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 69 of 85.
“One more question. In regard to Punggol, if I am not wrong, the Government has, in fact, already asked those pig farmers in Punggol to install expensive devices to make pig farming non-pollutive. Is that not the position? The farmers have put in as much as a million dollars in capital to install them. And he says that they are pollutive.”
“Perhaps the Minister of State does not understand the thrust of my question. My question is basically this. These pieces of land that have been tendered out and about to be tendered out, were they originally taken compulsorily from existing farmers? Is that the position? The farmers were already there; you take their land and then you tender out at a higher price. Is that the position?”
“Is the Minister of State saying that all the pieces of land that were acquired and subsequently parcelled out for tenders for farming again were all pollutive in nature and that was why they were acquired?”
“I want to ask the Minister of State a question in regard to pieces of land that are about to be tendered out and have been tendered out, and if I could stretch the question on Punggol to other parts of Singapore. These pieces of land were in the first place acquired from existing farmers. Existing farmers were driven out, Government acquired the land and then they were parcelled and then tendered out. Is that the correct position?”
“No. Supplementary question, please, Mr Speaker.”
“And in order to combat the rising cost of Japanese wages because of the Yen appreciation, they are now turning to robots. One of the factory managers was quoted as saying this: 'They are marvellous. They work in the dark. They don't need heating in the winter and airconditioning in the summer. And they can work three shifts a day.'”
“Do we have the skills or the creative workforce for this? And that I think is something which we have to examine critically in the context of education, not only of the next generation of workers but also the current workers who are already in the workforce. There is also another trend that needs to be addressed, and that is, the rise in protectionism, especially in the developed countries. Politicians and union leaders in these countries under the pressure of their electorate or their members clamour for protection. Let me give an example of this. Just on Monday I officiated at the opening of an international trade union conference in one of our local hotels. At that function, one union leader from the United States proudly spoke to the gathering about his union's efforts to secure investments and jobs. He said that because of the action taken by his union and other unions in the United States, a Japanese car manufacturing company was induced to invest US$800 million in the United States. That figure of US$800 million is a considerable sum. It amounts to more than S$1.7 billion. So what they gained in one investment is what our own EDB staff are trying to achieve for one whole year. Can we compete against that kind of protectionism? At least we have to try but we must be aware of the strength of this kind of competition. Then at the same time we must also consider two differing trends. One is wage cost and the other is technology cost. As we all know, wages rise but the cost of technology is continually falling. Just two days ago, the Straits Times gave us an example in an article, "Japan looks to the robots to boost business". Why? Because the cost of robots has declined.”
“But I think behind that particular objective there is a greater objective, and that is, to secure the jobs of Singapore workers. There is competition for investments and the competition is intense. I found this out for myself when I followed the First Deputy Prime Minister to four European countries last September. Everyone is looking for investments. The Dutch are looking for investments. The Germans are looking for investments. The French are looking for investments. So also the British. And what is more, they are all looking for essentially the same kind of investments that we ourselves are looking for. Therefore, the competition is all the greater and this is the result of shifts in company strategies in the past few years. Originally, it used to be the policy of companies first to develop a product, sell the product in their home country and then to shift the production of such products outside of their home market when that home market is saturated or the product life is nearing its end. And therefore we benefitted from such shift in production. Then because of competition, there has been another shift in policy or strategy, ie, companies develop their products at home but produce them abroad because of the rise in competition, say, for countries in Europe or Japan; and the US companies have done so. And this is to take advantage of low wage costs that are available in developing countries like ours. At one time, we had a tremendous advantage. So the investments came in. But now because of the change in the situation, there is a third shift in company strategy, and that is, to design products abroad and produce those products abroad. So the question that we have to ask ourselves is: do we meet the requirements of this shift in company strategy?”
