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 65 of 85.
“Well, I am objecting to the line of accusation he is making of the other lone voice.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I have to intervene. The hon. Member said that there was a lone voice ---”
“I just said that this offence could be a technical offence. Will the Minister agree with me that there are many private housing estates where the roads are fairly narrow and there are concrete kerbs. I have seen many vehicles, one-half of the vehicle parked on top of the kerb and the other half on the road. There are no white lines, no double lines along the roads in these private housing estates. In this situation, and there are many private housing estates in Singapore, is it not just a technical offence?”
“They would like to beautify the place as well, and so they say, "No, I think this is a better arrangement." I think they must be given this flexibility and not be forced to plant trees and to cause places to be made up in accordance with the wishes of the Planning Department.”
“These people who do that will probably damage their vehicles and they would not damage the so-called side-table. They are doing it because probably they think they will be taking too much of the road and they, in fact, have a social conscience to take only half the road. Of course, there is also an element of self interest. They are afraid that if their motorcar is parked wholly on the road, another vehicle may collide into it. But nevertheless, by taking part of their vehicle off the road and parking on this so-called kerb or side-table, it allows for the free flow of traffic. I do not think the pedestrians will be affected. They can still walk on the kerb. This is my experience at least. So I would say this fine is too much. As one Minister said when he first came into the House, most of these laws tend to overkill and this is perhaps one of them. There is an element of not only deterrent but coercion. In fact, with this kind of strong punishment, heavy punishment, I think it will cow the population. I hope that is not the intention of the Government. But, of course, then people will also have the other suspicion that the Government may be raising revenue through fines. I hope that is not the intention. The other point I would like to mention is in regard to planning approval which is usually given together with plans and specifications for trees and certain other made-up areas specified therein and the developer or the builder will have to comply with these plans and specifications. I would urge the Minister to give developers or people who are constructing buildings some flexibility. The building authority will say, "All right, you have to plant so many trees at these places." But the developers may have ideas of their own.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I notice that the punishment for offences committed by owners of vehicles who park on turf or side-tables as it is called is $2,000 at its upper limit. I think this is too excessive. $2,000 is the maximum fine. I would say that this amount should be reduced to $500 maximum fine. These are my reasons. These offences can be said to be almost akin to offences that are technical in nature, in the sense that no person is injured or suffer some damages. The only reason why this fine is imposed is probably the damage done to the turf or to the side-table. What damage can be done to the turf? Probably on a very wet day, if motorcars get on the turf, they might cause indentations on the ground. That is about all. But on a very dry day, the grass sometimes can take the load of the vehicle. So this offence is not very serious in nature. Assuming that even if damage is done to the turf, will it cost $2,000 to get the grass replanted? I think the basis of a fine must go into the replacement cost and probably the administrative cost. But I do not think it would come anywhere near $500 to replant the grass or to level up the ground if there is a dent made by the vehicle that is parked on the turf. As regards side-tables, the definition of "side-table" is "any area turfed or otherwise beside a public street. These are cemented side-walks or side-walks with slabs placed on them. If they are cemented, there is reinforced concrete on them, and I do not think even a lorry riding on them can damage them at all. Damage can be done only if there are slabs of cement. Sometimes in narrow streets I have seen motorists park half of their vehicle on this so-called side-table and the other half on the road.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are talking of serious matters but the Member for Whampoa did not seem to understand what the Minister has said. As regards remuneration and payment, the Minister has spelt it out quite clearly that it is for the Commission to decide. If the Commission decides to pay me for my services, it is for me to decide whether to take it or to donate it to a charitable organization. But it makes no difference whether I am paid or not, as far as I am concerned. But I am concerned for the people who assist me. If I am paid, of course, I will make sure that it is given to a good cause.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I just got one point to make. It is true that I was the one who put the question to the Prime Minister. But the Minister will certainly realize that when I am standing here, I do not speak on my own behalf. It is not I who want this public inquiry. I have got feedback. People talk to me and I assess what the people want, and that is how I get the question framed and put before the Prime Minister in this House. I think the Minister must get it very clear. Whenever I am standing here speaking, I am not speaking on my behalf. I am the voice, basically, the voice of Potong Pasir but generally the voice of the people of Singapore. You cannot say that just because the Government has not taken the initiative, I am the one who want it. I do not think that is the correct position.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since the Minister has said that he is not involved in this matter since the Commission has been involved, I hope that I will be hearing from the Secretary of the Commission very soon on this matter.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is an important document and, as I said, this is the first time I am seeing it this morning and there is a new term of reference and, of course, I am caught by surprise; an element of surprise is there. But, nevertheless, I will go along with it on this part of the evidence. But I suppose the Government will be leading evidence on the first reference. [Interruption] Yes. The Minister has referred to the Act. If we look at the Act, in fact, this public inquiry is basically the Government's job, not private members of the public. I think it is in the Government's interests to inquire on any matter that has got public interest. I am putting myself, in fact, to do some of the job which the Government should have done in the first place. As regards remuneration, I am not concerned about myself whether I am paid or not, that makes no difference to me. But I am concerned more with the friends who will be helping me. They are busy people, they have got a practice, a professional practice of their own. I think it is only fair that they should be at least compensated for the time taken. In this kind of work, it is not just attendance on the Inquiry day itself but there is a lot of background work needed and I am sure the Minister realizes that. There will be plenty of time that will be taken off from their work. So I do not think the Minister should make this payment into an issue. As regards the advertisement, I think this is necessary to notify members of the public to come forward and give any evidence which they have. But I hope that before this advertisement is inserted, I will be consulted in regard to how it is worded because, of course, we already have this advertisement in mind.”
