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 76 of 85.
“Yes. The supplementary question is, from which country would this aircraft carrier be coming from? China? Vietnam? Russia? He cannot just put something and frighten us out of the blue. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may respond to that question. First of all, I am not the Acting Minister for Defence. Secondly, it is not my aircraft carrier. Thirdly, the possibility of such an aircraft carrier was raised not by the Government Members of Parliament, but by the Member for Anson. And if he wants to know which country the ship sails from, he should look up the Hansard.”
“Now he says something which astonishes me. He sees the possibility of an aircraft carrier sailing towards Singapore.”
“Sir, I am no military man. The Acting Minister is a General.”
“Sir, may I refer to the Acting Minister to the $2 billion spent on the surveillance aeroplanes. Why is there a need for that large amount when the two possible threats mentioned in my question are not foreseeable in the near future? These surveillance planes apparently can go beyond our neighbours. So what is the purpose? Is that not over-reacting? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would make three points. (1) The aeroplanes do not cost $2 billion. They cost less than $1 billion and the amount has been discussed in this House. (2) The need for these aeroplanes has also been discussed in this House. Perhaps it was before the Member for Potong Pasir became a Member. (3) The Member asked me if the aeroplanes are not needed to deal with what he feels to be threats. To quote him, "Vietnam is not in a position to launch any attack" and "China has abandoned its policy of exporting revolutions abroad", therefore why do we need the aeroplanes at all? Mr Speaker, Sir, I think there are other threats which perhaps have not been encompassed in the Member for Potong Pasir's formulation. I would remind him of another threat which was discussed in this House and which was pointed out by the Member for Anson, again before the last General Elections, and that is, the possibility of aircraft carriers sailing into our harbour and "what can we do about it", in the words of the Member for Anson. I am not saying that that is a plausible threat. I am merely reminding the Member for Potong Pasir that there are more possibilities than those that he has considered.”
“Perform it in public, that play, the script. Are you saying that they can just do it and go and perform it in public? If you say that, then we will do it. Is that not the correct position in Singapore today, that nobody can just write a play and perform it?”
“Yes, publicly shown. Anyone who writes a play and he wants to show it in public - An hon. Member: Perform it.”
“As far as I know, these matters, like books and plays, will have to be submitted for vetting before they can be publicly shown.”
“What is meant is publication of plays and books. Is it not true that these have to be sent for vetting by the Ministry of Culture?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, is it not true that plays and books have to be vetted by the Ministry of Culture?”
“Can I just clarify this point? Is it not true that publications like plays and books have to be submitted for vetting by the Ministry of Culture?”
“So my plea to the Government is that if they want to have this copyright law implemented, well and good. We support it. But at the same time there must be more intellectual freedom. That is my point. Of course, I would not like to go into the details of the copyright law. It is going to Select Committee. I think I have the sentiment of Members who have spoken out here in respect of textbooks. I know many school children not only photostat part of their textbooks but, in fact, the whole textbook and manual. I think the Government should take steps to make sure that there is a provision for cheaper textbooks for our school children.”
“I am talking about the intimidating effect of all these measures. So if we want to have this law, which is good, we must give Singapore the conditions whereby people can really be creative and really be not afraid to use their intellectual capacities to the fullest. Look at the newspaper reports of what the Opposition has said. They are always given two or three inches per column. Against that, take the example of the last May Day Rally. It was highlighted in the front page. The crowd of 20,000 was said to be 40,000. And there was a photograph in the front page showing all the umbrellas opened out. But I noted the umbrellas. If you go back and look at the paper again, the umbrellas were all the same. So they have been provided for, and it should have been fairly reported that every one of them was given an umbrella. I would have gone if I knew I was going to be given an umbrella! It is a form of bribery. Whereas the report on our rally was short and it said it was sparsely attended. But it failed to say that it was pouring with rain on that day. But we did not provide free umbrellas. That is probably the reason. This is not the politics of envy. The point I am trying to make is that our journalists in Singapore are not given the free intellectual rein to write objectively. If this is true of our journalists, this must be true of other people who wish to write freely. Without this kind of a condition, if we have this law, I think we will be on the losing end and Singapore will definitely fall out. We have to pay more for the original works. We have to spend more money. Our standard of living will probably drop because we have to spend more money. I mean, the figures have been quoted. It comes to millions of dollars; it is not just by thousands of dollars.”