“You do not have to teach the people about the birds and the bees. Mr Lim Boon Heng: I am not trying to teach the people about the birds and the bees. Mr Speaker, Sir, I turn to the main subject on which I wish to touch on, and that is, the economic aspect, particularly with regard to the policy on wages. When the Member for Whampoa opened the debate on the Budget statement, he said that we are fortunately discussing it in a much better environment; the economy is recovering. So he said, "Thank God. Thank the Government." And I think the Member for Clementi also said, "Thank the workers of Singapore." I think that we do owe this to the people of Singapore for their understanding and support of the policy of wage restraint. The policy that the Minister for Finance has proposed is that we should continue with the wage restraint policy for this year, and he pointed out that our wage costs are still high compared to our competitors, and he gave us a chart which shows that we are 20% higher in wage cost as compared to South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong. To get the overall picture, I think we should also take into account the anticipated rise in wage cost in competing countries and the strengthening of their currencies which would help us to narrow the gap. If the press reports on the 10% rise in wages in South Korea and the 5% appreciation of the currency come about, and if we do not allow our wage cost to rise or our currency to appreciate, then by following this policy we will be able to restore much of our competitive position. But what is the objective of this wage restraint exercise? Some have said very clearly that the objective is to enable businesses to be profitable. I have no quarrel over that.”
“Well, he said that nature should take its course and I agree with him. The only thing you can do is to, as I say, gently urge people on and provide the necessary facilities for the third child, like day-care centres, creches, kindergartens, and all the other care for children upbringing. I think this is very essential.”
“Can I have a point of clarification? I was quoting a local gynaecologist. It was not my opinion.”
“I have spoken to many people and they say that the increase in fees, despite whatever the Government says about assistance, will cause hardship. I also note in the Budget that in the Government, operations costs have gone on the increase. I believe the Member for Rochore has mentioned this in respect of Government statutory charges. CPF is to be held at the same level for two years. But I believe this is not good enough. I think business people want to get some kind of a commitment as to what sort of statutory charges they have to take account of. In this respect, I would urge the Minister perhaps to give some kind of commitment.”
“The decision to have children is a very complex decision because there are so many things to think about. So a simple fiscal incentive will not do. I come to the main point why I am bringing up two major errors committed by this Government. It has been said, and has been said, I think, more than once, that Singapore cannot afford to make even one major error. I believe that has been said before. If that happens, Singapore's economy will collapse. The PAP, as I have pointed out, has committed two major errors. One, bringing down the only resource we have, and that is, our population. The other is to bring our economy into a recession. Of course, steps have been taken to correct these two mistakes. Singapore, of course, will survive these two mistakes. Singapore will survive other mistakes, as it has survived before, for the last 150 years, and it will continue to survive. So whether the PAP governs or whether any other government which is equally efficient governs, Singapore will survive. May I just mention or say something about wage restraint. Again, the workers are called upon to sacrifice. But on this wage restraint, I am glad to note that now they are taking on a different point of view, and that is, to have more flexibility. That is the correct move. You cannot have an across-the-board wage restraint. In fact, I believe that wages should be allowed to find its own market level. Although the workers have been asked to have wage restraint for another year, yet what do we see? Government has increased the B2 and C-class fees in the hospitals. On the one hand you say, "You are not getting any more pay," and on the other hand you say, "You have to pay more for Govern- ment services". And the University entrance fees have also been increased.”
“I suppose that is the problem of the PAP cadre members. I think it is a well-known fact in almost every country (the exceptions are perhaps those countries with a high catholic population) that people in the lower socio-economic group usually have large families and those in the upper or educated class have smaller families. I cannot see how Singapore can be made an exception. This new Government policy of encouraging procreation, no matter what attractive incentives are given to the richer parents, will in the end end up with the same population pattern as in other countries. What is the best thing to do? I would say the best thing to do is not to interfere. Just like what, I believe, a famous gynaecologist has said, "As far as procreation is concerned, let nature takes its course." At most, if desired, the Government could make people aware of its policy and perhaps give just a gentle nudge or an encouragement. But Government has to provide all the facilities of child-care centres, creches, day-schools, kindergartens. If you provide these facilities, then when the parents realize that there are ample means or provisions made for their children so that they can work in peace, then perhaps they will procrete. You can see that children are forthcoming. The main aim of this Government's procreation programme is to get educated parents to have more children. But fiscal incentives, I believe, are just not enough. The conditions must be set, as I have mentioned before. In fact, I think educated parents will feel insulted if you put a carrot in front of them to encourage them to produce more children. Producing children, of course, is a very complex problem. [Laughter] I have to correct myself.”