“There will be other people who will also be leading evidence together with me. I must make that clear, it is not I alone, and for the next 10 days or 20 days, whatever it is, the time that is required in this public inquiry, I will be all the time at the stand. So I must make this clear - that there will be other people who will also be leading evidence. I would like to also make it clear to this House that if there are any matters which are necessary for us to get evidence, then I hope the Minister will make them available to us and there should be no quibbling as regards time or how we would like to view the files or whether or not we could go back again to view these files. Thank you, Sir.”
“Of course, we have got the terms of reference before us and I would certainly be writing to the Minister very soon in regard to what is known as the "getting up of the matter" which is no small matter, and the Prime Minister has already given his assurance that all files will be available, and not only available to me and my friends but also we have to go back again to have, maybe, a second look at the files. Also, we would require time to look into these files, adequate time. We do not want it to be a rush job. Certainly we would also require the Government to provide us with the details, maybe an officer of the Police or somebody who has got experience in investigative work with powers to subpoena for bank accounts of persons whom we would like to see. These are essential parts of investigative work. The other thing is, of course, lawyers are busy people and it is a practice that if their time is taken from their work to do this public service, I think they should be adequately remunerated. I believe there are provisions for this. Perhaps Members are unaware but there is already precedent set on this matter. Perhaps some of the first generation guards, the old guards in this House, will tell you that. Of course, the composition of the Commissioners has already been decided for us. We note that Mr Chan Sek Keong and two other lay members who are not connected with the Judiciary are acting as Commissioners. These are some of the matters we would be referring to in the letter that I will be sending to the Minister. The other thing is that it has been stressed that I will be leading evidence. Although the word used is that I will be leading evidence but it is not necessarily so that I shall always be at the stand.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I must say that the Government do get things done very quickly. My final terms of reference, I believe, were given to the Minister not yesterday but on the 23rd March, and we have here before us the terms of reference in its proper form under the hand of the President. This is the first time I have seen these terms which include the first term of reference which I was unaware of. The reason why I wanted the Prime Minister to call for a public inquiry is because the former Minister has died and there is public interest on the matter. People are talking about it and it is only proper that the Government should let matters be open for the public to see and get their satisfaction, as I said, to the bottom of the matter. I have not for once accused the Government of cover- up and I hope the Minister will not bring to bear that I was casting any doubts or aspersions or innuendoes on the Government in regard to cover-up. We are also investigating whether or not the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau has done their job properly. I did not say they did not do their job properly. We have to go into that area which is quite separate. In fact, I think it is a completely different issue from what I originally had in mind. What I had in mind was only in matters related to the late Minister for National Development. But, nevertheless, since this has already been given under the hand of the President, I do not think we are in a position now to withdraw this first term of reference. That is in regard to the CPIB.”
“Administration (4) That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead PA-01 of the Main Estimates.”
“Yes. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment in the name of Encik Yatiman Yusof stood on the Order Paper Supplement: Weights and Measures Office (5) That the sum to be allocated for Head V be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead VD-01-1210 of the Main Estimates.”
“I was giving a reason as to why there are no takers. I was just assuming that probably this could be one of the reasons. If it is one of the reasons, perhaps the Minister could look into it. I am not very sure but it could be one of the reasons. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Chairman, I will look into all the reasons. But before a specific suggestion is made that EDB has made free with other people's ideas, I think it is only fair that we have some sense of whether this has ever taken place in real life.”