“Not long ago, in China they had this policy of "let a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend." I have said that previously and I would like to repeat. I think we should have that policy in Singapore also. It is not easy to have a publication in Singapore. All the editors and all the people in charge would have to declare how much they earn, what is their disposable income. It is very intimidating. Who would like to start a publication when they have to give all the details of how much they own and how much they earn. Of course, every publication in Singapore will have to be screened, formerly by the Ministry of Culture and now I suppose it is the Ministry of Community Development, or whatever Ministry that has taken over now. I hear that even a school magazine has to be screened. An hon. Member: Not true.”
“We have read not long ago of a group of young University lecturers who have taken the trouble to publish in magazines about certain things which, of course, are not pleasant but true. They have been called up by the Ministry of Culture and told, "Please don't publish any more seamy things about Singapore." If you want to be creative and innovative, intellectual freedom must be allowed in all areas. You cannot just say, "All right. Confine it to writing of software;" it being very productive there, and in other areas you say, "Please don't write too much, especially about politics." Not long ago, I had the opportunity, together with the Member for Anson, to have breakfast with a Mrs Graham. As you may know, she is the owner of the Washington Post, owner of Newsweek and many broadcasting companies in America. She said that she had lunch with a group of our young reporters and she found our young reporters to be intelligent, lively and very good, even better than some of the reporters in America. But are our journalists producing books or publications about Singapore? They have been in the business for so long and yet we hardly see any books about Singapore. I think we cannot confine intellectual work just to one area and not allow it in another area. Our people must be given the intellectual freedom to report things objectively. Look at our newspaper reports. Unfortunately the number of our newspapers has been reduced. But look at their reports. Are they really objective? Are they truly exercising their journalistic skills freely? I do not think so. Once we have this copyright law, I think it is also important for us really not to lose out to the other countries. We must have this intellectual freedom.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to join the debate. I also welcome this legislation to protect intellectual property in Singapore. It would appear that the Government has only come around after pressure from America. The last time we heard of pirates in Singapore was in the time of Sir Stamford Raffles. And now, according to what Members have said, it would appear that people all over the world say that there are still pirates in Singapore. I note that this Bill is going to be sent to Select Committee and I think it is a good thing because there are a lot of repercus- sions. If you go to any shopping centre in the suburbs, you will see shops busy with their photostat machines, and also cassette tapes, video tapes, lined up. I think the Government at this stage should look carefully whether they should implement this quickly. If they are going to do that, I think then many of these people would suffer. Wide publicity should be given to this Bill and to tell them to wind up their business quickly. The law is very comprehensive and it covers all kinds of intellectual property. With the passing of this law, of course, we will be thrown into the big league of nations. I am sure that when this law comes into force there will be bilateral legislation with countries like America, England and other Western countries. In other words, we are competing with them in respect of this kind of business. To me this is a one-sided competition. In countries like America and England, they have complete intellectual freedom. University lecturers, writers, script writers for motion pictures, journalists, can write freely, anything they want, except of course within the constraints of defamatory law and matters concerning internal and national security. But can we do that in Singapore?”
“Sir, in drafting this Bill, the Government has had due regard to the interests of the various parties concerned, be they copyright owners, industry or consumers. Many parties will undoubtedly have an interest in the Bill. Therefore, it is proposed that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee to allow further and thorough airing of these views and a more detailed examination to be made of the provisions of the Bill. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 11.23 am”
“These provisions are modelled on what are known as the Tunis Model Law prepared by the World Intellectual Property Organization and are compatible with the exceptions permitted in international copyright conventions for developing countries to produce cheap editions for their people. A copyright Tribunal is established under the Bill with wide jurisdiction to determine the remuneration payable under statutory licences and to settle licence disputes in relation to performing and broadcasting rights. Both civil and criminal remedies for infringement of copyright are provided for in the Bill. The relief that a Court may grant in a civil suit includes an injunction and either damages or an account of profits. The criminal remedies include the issuance of warrants by Magistrates for search and seizure of equipment used or intended to be used in making infringing copies of works. The importation of infringement copies could be prohibited under the law. Stiffer penalties than in the existing law are also prescribed for offences under the Bill. The provisions of the Bill will enable Singapore to accede to the Universal Copyright Convention should this be found to be desirable. By joining the Convention, Singapore would be obliged to extend copyright protection to works and other subject-matter published in member countries of the Convention or unpublished works and other subject-matter of those countries. But it also means that Singaporeans' works and works published in Singapore are protected in those countries. There are transitional provisions that apply to works and other subject-matter made before the commencement of the new legislation.”