“Many can still remember vividly the Government posters urging parents to "Stop at Two", then "The second can wait", and later "Take your time to say Yes". Even before the memory of those Government slogans can fade from our minds, the First Deputy Prime Minister is already urging parents to "Have three, and more if you can afford it". The emphasis is, you must be able to afford it. Singapore must be the only country which can make boast of its two contradicting policies being pursued at the same time. I believe (I stand to be corrected) that the $10,000 grant mentioned by the Member for Rochore is still payable to a mother in the lower socio-economic group who is willing to ligate herself after the birth of the second child. This policy is, of course, to keep the population down. I believe it has not been revoked. At the same time, I believe during the Chinese New Year period, the Prime Minister was urging parents to have more babies in this Rabbit Year. Does this whole thing not sound ludicrous? On the one hand, you are asking people to have more babies. On the other hand, you are giving incentives to curb the birth of the third child. The $20,000 special tax rebate to either or both parents on the birth of the third child and an additional rebate equivalent to 15% of the wife's earned income, has been highlighted in the press. These incentives are essentially aimed at those who are educated or in the professional class, and who are earning higher incomes; certainly not for the labourers who are earning less than a $1,000 a month. This policy is aimed at giving benefits to those who already have. Socially, this is inequitable. I do not know how the PAP is going to explain to its members on the ground this inequitable policy, when it professes to believe in Socialism.”
“Anybody can tell you why our goods and services grew only by 5% and the other newly industrializing countries were expanding by 11%. The answer is because our costs, our wages, were so much higher than theirs. The point is that despite the fact that this Government supposedly have qualified Ministers, economists and the rest, and highly paid, still the Government bungled. The other major policy error was the infamous policy of curbing the number of births of each married woman to two children. Drastic measures were implemented such as persuading one of the spouses to go for sterilization after the birth of the second child, penalizing the third child in respect of enrolment in the school of the parent's choice and other disincentives which have been mentioned by the Member for Rochore. One thing which this Government always boasts of is its efficiency and the policy of keeping down birth rates was of course very efficiently carried out, so much so that alarm bells were sounded. Now, we hear that each year our birth rate is short by about 15,000 babies. What astounded me is that the Government has not come out openly to admit that it was wrong. It should be a gentleman, and come out and say, "Yes, we were wrong. We should not have curbed population growth in the first place." What has the Government got to say to the thousands of parents who have sterilized themselves? How are you going to explain? You cannot reverse the process anymore. They have done it just to comply with the Government's 2-child policy. Many mothers who have gone for ligation are still in the child-bearing age. Can they join in this new procreation programme of the Government? However they try it, it is impossible. The 2-child policy was not too long ago.”
“Our wages increased by double those of the other NICs, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea. Our competitive position was weakened by as much as 50%. I am no economist.”
“Much obliged to you, Mr Speaker. The Minister this year has described the budget as a consolida- tion budget. Others have named it the baby budget and one foreign correspondent wrote that if there were to be a headline in a tabloid paper after the budget was announced, it would have to be, "Sex in, booze and bets out". When I read the Budget statement, the thing that struck me was that this Government had made two glaring or major policy errors. One was in regard to the wage increase first announced in 1979, allegedly to attract high technology based industries to our shores. The high-tech industries, of course, did not come in numbers as expected and the high wage policy fell flat on its face. This Government later of course had to eat humble pie and lower the CPF rate and also cut other costs. The budget, as has been exlained by the Minister, is to consolidate cost cutting measures and make Singapore more competitive. As regards the effect of wage increase, it has been documented in pages 5 and 6 of the Budget. May I just quote: 'From 1980 to 1984, wage increases in Singapore far outstripped productivity growth, while in the NICs, wage increases were either lower or at least matched by productivity increases. Our competitive position against the other NICs weakened by as much as 50%. In this period, external demand for our goods and services grew by only 5% per annum, whereas that of the other NICs expanded by 11% per annum. In short, the other NICs expanded their share of the internatioal market at our expense.' There is no better way to put it than this paragraph of the effect of wage increase, the Government-sponsored wage increase by the NWC. Now, what lessons can we learn from this glaring mistake?”