“May I just have a point of clarification? I am glad to hear that the Government has set aside huge sums of money ready for the taking for those people who have got bright ideas. Apparently there are at the moment very few takers. I think we should ask ourselves why this is so. I have heard, of course, not recently but sometime past, that anyone with a bright idea - he went to the EDB for assistance. And the officer there would take down all the details and before he knew anything, it was published in some EDB magazine. All his bright ideas would have gone overnight. I do not know whether this is a problem. To be fair to people with good ideas, I think there is such a thing as copyright. But sometimes they do not go and establish their copyright. They do not register it. They just have got an idea and they want to have a free discussion with an officer of whatever Government authority. I think this should be done in confidence, to be fair to the person with the idea. Until the idea is fully developed and marketed, I think it is not the time to circularize and publish the idea. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Chairman, Sir, after a general discussion, it is with reluctance that I deal with individual personal problems. But to be fair to EDB, I have not received any complaint that they have made free with other people's proprietary information, or that they have circulated bright ideas not yet copyrighted or patented. If the Member has any such case to his knowledge, I would urge him to let me have it. I promise not to leak the secret anywhere and I will look into the matter.”
“We are a small country, small workforce, and therefore I think we should go into things like, of course, information technology is important, software, and I think the Government should institutionalize the process of reverse engineering. We must have some kind of an ongoing thing in this area. This is the shortest cut to progress.”
“Perhaps a concession could be given for car parking lots, and also in utilities because they work on very small margins and just because of a very small amount they collapse. So I hope the Minister could look into these areas. Despite what the Minister for Finance has said in regard to taxation, I still think that there is room for reduction in our corporation and income tax. Because as the Yen rises, it is obvious that the Japanese will be seeking more and more places to do their business, and Singapore, I hope, will not be left out although I know that in recent months Japanese businessmen have come to Singapore to invest here. But if other NICs are more attractive, it is obvious more of the business will be given to the other newly industrializing countries. Another area which I think is very important for a small country like ours is in the area of research and development. I think the Government should not be parsimonious in this area. Although I know R&D is a long-term thing, sometimes it can go on years and years and nothing seems to come out of it, but if you have got only one discovery it might pay for all the investments that you have put into it. Since we are a very small country with a small population, I think the Economic Committee has recommended automation. This is one area which is very important because we have a very small work force. We will always have to depend on the foreign workers and perhaps automation is one area which could be researched into to alleviate our problem of dependence on foreign workers. Of course, we have to find a type of business which is suited to the local context.”
“It is a huge country, a continent by itself, and it is opening up. And perhaps Singaporeans could be adventurous, look afar. We could open up furniture factories there, export timber there to make furniture. Or in case of starches, we could open up factories there perhaps to convert the starch to other finished products. That is one way we can expand our trade. We have to go out and capture the marketsand export our goods to those organizations that are established abroad. This is one way we could learn from the Japanese. Coming back home, our economy has been said to be lop-sided. We see that the construction industry provides a big chunk of our GNP. Perhaps we could learn from this downturn not to let this happen again. When one sector, for example, the construction industry is booming, I think the public sector should hold back and not to exaggerate the situation. But of course in the construction industry it is closely tied with CPF and then we just went on and on and when the construction industry collapsed, it almost pulled down the whole economy with it. Perhaps that is the lesson we could learn not to be too dependent on one sector. I am glad to hear that the Government is assisting small businesses. Although it is said that something like 80% of the companies registered in Singapore are Singapore-owned, out of this 80% they only produce 20% demand whereas the foreigner is the other way round. But, nevertheless, small businesses in Singapore do need assistance. Some practical steps are not to enforce collection of arrears in rent but to give them an amnesty period of even up to a year in the case of small factories.”
“They are good schools, teaching music, but they are selling their musical instruments like pianos, violins and other musical instruments, to these schools which are spread all over the world. I have been to Australia. I have seen similar types of schools opened by the Japanese in Australian towns. And, of course, in the heavier industries, perhaps in Singapore we see this Petrochem where they spend a lot of money; but there again they use their equipment. I believe they do use their equipment. Again, they are helping to export their own goods. If they go abroad, they capture contracts for constructions or whatever building projects there are. Again, they export their heavy machinery to these contractors who are working abroad. So in this way, they do capture markets all over the world by going abroad helping to build or to have projects, then they export their goods to those Japanese companies abroad. Singapore traditionally is an entrepot. We are the hub of South-east Asia. We import manufactured goods and we export raw materials. That was the traditional role of Singapore - a distribution centre of imported goods to the neighbouring region and we collect from the neighbouring region raw materials and the like and re-export them. So perhaps for Singapore, of course the best is to convert all these raw materials like timber into furniture, or starches, sago into finished products like sweets and glucose and to re-export them to be higher added value products. Rubber is a traditional export raw material. Perhaps we could go one step further and establish furniture factories in other developing countries. I hear Brazil is one country, although it has debt problem. But I read in trade magazines that it is now developing at a very fast rate.”