“In the case of sound recordings, cinematographic films, television and sound broadcasts, cable programmes and published editions, the owner has the exclusive right to reproduce or copy the work. The owner of copyright in a cinematographic film has, in addition, the right to cause the film to be seen or heard in public, to broadcast it and include it in a cable programme service. The owner of a television or sound broadcast has also the right to broadcast it. It would be an infringement of copyright to do any of these acts without the permission or licence of the copyright owner. The Bill, however, provides a number of exceptions to the general rule on infringement of copyright. For instance, there are provisions on fair dealing with a copyright work for research or study, for criticism or review or for the reporting of news and these do not constitute infringement. There are also other exceptions for the reproduction of works for judicial proceedings or professional advice or by libraries and for the broadcast of works in certain types of public places. The term of protection provided under existing laws is retained. Copyright subsists in a work from the time it is made and continues to subsist until the expiration of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author died. There are provisions in the Bill providing that under certain conditions any person can produce records of musical works upon the payment of royalties to the copyright owner. Provisions are also made for the issuance of licences by the copyright Tribunal for the translation and reproduction of certain works.”
“I hope that the introduction of this Bill will remove one contentious issue and so improve our relations with these partners. The Bill is the result of the deliberations of an Inter-departmental Committee set up by the Ministry of Law some five years ago to review the existing copyright law. The Bill is modelled largely on Australia's copyright law which was found most suitable bearing in mind our legal system, our need to be up-to-date and comprehensive. However, the legal draftsmen had also adapted the provisions to the particular circumstances in our country and, where necessary, had followed provisions on some aspects found in the laws of other countries. Sir, under the Bill, a work first published in Singapore regardless of the nationality of the authors, would be eligible for copyright protection. Works published elsewhere and simultaneously published in Singapore within a 30-day period will be regarded as first published in Singapore. In the case of unpublished works only the works of Singapore citizens and residents would enjoy copyright protection. As is the case with legislation of most other countries, there are provisions in the Bill for Singapore to confer copyright protection on foreign works, whether published elsewhere or unpublished, through bilateral arrangements or through accession by Singapore to international copyright conventions. Under the Bill, computer software is specifically protected as a form of literary work. The Bill gives a number of exclusive rights to the copyright owners. For literary, dramatic, or artistic works, for instance, the owner has the exclusive right, among other things, to reproduce, publish, perform in public, broadcast and include the work in cable programmes.”
“46 of 1973)", presented by Dr Lee Boon Yang; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. COPYRIGHT BILL Order for Second Reading read. 11.13 am The Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The existing copyright law in Singapore is contained in the Copyright Act 1911 of the United Kingdom, as modified in its application to Singapore by the Copyright Act of 1914 and the Copyright (Gramophone Records and Government Broadcasting) Act of 1968. Over the years, developments in the field of computer science, sound and video recording, cable television, satellite broadcasting and photocopying require us to amend our copyright laws to keep abreast of these developments. The improved copyright provisions will provide a better environment for the publishing industry in Singapore. They will give an incentive to both local and foreign printing and publishing companies to expand their activities here. By extending copyright protection to new forms of intellectual property, particularly computer software, they will provide the legal framework necessary for the development of a strong software industry here. Major international computer companies and software houses planning to set up software development centres in Singapore can be assured that the products will be adequately protected. Beyond our own requirements, I should also mention that in recent years one significant source of friction with our trading partners, particularly the United States, has been the inadequacy of our existing copyright laws. The Government has for some time recognized their concerns, and stated its intention to introduce new legislation to remedy the problem.”
