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 79 of 85.
“Three years ago the Economist, in a series of articles starting from the 17th September 1983, argued a case for moving away from the existing systems of taxation on income tax to expenditure tax for individuals. This was what the Member for Jalan Kayu was mentioning yesterday. It argues for a tax on corporate cash flow rather than corporate profits. It makes a strong case, and a valid one, that it is fairer and more sensible to tax the consumptions rather than the creation of wealth. You want to encourage savings. You want to encourage wealth creation. You do not want to encourage consumption. You do not want to encourage tax dodging. You do not want to discourage investments. I suggest Members who are interested in economics read this series of articles. The British, alas, did not go all the way of the recommendations although they have gone some of the way. For us, therefore, not to follow is to squeeze out business and to shut ourselves out of the future. It sounds good when you make a speech, "I will be willing to pay 35%, 50%, so that the other person can pay less." I do not doubt the sincerity of such professions but I doubt the universality of such sentiments. If everybody believed this, we would not need a Commissioner of Inland Revenue. We would just need another Community Chest of Singapore. Life would be simple. But it is not. So we do not really have an alternative. The alternatives are, keep income taxes high, stifle growth, drive away business. Secondly, reduce government's expendi- ture, cut down existing subsidies on health and on education. I think we may need to go the second route part of the way. But I do not see any way of going the first route. There is no way of dodging this issue in the long run.”
“PAP in Singapore. BG Lee Hsien Loong: And the PAP in Singapore sharing some of these views. The economic wisdom of the day was that you tax the rich and redistribute to the poor. And the phrase was, "Squeeze them till the pips squeak." Some start off as pips and cannot be squeezed. Why have they given up this line? Because it has been shown to lead to ruin, because it has been demonstrated that if you do this, you choke off enterprise, you stifle businesses, you drive your most capable and talented people elsewhere, and you lead to stagnation and decay. That is why they have gone to indirect taxes of which much play has been made. That is why, although they too have elected governments, subject to the ballot just as we are, they have found it necessary to introduce VAT, sales tax, and brave the wrath of the population. And that is why, having done this and having reduced their corporate and income taxes, they have been able to show better performance than they used to do. For us to ignore this lesson, to ignore the new cirumstances and to pretend as if we are undergraduates or fresh 25-year-olds in 1965 and apply similar solutions, is to ask for disaster. Even Hong Kong is introducing indirect taxation. There was an article yesterday in the Asian Wall Street Journal which reported that the Financial Secretary was proposing: '... several indirect taxes, which together would add HK$295 million to government coffers. Sir John argued that such measures must be implemented because the government no longer can raise large amounts of money through land sales.' Does that sound familiar? If Hong Kong cannot live with low taxes all round, can Singapore afford to do that?”
“All right. Let us have the evidence that we practise 3D politics. Encik Wan Hussin Zoohri( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, this then is the nature and brand of the Opposition. They have a penchant for looking at one weak aspect and then blow it out of all proportion. Let me continue. The three political philosophies, ie, politics of dissent, politics of destruction and politics of doom, are diametrically opposed to what we practise. Our politics is simple but our politics is of the qualitative type. What I wish to drive home is that our politics which I define as the politics of ABC is, firstly, we practise politics of assent, meaning we endeavour to get the concurrence of the public at large. We strive for the people's recognition of our manifesto. This is the hallmark of our politics. Secondly, we practise the politics of boom and not doom because we have guaranteed the prosperity of our people for the last 25 years. We have provided many comforts for our people. And, lastly, we continue to practise the politics of construction and not politics of destruction. Mr Speaker, Sir, the people of Singapore are more intelligent than the Opposition. The people of Singapore have made their choice of their political affiliation in order to safeguard their future. As the Malay saying goes: "Jauhari juga yang mengenal manikam", which means, "Only the jeweller knows best about gems." That is all, Mr Speaker, Sir. 11.23 am”
“The evidence. He is making all kinds of wild allegations which are not true. If he wants to know what we are dissatisfied about, there are 600,000-odd workers who have less than PSLE education. You say that we have plenty of facilities for education.”
“Sir, he said that the Opposition has practised 3D politics. What evidence has he got that the Opposition is destroying --”
“Point of clarification, Sir. I am sure the Member is not afraid to give way. Encik Wan Hussin Zoohri resumed his seat.”
“: Sir, this is Parliament. He is talking about his own Party, rallying his own Party to a cry.”