“Mr Chairman, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head V be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead VA-01 of the Main Estimates. Mr Chairman, we have heard the Minister saying that in America there are now many trade bills before Congress to impose further protectionist measures. We know that all these traditional markets are getting more and more difficult to penetrate and it is right that entrepreneurs in Singapore should be more innovative in their ideas to export their goods. In the past, England was so rich because it had a captive market, it had colonies all over the world and they could export goods to all these countries and they became rich. After World War II, the rich countries like America, of course, gave grants to poorer countries. But in the end, the money comes back to them because they export capital goods and other goods. But in these days, how do we capture markets? What sort of ideas must we have? Perhaps we could look at how Japan does it. Just now there was a lengthy discussion on retail trade in Singapore. There was much talk about the big departmental stores in Singapore. I would say that is one of the ways how Japan captures markets in the world. It goes all over the world, establishes some kind of an organization in which they can sell their own goods to these organizations. Like in Singapore, they have set up, or at least together with the local people, their departmental stores and these become markets for Japanese garments, cosmetics and other retail goods. And again, we see how they sell their musical instruments abroad. They capture the market by opening music schools. Like in Singapore, we see so many of them.”
“Mr Chairman, I think it was about 15 years ago that the Indonesians decided to develop Batam and, if my memory serves me well, I believe that Singapore entrepreneurs were encouraged to put money in Batam. Now, with this new project coming up, building a new port, would it not be to the benefit of Singapore if the Singapore entrepreneurs were to be encouraged to put money there and when the port grows they could grow with the business there. And that is one way of perhaps safeguarding our situation here. Would the Minister comment on that?”
“So I would urge the Member not to be overly concerned at competitors. We have to work hard but I think we can help our neighbours in the region do well and that will do well for us. The second question concerns how a new Malaysian Government policy will affect Singapore entrepreneurs. I hate to suggest it, but I would have thought this is a question more suitable for the Parliament House in Kuala Lumpur. And I am sure our Singapore entrepreneurs will make the best of whatever business opportunities arise in neighbouring countries, and indeed anywhere in the world.”
“Having the competition at your doorstep is quite a different thing from going to have a look at potential competitors on a study mission in a foreign country. They are two different things. It is a real competition which will make us progress. Survival of the fittest will not mean the death of local enterprises because by having this competition our local enterprises will become more capable and more competitive. The Member for Potong Pasir asked me two questions. One, am I not aware that Batam is so near to Singapore? Yes, indeed I am aware that Batam is very near to Singapore. We can see the Singapore skyline from Batam, just as he could see the Batam shore line from Singapore. They are developing a new harbour and port there. What effect it will have on Singapore in the long term? What will Government do? Our basic philosophy, whether in economic matters or in any other field of international affairs and competition, is that we cannot hope to win for lack of competition. There will always be competitors. If it is not Batam, it will be Pasir Gudang. If it is not Pasir Gudang, it will be some other port, Kaoshiung, Port Klang, Sri Lanka, whichever. The number of competitors is so large that to hope that no threat will appear is unreasonable. The way to prosper against competitions is to be more capable, more efficient to have a greater critical mass. Then people will say, "Yes, Singapore is a better place to go to than whatever the competitor for the time being may be". If the competitor does well, we will help him to do well because, as in department stores, the amount of business is not finite. The more parties prosper in Southeast Asia, the more vibrant, stable, conducive a region it will be for Singapore.”
“I think, in principle, department stores are not fundamentally different from the manufacturing business, banks or any other sector of the economy. We have our local companies. We also have foreign companies. Business is created by the success of the companies. It is not a fixed sized pie which everybody has to share from. If foreign bankers had not come here to do off-shore banking services, and set up ACUs, it would have been difficult for our domestic banks to expand, to have caused the same huge growth of the financial sector which we have witnessed in the last five years. If the multi-nationals had not moved in, and there had not been the Seagates and Hewlett Packards and Texas Instruments and General Motors and Matsushita Electronics, it is unlikely that Singaporean companies would be making computers, disk drives, hi-fi audio equipment, specialty chemicals, what- have-you. It is the same with department stores and retail trade. Sogo or Yaohan, by setting up here, attract that many more tourists to come to Singapore, who will not only shop at Sogo and Yaohan, but also live in Singapore hotels, eat in Singapore restaurants, and enjoy the services of other Singapore establishments. That is good for us. Indeed it is good for the retail business, and even for the Singaporean shops here. If we want to attract tourists, we need quality shopping. Of course, we would also like to encourage our locals to move into the same areas, establish the same links, set up joint ventures, and in time also develop into quality department stores. I think it is already happening. I do not have statistics but many of the department stores are joint ventures between foreign and local interests. And that perhaps is the way forward. Let us compete. Let us take them on.”