“There are certain matters which have to be urgently dealt with, otherwise it just lapses. Therefore, I think what he said is not justified. Let this point be recorded. BILLS INTRODUCED 11.10 am LAND TITLES (STRATA) (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Land Titles (Strata) Act (Chapter 277 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Housing and Development Act (Chapter 271 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for National Development (Mr Teh Cheang Wan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. NEWSPAPER AND PRINTING PRESSES (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act 1974 (No. 12 of 1974)", presented by the Acting Minister for Communications and Information (Mr Wong Kan Seng); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. STAMP DUTIES (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Stamp Duties Act (Chapter 147 of the Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Hu Tsu Tau); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. CENSUS (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Census Act 1973 (No. 47 of 1973)", presented by the Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Dr Lee Boon Yang); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. STATISTICS (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Statistics Act 1973 (No.”
“As regards the point of order of the Member for Anson.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just make a point of what the Leader of the House has said?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has mentioned that dividends will have to go back to the CPF account. What about the rentals of properties? Rentals are much bigger amounts than dividends and they are collected on a monthly basis. Over the years, it can accumulate to sizable amounts.”
“We hope that Singapore one day will not take the footsteps of Hong Kong and we see the whole population glued to the stock market prices. I think that is bad for work ethics. If we really want to progress, I think we should not indulge in speculative activities, but rather in good, strong, productive activities. I think I am not exaggerating that because I think the Member for Whampoa has already pointed out that our stock market is not a place for investments but in fact it is a place for gambling. It is like a casino. I hope steps can be taken to make our stock market a place not for gambling but a place more for investments, especially on long-term investments, rather than putting your money hoping to get a quick return the next day. I would welcome any check by the MAS on the stockbrokers or people engaged in the stock market who would flout the law. I think the MAS has to be vigilant and to be on guard because greed will always be there. And we have seen in Singapore, and even in other parts of the world, I think people will always try to evade or circumvent the law because of greed and at the stock market we are not talking of small amounts but sometimes, as we have seen in the Pan-Electric debacle, millions of dollars are involved. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think, on balance, between self-regulation and the interests of the investors, I would urge the Minister to make the MAS a watchdog for the interests of especially small investors. Much obliged.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it has been mentioned by Members of the House that there are provisions to appeal to the High Court, that is, in respect of not obeying rules and regulations and also in regard to the revocation or granting of licence to a dealer. But there is no provision, Sir, in respect of approval by the Minister on an applicant as a stock exchange member. It would appear that the Minister's decision is final and there is also no provision in the Act whereby the Minister needs to give reasons for his not approving their application as a stock exchange. So perhaps the Minister could consider putting a provision whereby reasons at least should be given, otherwise members of the public will again point an accusing finger at the high-handed manner of the Government. This Bill was presented to members of the Stock Exchange and they have protested, as we have been informed, the stringent rules against them. Perhaps the Minister could point out to this House what in particular are the sections which they have objected to so vehemently. Now apparently they are against self-regulation. On the one hand we have the principle that the SES should be self-regulated, but on the other hand I think it is an important principle also to protect the interests of investors, in particular small investors. It is true we cannot stop speculation in the Stock Exchange and it has also been said that more professionals indulge in trading in the stock exchange but this may not be true. Look at Hong Kong. What has happened there? Trading in the stock exchange has become so widespread that it has become part of the culture there, not only professionals indulge in it, workers and even down to the very housemaids are also involved in trading at the stock exchange.”
“Can I check on a point of clarification? The PAP was in the Opposition right up to 1959. Did your Party not fight against the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance which later became the Internal Security Act?”
“Can I just rise on a point of clarification?”
“Sir, does the Member for Serangoon Gardens withdraw his statement in regard to the fact that he said that I was a member of the Chinese Communist Party?”
“Mr Speaker, the Member for Serangoon Gardens is purportedly to be a - is he a professor or an associate professor in political science? I was quoting the Prime Minister who said in America that Communist China does not export revolution. That is what I said.”
“Mr Speaker, I think that is a wild allegation. I do not represent the Chinese Communist Party, please. I wish that the Member for Serangoon Gardens withdraws that statement.”