“Mr Minister, it is for you to answer the question. It is not for me. My duty is to ask questions. Would the Minister agree with me that, in fact, if there is no exemption of Central Provident Fund from overtime pay, it would hurt our local businessmen more than the multi-nationals?”
“Sir, would not the Minister agree with me that one of the problems of Singapore's economy was the high wage costs? So in not allowing this exemption of CPF from overtime pay, would it not be against that policy?”
“Last question, Sir. Is the residence of the Prime Minister guarded by Gurkhas?”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister what are the key areas that are guarded by the Gurkhas in Singapore?”
“Mr Minister, we are now an independent country. Is it really necessary to employ mercenaries in place of our own citizens? Is that not a smack on the face of our own citizens? They have all these qualities. You say you have confidence in the Police Force. Why do you not let them take over the job of the Gurkhas?”
“In 1940-49, that was the period when we were under the British.”
“Sir, we have heard all the good qualities of the Gurkhas' toughness, resilience, impartiality, loyalty and a whole list of other good points. Is the Minister saying that our own citizens are lacking in all these qualities?”
“Perhaps the Minister could clarify exactly what the Gurkhas are here for and in what capacity. And then I will answer that question.”
“I am asking for the ratio of recurrent expenditure. I did not hear the answer.”
“How many expatriate teachers are there now employed by the Government in our schools?”
“As I see it, I still think that this is not in compliance with Standing Order No. 95(4).”
“No. The words of this motion say, "Standing Orders of Parliament which the Committee may deem necessary." What I am saying is that the Committee has no authority to initiate changes. It must be the Parliament. Assuming that I am happy with the Standing Order No. 2 in respect of the number of days, I will refer this to the Committee.”
“Because, as I see it, this motion is not in compliance with this particular Order. This motion says, "which the Committee may deem necessary." But in the Order, it says that the Committee can only look at matters which are referred to it by Parliament.”
“Sir, are you saying that this is the practice of this House?”
“If the Minister wants to hear me out, I will explain.”
“As I read it, this motion is not in compliance with the Standing Orders. I may be wrong.”
“Sir, I had a look at this Standing Order 95(4)(a) as mentioned in the motion and I see that this motion is not in compliance with this particular Order. I will read to you the relevant part of this Order, Sir. It is like this: 'It shall be the duty of the Committee to consider from time to time and report on all matters relating to the Standing Orders which may be referred to it by Parliament. The Committee shall not have power to send for persons, papers and records unless Parliament so resolves.' I will speak on the first point. This motion says, "do consider and report on any amendments to the Standing Orders of Parliament".”
“What would happen to the rest of the pupils?”
“Sir, I would like to speak very briefly on new secondary schools and on the independent schools. I suppose secondary schools will be related to the independent schools. I have just a short enquiry for the Minister. I heard that one of the schools that will shortly be converted into an independent school is the Anglo-Chinese School which I am proud to say is where I come from. Will the old boys of the school, which play a big role in the development of that school, have a say in the conversion from its present government aided school status to that of an independent school? I also understand that the number of enrolment will be limited to 1,200. This school has an enrolment of something like 7,200 which, of course, also includes the primary school. But however you look at it, there will be a diminution of numbers. So what will happen to the other students who are not included in this 1,200? I would like to know that. This is a very brief point which I would like the Minister to clarify.”
“I would like to pass, in respect of Head N and Head W.”
“FIRST SUPPLEMENTARY MAIN ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE (Paper Cmd. 3 of 1987) and FIRST SUPPLEMENTARY DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE (Paper Cmd. 4 of 1987) FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1986 TO 31ST MARCH, 1987 2.55 pm Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [Allotted Day]. [Mr Speaker in the Chair]”
“Thank you. 2.52 pm BILLS INTRODUCED PARKS AND TREES (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Parks and Trees Act 1975 (No. 14 of 1975)", presented by the Minister for National Development (Mr S. Dhanabalan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. SUPPLY BILL "to provide for the issue from the Consolidated Fund of the sums necessary to meet the estimated expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1987 to 31st March, 1988", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. SUPPLEMENTARY SUPPLY BILL "for making supplementary provision to meet additional expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1986 to 31st March, 1987", recommendation of President signified; presented by Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. FIRST SUPPLEMENTARY MAIN ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE AND FIRST SUPPLEMENTARY DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR FY 1986/1987 (Business Motion) Resolved, That notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the First Supplementary Main Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1986 to 31st March, 1987 (Paper Cmd. 3 of 1987) and the First Supplementary Develop- ment Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1986 to 31st March, 1987 (Paper Cmd. 4 of 1987) be taken today. - [Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau]. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, "That the proceedings of the business on the Order Paper today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].”