“Point of order, Sir. Mr Jek Yuen Thong remained standing.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Member for Telok Blangah will allow me, I will tell him what are the jobs that I have found for my constituents.”
“The reasons have been given. You do not have to repeat.”
“Sir, I think the point is that Singapore is not Sri Lanka. Please do not compare us to Sri Lanka. I think Singaporeans will object to that.”
“I have often given way. I think there must be a fairness in this House.”
“Have you got it on your record that I said that, "poor income"?”
“Six times. I think that was the issue I brought up. He back-tracked on that policy and the levy went down from $6,600 to $1,100. If he were correct, he would have stuck on to that original figure.”
“The issue raised by the Member for Kampong Kembangan is not what I brought up. I think the issue I brought up was that the Minister had made a mistake in his policy of wanting to increase the diesel levy 600 times.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just clarify one point. I think the issue brought up ---”
“Let us have your constructive criticism.”
“Point of clarification, Sir. What are the fallacious accusations that the Opposition has made? Please name them. Mr Lau Ping Sum( In Mandarin): The two Opposition Members are attempting to undermine the trust and confidence of our people in the Government. They did not make any meaningful recommendations or suggestions to help the economy. We are quite different from other countries. We are a small country with limited resources and a small population. So we have to work together for a common objective.”
“Point of clarification, Sir. Can the Member please tell the House how does he come to the conclusion that the relationship between the Government and the people is good if there was, in fact, a swing of votes against the Government in the last general elections? Mr Lau Ping Sum( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, although there was a swing of 12% to the Opposition at the last election, the majority of people still support the Government. Since the 60's, all the countries in the world have faced a common problem - the increasing expectations of the people. Not only in terms of material needs, but also in terms of political participation and the demand for a higher quality of life. In order to build an affluent society, every one has to pay the price. We have to shoulder the burden and make contributions. More importantly, we should believe in the sincere intention of the Government, recognize the need to consider all relevant factors and emphasize the critical importance of long term plans. The Opposition Member has moved this amendment. It is a move in the wrong direction. It contradicts the essence of the Presidential Speech. The Member for Anson said that Singapore is no longer a garden city. He said that he who laughs last laughs best. Is he laughing at the emergence of the recession and unemployment?”
“The people of Singapore do not think so. This is a system that works, that thrives, and even in communist countries, like China, they are trying to follow the things that are happening in America because that is a more successful system. And what is that system? That system is an adversarial type of system. They do not have somebody saying something and everybody just follow suit, just like the PAP. The Prime Minister stands up and says, "No CPF cut." Then the NTUC will follow, "No CPF cut." And all the Ministers will just echo. This is what is happening in Singapore. If one man makes a mistake, everybody follows, and that is probably why we end up with such a sorry system. Sir, I beg to support the amendment. 3.18 pm Mr Lau Ping Sum (Yio Chu Kang)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, last week, the President outlined in this House the policy directions of the Government. He urged the people of Singapore to work together to overcome the current difficulties. I do not agree with the Opposition Members for shifting the blame of the recession to the Government. It is like a person wearing sun-glasses and saying why is it so dark today. They allow their emotions to cloud the issues. They accuse the Government of causing the recession. But is this supported by the facts? The Member for Anson said that in 1979 the oil prices began dropping and that the Government did not take note of the oil glut. As the Member for Whampoa pointed out, this is not true. In 1979, there was an Iraq/Iran conflict. There was a shortage of oil and the oil prices doubled. The Member for Anson has distorted the facts to support his theory.”
“Yes. One Member says that we always take on an adversarial role. We do not apologize for that. In a democratic society, that is the reason why it survives because there are always two points of view. Does this House want to revert to the one-party system and having only one party in this House? Some hon. Members: Yes!”
“This is in answer to the Member for Moulmein. Apparently he does not know what happened.”