“I do not know what is the standing army we have today. Perhaps the Minister for Defence can clarify that. But, whatever, we pride ourselves in our national defence. So can any insurgency be successful in Singapore today? I doubt it. We have got tanks, we have got an army, well-trained in all kinds of warfare, fighting in the drains, on the streets, in buildings, on the beaches. So how can communist insurgency be a reality in Singapore? I do not think so. Now, the maintenance of this piece of legislation which allows detention without trial will only put fear in the minds of our citizens. The Government has got a big stick over the heads of everyone of its citizens. Why does it need that stick? Has the Government no faith in its own people? It is high time this piece of legislation be repealed. It is an incongruous piece of legislation in our present day society. We talk of a creative society, we talk of an open society, we talk of reaching the Swiss standard of living, and yet what is the reality? The reality is that anyone could be pulled up and locked up. That is the reality. You may say, "Well, the Government does not do it." But the fact is that the piece of legislation is there. If it wants to, it can use it. It is not an issue whether it wants to use it or not. That is not an issue. The issue is that it is there and therefore it is time the Government repeals that piece of legislation. If the Government cannot really justify its position to detain Mr Chia Thye Poh, then I say that he should be released. The Minister has powers under the Act to order an immediate and unconditional release. And I say for the good of Singapore, he should do it immediately.”
“But now after 26 years of this Government's rule, Members have again and again said that we are now in a very well-off position, highest standard of living in Asia, second only to Japan; and the policy is to have 100% home ownership. Statistics show that we have got something like 80% of the population properly housed, and about 60% of these 80% are house owners. Everybody has got a job. They go for holidays abroad and things look well. So we have got a complete set of political, social conditions. Under these circumstances, is there still a communist danger? I say no. If you put a communist candidate in our general elections and he says, "My platform is this: when I come in, I will nationalize all companies. I will nationalize your homes." Do you think any sane person will vote for him? I think probably his deposit will be forfeited. I am not the only person who says that there is no communist danger. I think the Prime Minister himself, when he spoke in America last year, implied that. He told the Joint Session of Congress that under the rule of Deng Xiao-peng, China no longer exports revolution. They have not been broadcasting revolutionary messages. So they are on their way to a free market type of economy, and America can safely look to China as a friend and their business people can go there and do business. So if China is not exporting revolution and is not giving aid to any countries in Southeast Asia, can communist insurgency be successful in Singapore? We spend some- thing like $2 billion a year on defence. We have got perhaps 20,000 soldiers or even more. An hon. Member: Check your figures.”
“The Prime Minister himself, when he was in the Opposition, spoke out loudly and clearly against this piece of legislation. He was against detention without trial. He spoke out eloquently and said that detention was often made on hearsay evidence - Mr X complains about Mr Y and Mr Y makes a complaint, or alpha making an allegation against beta and then beta against gamma, and so forth. I suppose Members are familiar with that. The other point which the Government said was that Mr Chia could bring his case up to the Advisory Committee, but he has refused. I think he has perhaps in his own mind thought why should he go before the Committee when he has not done any of those things that were alleged, and what he said also was that the Advisory Committee is a committee comprising members appointed by the Government and, as its name implies, it merely has advisory capacity and no more. Of course, the detention of a citizen for such a long period of time will bring a bad name to Singapore. I think it gives a chance for people all over the world to mention it over and over again. And, of course, to detain a person arbitrarily is against the provisions of the universal declaration of human rights. I think the issue here is whether or not there is a communist danger in Singapore today and also whether or not the Government is right to put its citizens in a state of fear. Conditions are completely different from those of the 1960s. We have heard in this House that in the 1960s there was mass unemployment. It was difficult to find jobs, there were less homes, things were very difficult.”
“Sir, I would like to bring up a matter which has been brought up in this House before. I consider it important and I shall bring it up again. This is in regard to the detention of a former Member of Parliament, Chia Thye Poh. First of all, I have to make my position clear. I have never met Mr Chia nor any member of his family and I have no connections whatsoever with him. It is a matter of concern and I think everyone should be concerned that a citizen of our country can be detained for almost 20 years without bringing him to trial in an open court of law. Mr Chia Thye Poh, I believe, was detained on the 29th October 1966 whilst taking part in a demonstration against the intervention of the Americans in Vietnam. It would appear that he was right after all. Time has proven that the Americans themselves realized that they have made a mistake in going into Vietnam and in 1975, on their own, they withdrew from the war there. Mr Chia is detained under the Internal Security Act which gives power to the Minister to detain a person without bringing him to court for trial for a period of two years, which is renewable for another two years. I understand that the condition for Mr Chia's release is that he should renounce his connections with the Communist United Front or, more particularly, with the Communist Party of Malaysia, and that he should also renounce his advocacy of using force to overthrow the Government. I believe that he has denied all these allegations. I believe that his father, Mr Chia Kit Kin, who has spoken to his son, has also said that those allegations are not true. Now, whatever the allegations against him, I feel that the Minister must come out with concrete evidence, and if there is evidence, he should be brought before the court and charged.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Minister of State has completely missed the point. This is a very important point. Can they breach the trust of the people?”