“Can I be allowed to bring up two points for the comment of the Minister? The first is in regard to the new harbour that is to be built at Batam Island. I did not know that Batam Island is so near to Singapore until I visited it. In fact, it is less than a 20 minute-ride by fast boat from Singapore, and from Batam Island you can see the skyline of Singapore. It was reported in the papers that the Indonesian Government has invited tenders for a new port to be built on that island. I am just wondering what effect it will have on the business of Singapore in the long term, because it is so near to Singapore. Much of the shipping business could be diverted over to the other side. If that is going to be the effect, what is the Government going to do about this? The other matter is the basic change of policy in Malaysia, which has just been announced, that is, the Government across the Causeway is no longer giving or granting automatic business to bumiputras. That will mean that the bumiputras will have to compete on the same basis as the non-bumiputras. I am just wondering whether there will be business opportunities opened up for Singapore entrepreneurs, with this change of very basic policy across the Causeway. I do not know whether some kind of a joint venture or more joint ventures would develop in this new set of circumstances. Perhaps the Minister could comment. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, I will deal with all the points briefly otherwise the discussion will drag on. Department stores. Can we promote big local retailers, and buy from local sources? What share do the locals have of the market? Have we consulted the locals what they feel? Can we protect our domestic market base?”
“I have to make it very clear that I have no intention whatsoever to defame anyone, including local journalists. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have made a mistake in citing a local senior journalist in this House on 23rd March and I would now like to apologize to him. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!”
“Financing of the People's Association (19) That the sum to be allocated for Head J be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead JK-01 of the Main Estimates.”
“I have two questions for the Minister. The first is, can the Minister please tell the House what is the criteria used by his Ministry for a person to qualify for this public assistance aid? The other question is, how much money has been paid out by the end of last year through this public assistance scheme?”
“Secondly, with the additional officer, the Court will have the time and manpower to publish a more qualitative and in-depth annual report concerning divorce cases and marriages, instead of just publishing divorce statistics year in and year out. Thirdly, with the appointment of a Vice- President, the question of leave can be arranged more smoothly between the President and his Vice-President without affecting the daily activities of the Court. I think the appointment of a Vice-President for the Syariah Court should be given serious consideration by the Minister in charge.”
“I am still not very happy with what the Government has said in regard to the purposes of the community centres. As I said, if you take the wrong steps now, in fact, there will be greater divergence between the peoples of Singapore at a later date. On that note, I will withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Encik Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri (Kampong Ubi)( In Malay): Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head J be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead JC-02-1210 of the Main Estimates. Sir, since the establishment of the Syariah Court in 1959, to date it has experienced two relocations. First, the Court was shifted from Canning Rise to Pearls Hill where there was no necessity to share space and facilities with the Registry of Muslim Marriages. Now the Syariah Court will be moved to a more modern and spacious area in the Ministry of Community Development at Thomson Road. I certainly welcome the move to relocate the Syariah Court in a more modern and comfortable location. However, it appears that the physical upgrading of the Court is not in tandem with the upgrading of its officers. I observe that the effort to recruit additional Social Case Workers came to fruition only last year, from two to three. I am wondering whether the Ministry has given consideration to the need of appointing a Vice-President of the Syariah Court. In my view, the time has come for the Court to have a Vice-President. Firstly, with the appointment of a Vice- President, divorce cases and other matters related thereto can be handled more expeditiously. People who are involved in such cases need not wait for months or, in fact, years before they can know the outcome of their cases.”
“The eyes and ears and also to win the hearts and minds of the people. In any event, it was part of the eyes and ears of the Government. Are you denying that? Perhaps some of the old guards can say that I am wrong. But if you are saying so, I really cannot accept that.”
“Are you denying the fact that the community centres in the early days were set up by the PAP to be the eyes and ears - win the hearts and minds of the people?”
“Mr Chairman, I am going back to history. Perhaps the Minister was too young to know what the original community centres were for. At one time, I think I do not have to tell him the political history of Singapore. I think any of the old guards will tell him that.”