“I think we are repeating. I have accepted the Prime Minister on these terms but, as I said, I wish to have these terms of reference written out in a form that is accepted under the Inquiry Commissions Act.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to tell the Prime Minister I am on solid ground and I have nothing to fear. I think it is of public interest. I really think so. I do not think it is an attempt to smear the Government. I think there is a majority view that the circumstances which lead to this should be made known. I want to repeat. I do not want to be faulted in law. Sometimes people can be faulted even before they can get off the case.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if there is a technical form in which these words need to be framed, I will certainly look into it and put it into a form that is acceptable for printing. But as far as the substance of this reference goes, it stays. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have to admit that I have never been involved with any drafting of terms of reference for public inquiry. But I could inquire on this point and, if need be, I will draft it in a form which is acceptable under the Inquiry Commissions Act. So I do not think I should be faulted on a technical point.”
“We could look into it because tenders cover every area that is concerned with tenders. I do not think we want to go into details and tie our hands. I think we should really give ourselves some flexibility. I think these terms are sufficient. If the Prime Minister is willing to gazette them, I will give my permission by all means to do so. If there is such a commission, not only I will lead in evidence but I have certainly people who are willing to assist me in that area.”
“I think my terms are good enough. The Prime Minister: But it is not in the terms of reference.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we are not talking of suspicions. We are talking of actual wrong-doings. He certainly knows that there is already a member of the core contractors who is willing to give a bribe of $1 million. It is no small sum. There must be certainly something behind that. I do not think the least reason we can think of is out of friendship. So I think there is something to be looked at as far as tenders are concerned. There is no doubt about that. If we dig deep enough, we will find the evidence.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there is already evidence, a hefty sum of $800,000 has been taken. And as far as the other evidence is concerned, it will have to be related to the system employed. And we have already in fact, evidence that strange goings-on have taken place. A piece of land has been acquired and it is the most strange phenomenon because I have done acquisition of land cases that, in fact, the land was returned to the owner. This is indeed very, very strange. So I think there is need for an inquiry into that area.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if I heard it correctly, the Prime Minister is willing to hold a public commission, and I am glad to hear that. If he wants to, I could redraft this and put it, in his own words, a better crafted form and present it for the Gazette, as he says.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe the Ministry of National Development owns companies which prepare materials to build HDB flats. I believe it owns companies, and I believe there are other companies which are related to the MND. So in one, ownership of companies; in another area, companies that have got relations with the MND. So there are two aspects to that. The Prime Minister: I suggest he takes a little more time and puts it in coherent language. I am taking this proposition absolutely on face value. There will be a Commission of Inquiry. We will follow these terms of reference if they are relevant; and if they are not relevant, the Commissioner may find that it is not relevant, and he may be out. So I suggest that he sits down and puts his thoughts together. He is making a serious proposition which we take seriously. He is asking that public expenditure be incurred for three Commissioners to make these investigations of matters of an important public nature. Two of them, the first one concerns the two bribes which are the subject of pending proceedings, either pending in the courts or pending the arrest of certain persons. The others I do not see the connection between tenders and operations of other related companies and the bribes that were given or alleged to have been given. Is he asking the Commission to inquire into the system whether it is possible, whether it invites bribery? What is it? Well, say so. It is your Commission. You are asking for it. Let's investigate. [Interruption] That is not the meaning of the words he has put down. I am prepared to accept his words and gazette them.”
“I think one of the very important areas as far as the MND is concerned is the system used by this very important Ministry. And I think the system definitely includes tenders. In fact, one of the key activities of this Ministry is to give out tenders.”