“Sir I think this is important. I have stated a point of principle. Monies were collected specifically for the building of the community centre. I am sure the Minister for Law can bear me out. If you have a donation campaign for a specific purpose, it is wrong, both morally and in law, to later on change the use for which the money was donated. This is an important principle. If the Government deviates from this principle, in future no member of the public would be willing to donate monies for Government projects. This is an important principle which we must uphold. To say that it is just for purposes of upgrading and you take away the centre for which it was originally intended is a very, very flimsy reason. There is another point which I think is important. If the Government does not have enough resources, I am sure the public would be more than willing to take over the Sennett Estate CC and run it themselves. Mr Ch'ng Jit Koon( In Mandarin): Sir, now we see the Member's real motive behind all the fuss. He has been dreaming to take over the building! The building of a new Potong Pasir community centre was proposed by the community leaders themselves. They understood very well that within a short distance, there could not be two community centres. They realized very well that it was necessary to raise donations to build another new community centre with better facilities. All this is according to plan. So, what is he quarelling about here?”
“It is certainly not right, in principle,to convert it later on to another use. That community centre has also been specifically designed as a community centre, in other words, with all the facilities there. I have visited it many times. It is a cavernous sort of building. It is not compact with many rooms for office use. It has an open design for social, cultural and sporting needs. Planning approval has been given for those purposes. Now, what they want to do is to convert it into something else which it was not built for in the first place. Sir, I would seriously urge the Acting Minister to re-open the Sennett Community Centre immediately because there is a demand for it.”
“To say that a new community centre would replace this one is certainly not good enough reason. My own experience with the new community centre at Potong Pasir is that it is, in fact, overcrowded because residents there have written in. I have written in to use the facilities there, and we have not been able to make use because they say there are competing priorities. Of course, the object of the People's Association is to promote group activities, socially, culturally, education, and athletics. By closing a community centre, of course, that objective would not be enhanced. One would imagine that they would want to keep existing community centres which have a demand and also to build new ones where it is needed. So to close down the Sennett Community Centre defeats the objective of the People's Association. More importantly, a point of princple. The public's money has been donated to build the Sennett Community Centre and I think there is a clear breach of trust of those who had given this money to tell them now that the community centre is going to be used for something else. When they were approached for the money, what was the reason given? They said, "Please donate money to build a community centre." If you tell them at that time that it may be used for an office, the secretariat of the RC, they may not want to donate that money. So this is a very basic principle, and I feel that the Government should not breach that trust. They should keep their word. You approached the public for money with a specific purpose to build a community centre, to cater for the social, cultural, educational, and athletic needs of the community. They are very willing to donate that money and it is a sizeable sum because, as I said, it is about 70% of the total cost.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have written to the Acting Minister for Community Development in respect of the amounts of donations given by the public to the construction of the Sennett Community Centre. On the 7th of March, he replied. He said that the total cost of construction was $490,000, out of which $150,000 was paid by the Government. Land was also provided by the Government and the public contributed $300,040 or about 70% of the total amount. The Sennett Community Centre is a new generation community centre. It is well-equipped with sporting, cultural, social and educational facilities. It has been closed for over a year now. It has been shut and has not been in use since. The Government announced the reason for closing it - to use it as a secretariat for the RC, but to date it is still not in use. Many members in my constituency have asked me whether the community centre could be reopened for their use, especially residents of Sennett Estate. This is part of my constituency. The other reasons given by the Acting Minister were that a new Potong Pasir Community Centre has been built to replace this one. Their policy was to upgrade the facilities to those of modern centres. And they also want to consolidate public resources, as he said that the residents there have easier access to the new Potong Pasir Community Centre. Sir, these are flimsy and unconvincing reasons. In fact, there is an overwhelming need for the use of the community centre facilities in Sennett Estate. When it was closed, many of the residents, of course, were very disappointed. They complained to me, and a few were even angry because they have been using that community centre and they know that it is well patronized.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the factor which now determines the outcome of our economic policy. I hope it will work. We will try our best, and I hope all Members of this House will help us make it work.”