“When people get to know that these places are, in fact, places to advance Government policies and inevitably, of course, it is PAP policies. When you go there to attend folk dancing or when you go there to learn your computer, they must always bear in mind that it is Government policy that you are there. In other words, there is an implication that probably when people go there, they have got some kind of an obligation towards the Government which should not be. Because these community centres belong to the people. The community centre must merge with the community. You cannot wholly separate and say, "Well, this is a place where we advance Government policies." I think it is wrong. We want to get it integrated into the community, make it part of the residence of that community. Then you can really build up, not just a housing estate, but a well integrated, cohesive, community. I think that should be it. I think that is the important aspect of community centres. At one time, of course, it was the eyes and ears of the people. Now you are saying that it is an outpost of the Government to advance Government policies. I think this is wrong. Mr Wong Kan Seng: Point of clarification. May I ask the Member for Potong Pasir when was it that the PA was the eyes and ears of the Government? Can you please show us the chapter and verse or the publications or the newspaper reports where you read of this instance that the PA is the eyes and ears of the Government, rather than just generalizing? Maybe just give us examples.”
“Mr Chairman, things are getting clearer to me now. It is more and more revealing as we get deeper and deeper into this subject of People's Association. Now I hear that community centres are places where Government use it to advance its objectives and to advance its own purpose and policies. That is the position. Where is the element of community development in the community centres?”
“You must bear that distinction in mind. I do not go there as a political person; I go there as an elected representative of the Constituency. So there is a distinction there. If an elected MP is not given the use of the CC and the Government says, "We have the privilege of choosing whoever we like to be advisor to the CCC or CCMC", then he is not actually a representative of the people. They are representatives of the Government. Again, there is a distinction. So the people want somebody but the Government says, "No. We want to shave somebody else down your throat". Is that right in principle? I do not think it is right. This is certainly not democracy. Democracy means the will of the majority. But the Government is just using the will of the minority in this particular case. Please correct me if I am wrong. I think if we want to get our nation on the right path, we must start on the right road, otherwise time will certainly be not on our side.”
“Point of clarification. I think the Minister has brought up a very important point. He says that this PA is a Government agency. But are Government agencies not, in fact, supported by public funds? When you say "Government agency", it is not something exclusive to the Party in power. "Government agency" means actually an agency belonging to the people because it is paid by taxpayers and, therefore, if it is paid by taxpayers, then it should be freely used by whoever wants to use it. You cannot exclude one section or one organization from using the PA. He said that when I asked to use it, I was not allowed. I said that I was not allowed to use it, and you say it is not true. I can cite you an example. One of our residents there wanted to hold a Cultural Nite there and he was to invite me as a guest. He was not allowed to hold the Cultural Nite there. What is wrong with that - Indian, Chinese, Malay cultural dances? He was not allowed, although we went to check on the board that that particular date was free and then we wrote and said, "All right, if that date is not free, give us any dates that are free." We were denied that. You can check that out. Again, you said that your community centre at Cheng San has been taken away. But is it of the same class, a new generation CC? This CC at Sennett Estate is really a first-class Community Centre. To close it down is a real shame. I think it is a real shame to convert it from a specialized use, which it is built for, into office use. I think it is a waste of our resources. Again, you said that I went there as an Opposition party, but I have already said when I am in Potong Pasir, I go there as an elected MP. I do not go down there and say, "Look, I am from the Opposition Party." I said, "I am your MP." There is a distinction.”
“The ultimate aim of course is that we want to develop the nation for the good of all. If we have this premise from the start that, "Oh, you are not from the right party you cannot use the facilities which are contributed by the residents there." Of course, the Government has given the land. The building is normally paid partly by Government and the majority of which is donation from members of the public. [Interruption]. Or whatever it is. There is public participation in building the community centre. There is a social element there. It is not exclusively Government facilities. What will happen if in the future there are more opposition members, which is a very likely possibility. The difference will be greater. Then a bigger section who will be denied the use of these facilities will be enhanced and the problem that goes with it is certainly not good for the nation. At this particular point of time, when the problem has really not arisen, I think it is better for the Government to have its policies corrected and say, "Well, you are one of the elected members of the community, by all means, see what you can do for the community." That should be the correct policy unless of course the purpose of the community centre is in fact used just as propaganda centres for the Government. I hope not. But what I heard is that the PA has got various projects. They organize many things and these projects take place in various community centres and everything is prepared, whether it be a campaign or whether it be a project ---”
