian interests own some 40 Singapore registered ships which are managed locally and employ more than 500 Singapore seafarers. Secondly, their vessels rank among the most modern tonnage in the local register. Finally, Sir, I have with me a letter dated 5th February 1988 from a marine management company in Singapore. I have their permission to quote a paragraph of the letter to show the urgency of the problem: 'At this point in time, three of our shipowner principals, having 11 ships under Singapore flag under our management, are now seriously considering in the near future to flag out from Singapore to a registry exempted from the US tax exposure.' Sir, we are already the world's busiest port - something we can all be proud of. If Singapore is to maintain its status as an international shipping centre, this tax issue has to be resolved and urgently indeed. Any long-term plans to promote Singapore as an international shipping centre must recognize that the US is a very important country in shipping.”
“I fully agree that at that time it was necessary in the light of "differentials in the cost of employment between foreign and local labour" to introduce that tax. In our economic recovery, new investments and expansion of operations by multi-national corporations played a key role. I am sure that when the EDB selected these industries for location in Singapore they took into account the economic and labour situation. It was their success and expansion which resulted in a need for more workers - more workers than we could supply in Singapore or have in Singapore. But now in the face of success and expansion, we find that they have to pay an additional levy of $140 to $170 per foreign worker. Surely this is not logical when we have no suitable local labour available. The fact that less than 3% of the total workforce in Singapore will be affected by this increase in levy is comforting but does not make for good logic in increasing the levy. It is the very success of these industries that has created the demand for workers. Should we all not rejoice in our economic recovery and success? Let us reap our rewards from these companies through tax on profits and not through increasing levy on foreign workers. Sir, I would like next to draw the attention of the Minister to a matter of great urgency. I refer here to the 1986 United States Tax Reform Act and its impact on transportation. I quote from a Business Times report on Thursday, 25th June 1987: 'Scandinavian owners of vessels registered in Singapore are pressing for an urgent solution to tax problems posed by the US Tax Reform Act 1986.' The big issue in question is a US freight tax on income from a one-off voyage to any US destination or rental income from chartering out a ship taken to the United States.”
“All right. Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Sir, I rise in support of the motion. May I first congratulate the Minister for Finance for a budget which has, by and large, been fair to all Singaporeans - big business, small business and the man in the street. His cautious approach to the raising of public sector rates and pegging these changes to the economic growth or otherwise is welcomed. His decision not to introduce the consumption tax in the coming fiscal year is a relief to all and I hope that he will also come to the same conclusion next year. There is also wisdom in his statement that "public services should be provided at least cost to the taxpayer." An exemplary example is Telecoms which over the last eight years passed back cost-savings to the customers through eight major rate revisions totalling $315.5 million. In 1987, Telecoms passed back another $39 million to customers. Sir, this is a wise budget and not an election budget. However, Sir, I cannot agree with the rationale to raise the foreign workers' levy from $140 to $170 per month with the exception of foreign workers who are construction workers or domestic servants. We are all aware of the socio -economic cost of having foreign workers in Singapore. We must rightly ensure that jobs created should benefit Singaporeans and not foreigners. However, the economic expansion in 1987 generated 66,000 jobs. Unemployment fell in 1987 from 4.6% at the beginning of the year to a low of 2.8% by the end of the year. In the words of the Minister himself "the slack in unemployment has already been taken up since early 1987." Furthermore, in 1986, the foreign workers' levy was introduced to protect Singaporeans.”
“Perhaps the Minister can look up the Hansard and let us know. If I were wrong ---”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, obviously the Minister has not taken note of what I said. I have said that I asked this question of him in one of the sessions in this House and, as I remember it, he said up to a level of 25%. I said that I could have been mistaken. If that is the case, let us look at the Hansard and clarify. If I was mistaken, I would tell the Minister so. Until we have looked at the Hansard, I cannot be for sure. That is my answer to him. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I take it that he would like to confirm with the Hansard but he presses his point.”
“I do not see how the aim of having excellence in education, as stated in the Agenda for Action, can be reached if there is going to be less money spent on development of more schools. I hope the PAP is not saying a lot of nice things and has no intention of carrying them out.”
“Therefore, the said consultants argued that the more effective practice should be like in the United Kingdom and that deductions or immediate deductions on profits derived from abroad should be made. I support that. I have been told that our local businessmen who go abroad to canvass for business do not automatically get tax deductions on their business expenses incurred overseas. They need apparently to show to the Tax Department that they have obtained contracts abroad before deductions were allowed. This kind of a practice must be wrong. Why? Because it is not often that every trip abroad made by businessmen will succeed. The Minister perhaps could look into this complaint. I would support every fiscal measure that will help our local entrepreneurs to secure business overseas. Ultimately, if we are to enjoy a high standard of living, we have to justify the salaries of our highly paid workers in Singapore. One of the best ways is to have vast incomes producing investments abroad. With these days of instant communication, I cannot see why Singapore cannot be the centre or headquarters of a great number of Singapore companies having businesses and factories and all kinds of commercial ventures spread out all over this region. It has also been noted that the development account has dropped and in the area of education, which I am particularly concerned, the spending is reduced by 4.4%. This would also mean that the building of schools will be less. If that is the case, how is the Government going to justify their policy of having smaller enrolments in our classrooms? Surely, this objective cannot be achieved when there is going to be a lesser number of schools built.”
“Their wage costs remain the same, whether they pay the levy or part of the levy on foreign workers to the Government or pay the same amount to local workers as their wages, their wage costs remain the same. I would urge those trade union Members of this House to look into this suggestion seriously. In the past the Government has strongly held that CPF contributions are part of the workers' wage and cannot be reduced. The Government has been proven wrong and the Government has meekly reduced the contributions of CPF by the employers. The Opposition has always maintained that CPF should not be used as a wage mechanism. I am glad to note that the Minister has admitted that "the proper mechanism for adjustment should rightly be a flexible wage system and that the CPF should be viewed as a longer term saving scheme with its own specific objectives of providing for the basic needs of retirement income, home ownership and Medisave." That should be the main purpose of CPF. I say that the CPF rates as they stand are sufficient for these objectives and should not be further increased. Singapore's only real resource is our people. We do not have a hinterland, we do not have natural resources of any significance. Therefore, our wealth in the long term must be earned abroad, either by exports or by investing overseas. In this respect the Government's encouragement by fiscal measures to Singaporeans to invest abroad is certainly a good thing. But the question is, under the present Budget, is the stimulus given enough? Businessmen do not think so. There were also two tax consultants reported in our local press who have doubted if the measures provided by the Minister are sufficient. Companies which venture abroad, they say, are made on the basis that they would succeed and not fail.”