“If all those companies which are profitable continue to pay, and all those which are not profitable are reprieved, then the way to get a reprieve, is to become unprofitable. It is unworkable. Long before the company has become unprofitable, its headquarters would have decided that this is not the country for them and pulled out. Far from having a wage increase, we would have unemployment. These are considerations which the National Wages Council must take into account. At the same time, it is not only a matter of a few wise men in the NWC coming to a compromise which accounts for this. These are facts which must be understood in every company, in every union. It is not what the NWC pronounces which ultimately matters. It is how the settlements work out which ultimately matters. Here, we are not only talking about wages. We are not only talking about the labour market and labour costs. We are talking about the entire ability of the Government to carry out its economic package, to carry its policies and to bring growth back into the economy. This is an indicator. MTI can change rules for investment incentives. SIFS can give grants and loans. But can we make the population accept the policy and work together to make it succeed? The test case is what happens in NWC, what happens in the branch unions and in the companies. If they get together, maintain labour peace and work productively under difficult circumstances, then I think the signal will be seen and we will be remembered for much longer than these two years of wage restraint. If we cannot hold it for two years, then I think companies will decide that they should not come here at all, no matter how cheap we are, no matter what our incentives are.”
“The subject was brought up by the Member for Whampoa, who pointed out the necessity of our allowing companies in Singapore to make profits as large as they can make elsewhere, and substantially larger than they can make back in their home countries. That is the basis on which we have to start. Companies do not beg us to let them set up in Singapore. We have to invite them to come to set up in Singapore. They have to be profitable. Not only must they earn a little bit of money and stay in the black, but they must earn quite a lot of money and stay substantially in the black. They must be as profitable here as they can be in Taiwan or Korea or Hong Kong. But they must be more profitable here than they can be in Britain or France or America or Japan. There must be some compensation for coming to Southeast Asia, to a small country, for dealing with trade barriers, for living with uncertainties. Therefore, when a company makes profits which are higher than average, we should allow them to keep the profits, and we must let them continue to make more profits. These statements have major implications for the way in which we do our wage bargaining. It is very easy for us to persuade workers, employees in unprofitable companies to accept pay cuts, to reduce their take-home pay, to tighten their belts until the company does better and gets back into the black again. It is not so easy to persuade workers in companies which are not unprofitable, which are still making money, that despite the company making money, wages should not go up, that wage increases must be restrained, that the company must be given the opportunity to become even more profitable and that if we do not do that we will merely be squeezing companies.”
“We are going to help our supporting industries to upgrade, with assistance from multinational companies, companies like Philips, Hewlett Packard, Seagate, AT&T. And we will establish competence centres, places where local companies with problems can go to and seek help, be they in tool and die design, plastic mould making, food technology, or whatever. We hope, with all these actions being taken on the Government side, individual companies in Singapore will take up the challenge and do the business. Another way in which it is not possible to help local companies is to waive rentals. The Member for Yuhua asked about JTC rentals and whether there were large arrears. In a recession, arrears of rentals build up. The Government understands the difficulty. It understands the need for local companies particularly, but all companies in general, to reduce their costs as far as possible, including rental costs. That is why the rent reductions, the property tax rebates which have been passed on, all the actions which have been taken, add up to about a 30% discount on rentals for factories in Singapore, a substantial amount. These have been generous concessions. But having set the rentals at a fair level, the rent has to be collected. Because if JTC does not collect rent, then very soon word will get around that rentals can be ignored, that they do not have to be paid. JTC will then have vast unpaid bad debts on their hands, and they will be abdicating their fiduciary responsibility if they do so. Therefore, it is their job to make sure that rents are collected, to make sure that arrears do not get out of hand, and to make sure that businesses which use JTC facilities pay for JTC facilities. Lastly, company profits.”