“I hope the Minister will reconsider to converting this beautiful community centre back to its old use. The purpose of a community centre must be tied to community development and nation building. I do not think we can achieve this end if one section of the community is cut away from the community centre. I am speaking as an Opposition but when I am at Potong Pasir I do not go there as a Party member. I go there as an elected representative of the people at Potong Pasir. So I am an elected representative and it is very strange that an elected representative is denied the use and facilities of the community centre there. We have asked for the use of the hall. We were refused and I believe that those groups that are supportive of the ruling party are allowed to hold dinner there. It was also reported to me that the PAP member who had lost the election at Potong Pasir went there as one of its invited guests during a dinner. I am not complaining but I think this kind of attitude taken is wrong for nation building. The Government should show some respect for the elected representative of the people at Potong Pasir. After all, I was returned with close to 60% of the votes and it is not a fluke. So it has proven that the people do want me as their elected representative and I am sure the feelings of the people are hurt when their own elected representative is denied the use of the community facilities of the community centre. We cannot have two worlds in Singapore - one who is supportive of the ruling party and the other who appears not to be supportive. But we are all Singaporeans. For community development, for nation building, there should not be a distinction. There should never be a separation of different political thinking.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head J be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead JA-01 of the Main Estimates. Sir, may I be allowed to say something on the People's Association. In the early days, the historical purpose of the People's Association in setting up community centres was it was meant to be the eyes and ears of the Government. But I believe since that time the role of the community centres has changed drastically. It is now a social, educational and cultural centre of the community. I have to say again - that a beautiful community centre at Sennett Estate, which is within my constituency, has been taken away for office purposes. It was built as a new generation community centre and we have written for this to be reconverted back to a community centre. But I believe the reply was negative. I have also asked questions in this House and the answer was that there were monies donated by the residents of the constituency and at the time when the money was donated it was for one purpose and, that is, to build a community centre. If there is going to be a change of use, I believe there is a breach of trust. Again, I believe the planning approval given was for a community centre and it was built, planned and designed with a view to using it as a community centre where rooms for cultural, social and sporting activities would also be available. I do not know how there was a change of use - to that of an office. There was a demand for this community centre although there is another new community centre at Potong Pasir Estate itself. There is a demand for this one. There is no excuse to say that there was no need for it. Of course, business people around there also suffer because less people visit that area.”
“It is more than 60% above the total CPF balances. Even if we go to the extreme of allowing everybody to withdraw the money now, the funds are there. The best long- term assurance that members can have that the money will be there is to vote PAP. Because when you have a prudent Government that has proven itself --- Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---”
“Of course, on top of that, you have some additional funds which are needed to ensure that he has a certain amount he can draw out every month to live on after age 55 years. We are now doing this study on the scheme and we are confining the CPF basically to these objectives which boil down to one fundamental objective and, that is, savings for old age. All the schemes that he has mentioned are basically to enable the member to enhance the value of his savings so that he has more for old age. He has made the point that he thinks 50% is too high. Maybe so. We are still looking into this question. The intention of the Government is to try and keep the rate so that it is not too high. Because if it goes up higher it means the workers will have less take-home pay. What we want is to allow the workers to have more take-home pay from which they can save up for their own needs. On that point, at least, we are in agreement, that is, we should not have too high a CPF rate. He has again raised this question of ability of CPF to repay. In anticipation of this question, I have updated for him the data that I gave in March 1985. At that time, I gave him some figures on how much were in the CPF, the accumulated amount, and how much we had in national reserves and so on. The latest figures as at December 1986, total deposits of CPF members, $29.3 billion. On the assets side, our foreign reserves as at 31st December, $28.2 billion, almost equal. In addition, the Government also owns local assets. These are investments in various forms, loans to statutory boards and so on. We just take the loans to HDB and JTC alone; they amounted to $19 billion. If you add up the $28.2 billion foreign reserves and $19 billion local loans to these two statutory boards alone, it is $47.2 billion.”
“Sir, my point is that the CPF rate is definitely too high. That is why we have got all these kinds of uses. If these forced contributions were not locked in the CPF, they could have been diverted to the private sector and put into productive use. My point is that the CPF rate has been too high. That is the reason why employees with so much money sloshing around, could go into this scheme and that scheme. Does not the Minister agree with me that there is too much money in the CPF of an employee? He has the money for old-age. He has money to buy a house and, in addition to that, he has still excess money. That is the reason why you have got all these other schemes. Mr Lee Yock Suan: Sir, I think it is better that we have our CPF scheme rather than be faced with a situation as in many developed countries where taxpayers have to be taxed so heavily in order to support the aged who are no longer able to work. With the CPF scheme, we are now able to ensure that our Singaporeans can look forward to retirement with financial security. Let me just touch on a few points that he mentioned. I will keep them brief. Firstly, he said that we have strayed away from the provision for old-age. I think that is not correct. Basically, if you analyze all the schemes, it goes back to the same thing - savings for old age. The home is a form of saving for old age. It appreciates in time. It is a good asset to hold. If need be, you can downgrade and you can sell it. It is actually a form of investment for old age. Medisave is also for old age. Members are more likely to fall sick after 55 years old. They may be able to use the sum in the Medisave now but the intention is really to provide for their hospitalization needs after they retire. Again it is for old age.”
“This issue of CPF should be included in the National Agenda because it concerns every employee and the workers have the right to discuss it and to ask the Minister what kind of safeguards they will have to make sure that at the end of 25 years, every dollar they have in the CPF will be returned to them when they reach the age of 55 years.”
“In fact, I think all economists - not necessarily even to be an economist - anyone with any common sense will know that if you put up costs, especially in the Singapore's context, because we have no indigenous manufacturing capabilities of our own, we are dependent on foreign investments, when the foreign investments are slow in coming, we find that our employment rate starts to rise. I would urge that the Minister does not consider putting up the CPF rate to its former rate. Of course, from the point of view of the Government, they do not just keep the money. They invest the money and make use of the money. And as I have stated before, there might be a repayment problem in 25 years' time and that is within the life-time of most of our workers. That is why we have got all kinds of schemes either to lock in the money or to prevent them being paid out. Why do we need to have this minimum sum scheme? Why do we need it? Are you saying that a person on reaching 55 years is unable to take care of his own money? That is exactly what the Government is saying, "Look. We are not going to give you back all your savings at 55 years in case you just have one good spree and all will be lost." But I do not think so. There will be a few but the majority of Singaporeans are definitely hard-headed and I am sure they know what to do with their money when they reach the age of 55. I think it is an insult to our workers to have that point of view and say that they do not know what to do with their money when they reach 55. The amount in the CPF is a big sum. I hear it has come to about something like $26 billion and I think this issue of CPF will always be with us because it is the employees' money and there is a massive amount of money. It is not millions but you are talking of billions.”
“I know that certain Members in this House, representing the unions, are calling for an increase in CPF rates. I do not know whether it is a wise move because, on the face of it, it would appear to be giving the worker more but, in fact, it will end up less because he will be jobless and our cost in Singapore may not be as competitive as the other NICs. What is the effect of these massive compulsory savings? In fact, these compulsory savings do not go into productive use. It is mainly in property. And we have heard an economist in this House say that buildings are not productive. I agree with him. I said that before. Unless you have got a business, like the manufacturing and services, to prop up the use of the property, they are just like pyramids standing there without producing anything. The other use of CPF is the buying of stocks and shares listed in our exchange. Are these also productive? Of course, for the laymen, they say, "Oh, I have invested so much money in certain stock." From the point of view of the country, is that an investment? That is really not an investment because it is just transferring money from one person to another person. So massive funds have been put aside in our country without really being made good use of. What is the point of having too high a rate for CPF? As I said, if you have it too high, our cost becomes uncompetitive and then we have these 110,000 unemployed repeated all over again. Then we have got to go through another cycle of having another Economic Committee to recommend cutting costs again.”
“Mr Chairman, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead RA-01 of the Main Estimates*. Sir, the CPF originally was intended for savings for old age. But if we look at the CPF today it is no longer a savings just for old age. There was enough money to buy a house. I agree with that - CPF is both for security after a person has retired and also to purchase a house. Then what do we have after that? We have got all kinds of schemes implemented so that CPF could be used. We have insurance for the house purchased. Then we have got the Medisave scheme. We have got the Approved Residential Property scheme. This scheme allows the member to buy residential property above, of course, his own, ie, a second or maybe even a third house. I believe there is also a scheme whereby a member could purchase commercial property. So a CPF member is put into the land-owning class. He is no longer an employee. Then we have other schemes like approved investment schemes whereby the member is made an investor both in publicly-listed shares as well as gold and, I believe, also other precious metals. He has to get in touch with the bank and come to grips with all the intricacies of buying and selling of shares at the stock market. Anyone looking at the CPF today would not imagine that it was just money put aside for old age. My point is that it is obvious that the rate of contribution has been above that which is required for savings for old age. We know that CPF comprised, before it was reduced, 50% of the worker's salary. My Party has always said that that was too high and I hope the Minister would not increase the CPF rate back to its last rate of 50%.”
“Yes, all right. Singapore has always prided itself of its stability. So people tend to doubt whether or not Singapore is really stable, just because of one person. I think, if the Government releases Chia Thye Poh, its image will certainly be enhanced. As long as Chia Thye Poh is in prison, I think there is a mark against the Singapore Government. And I urge the Minister to review his case; perhaps it is time certainly to review his case and release Chia Thye Poh. It is certain he is not a security danger to Singapore. The Chairman: Prof. Jayakumar, you have only 3 minutes left.”