“Let me ask Members, what would happen if we stimulate the local economy in this fashion? What would you buy? We buy clothes, materials from overseas, ballpoints from overseas, watches from overseas, shoes from overseas, television sets, mostly not made in Singapore. So stimulating the local economy in this way, far from generating business for our factories, will merely result in a significant outflow of foreign exchange, with no good to the economy of Singapore. We cannot force private individuals to buy local goods. Supposing we pass a law saying, "You will not buy a television set unless it is made in Singapore", I think there will be an uproar. In the same way, to say that you cannot buy a foreign television set unless you pay a tax, I think is infringing on the rights of the general public. It is not only unpopular, but will be incorrect. We have to be efficient, we have to sell overseas, we have to earn foreign exchange in the process so that we can buy things overseas. If we sell to one another in Singapore we get no foreign exchange. So we have to proceed to protect local businessmen and build them up in other ways. We formed the Small Enterprise Bureau last year. We expanded the scope of the Small Industries Finance Scheme last year to include non-manufacturing companies, to include export factoring, that means financing of exports, to give more loans. Last year, about $64 million of loans were granted. We think this year it will go up by three times, to about $200 million. About one-third of these loans will go to non-manufacturing businesses. We are having joint schemes between the Small Enterprise Bureau and the National Computer Board to help companies automate and upgrade.”
“There is no end to it, is it not? You start the ball rolling. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may move on to a related subject. While we can defend the interests of our traders against unfair practices overseas, it is not possible to defend the interests of our traders by protecting the domestic market. The Member for Toa Payoh mentioned the problem of agencies. The issue is symptomatic of a wider problem. The Economic Committee, despite strong lobbying from many quarters, set down unambiguously the commitment of the entire Committee to free trade. It was possibly our most unpopular recommendation, with perhaps one possible exception, namely, the consumption tax. But it is a correct recommendation. We cannot force foreign suppliers to hire local agents. If a foreign supplier is to hire a local agent, the local agent must have something to offer, something which will make it worth the while of the foreign supplier to do business with him and to deal through him. In fact, one of the reasons why foreigners like to do business in Singapore is that we do not require them to joint venture with local partners. Many countries have rules which insist that foreign companies joint venture with local partners. It usually works out most unhappily for the country at large. If we protect local entrepreneurs and local sectors, then in effect we are taxing the population as a whole in order to benefit the minority, namely, the suppliers of these services, of these goods. In the same way that the Government cannot force you to buy a locally-made good, it is very hard for the Government to tax a foreign-made good so that you have no choice but to buy a local one. Members have asked why we do not push the domestic economy, which will do good for locals.”
“Are you going to respond or protect them? BG Lee Hsien Loong: What we do and how it develops depends on how the relationship works out, what progress can be made, and what it is good to do to defend our people's interests we will do.”
“What necessary steps are you taking? BG Lee Hsien Loong: The first thing we shalldo is to determine whether the actions against our traders are contrary to the rules of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. We believe that the actions are contrary to GATT. If this is confirmed, we shall take the case to GATT in Geneva and seek redress. There are procedures. If this is not satisfactory, we will follow further actions through fraternal channels to put the matter right. Mr Chiam See Tong: May I have a point of clarification. What does the Acting Minister suggest in respect of the 50% tax across-the-board for all goods going across the Causeway and of the exit tax and also tax on lorries coming to Singapore? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not suggesting that we bow down. I am suggesting that we take up these matters with our colleagues on the other side of the Causeway and with any other countries with whom we may have trading difficulties.”
“I am surprised that the Member for Whampoa should take up that report in this House. It is completely false that I have any connections with Mr Tan Koon Swan of Malaysia. There is no foundation whatsoever in that report. I think it is defamatory to say that he financed my election in Singapore. Is that what it says? I think it is completely untrue. I had one lunch date with him which was arranged by - [Laughter.] What is wrong with that? Why are you laughing? I had one lunch date with him which was arranged by somebody, and I wish to tell this House that that lunch was paid for by one of my party members. He did not pay for it. So we have got nothing from him, not one cent.”
“May I make a clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. What I am saying is that our attitude must be one of humbleness, and not to bow down to anybody. There is a distinction between the two. We do not have to go out of the way to hurt somebody. I think that is not necessary.”