“I am not afraid of facts. You will have a chance to have your say when Budget time comes. The Member for Moulmein earlier on has mentioned something about the setup in Singapore as not being a political decision. I am still making my stand that it was, both political as well as economic decision. The Government was given the opportunity at that time to encourage a strong private sector, but it did not. He said that the Government policy was successful in the early days. Of course, you cannot compare two different periods of time. I think all the members of the Economic Committee would agree that 1985-86 is a different period of time from 1968 to the 1970s. You will recall there was a raging war going on in Vietnam. It generated massive amounts of demands. Fuel oil was just being exported by the millions of barrels. Just calculate the amount of tax the Government was collecting then and all the foodstuffs that were needed by the troops there. You ask around and everybody could tell you. Even the people who were supplying tarpaulin for the dead corpses were making money in Vietnam. It was a different period and the neighbouring region was unstable compared to Singapore. Therefore, money was being stashed in Singapore. You will remember that there was this big racial riot in Malaysia, May 13, 1969. We knew there was a housing estate which was begging people to take up houses there, and when this happened all the units were just bought up. So money poured in. There were problems in Jakarta, racial problems. Chinese merchants put their money here. I think this is no secret.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the fact that the Minister has back-tracked his policy from $6,600 to just $1,100 proves beyond a reasonable doubt that there was an error in the policy that was first proposed.”
“Are you not saying that that policy of increasing the diesel tax up to $6,600 was wrong? If it was right, why did you reduce it to $1,100?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as my hon. colleague has mentioned, if the Government or any Minister had made a mistake, I think it is only graceful of him to admit it, instead of trying to twist and turn.”
“Of course, the Minister in his usual self is clever to defend his position. But if he goes down to the ground and ask the taxi drivers, he will definitely get a different answer. If he were right, why did he not implement this policy of increasing the diesel tax fee up to $6,600, as he had proposed? Why? In fact, he had to back-track and eat his own words.”
“These facts that I quote have been published in the papers and have been spoken of by Ministers. I believe one of the Members earlier on has mentioned what the Oppostion has done in respect of the problems. In fact, Members will remember that at the last Budget debates, I think the Oppostion has already told the Government that if they increased the taxi fare, by our calculations there would be a reduction of earnings by 25%. I remember the Minister, in his usual self, stood up to ridicule me. He said that I could not even calculate better than a PSLE student. Who was right and who was wrong?”
“It has been reported that there are 60,000 foreign workers who are already out of job, and the policy of this Government is, I believe, to send back these workers who have lost their jobs. If you take away 60,000, how does he arrive at 150,000 and 180,000? In fact, I believe that, at this highest point, we do not even have 180,000 foreign workers in Singapore. As regards the $250 billion reserves that purportedly we have, we have heard very little of this money. Can they be liquidated to solve our problems? Is it possible?”
“Now, what does the Member for Mountbatten think I am doing? Of course, at Potong Pasir we try to get jobs for those who come at our meet-the-people sessions complaining to us that they have lost their jobs. But the jobs, as I have pointed out, are not the ones that will solve their problems. May I be allowed to continue? The Member for Whampoa said that there are something like 1,500 to 180,000 guest workers in Singapore. Am I right? Is that what you said? I do not know where he got those figures.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to continue?”
“Of course, the Member for Mountbatten does not understand the situation at all. It is not a question of just any job. Many of these people who are retrenched, and as has been pointed out in this House, are middle-aged or in the older age group and who are financially committed. These are their problems. They cannot just go around getting any job.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the question of whether Singapore workers work hard or do not work hard is not an issue at the moment. They are very hard working. The motion here is that they have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Now there are thousands of workers who are jobless. What do you say to that? The Member for Anson and myself propose that there must be some kind of a relief for them if you have any concern for the workers at all. Until jobs are created, they will be suffering hardship and there are no two ways about that.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot understand what the Member for Mountbatten wants me to clarify. I have never brought up anything about my own firm.”
“I do not mind. If I am misunderstood, I would like to clarify. In fact, I thank the Member for Whampoa for wanting to clarify certain points.”
“What I did I have the right. But what is the point? Which part of my speech are you trying to clarify? Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng: Which worker will you keep?”
“Do you want to clarify, or do you want to ask me a question? I am not the Minister to answer your question.”
“How many of your constituents are being helped by your Welfare Fund?”
“I have given mine. Now, he says our economy has not got a broken back. No hope. The situation is not as bad as it appears now. I wonder if he would, like the Member for Changkat, go and tell his constituents there who are out of job and who have got financial burdens, who have got a wife and three children to support, let him go there and tell them that. He is not in their shoes, so he does not know what he is talking about.”
“You must show genuine concern for the workers, as in Japan. They are secure. They know that even if there is trouble, provision will be made for them. That is why they are so conscientious. They work hard. The position of the Singapore workers is that they have got no real security. When there is trouble, everybody abandons them. They have to fend for themselves. It is just like soldiers going to war. Would the soldier really fight hard and be willing to sacrifice himself if he knows that if he gets injured or dies, nobody will take care of him or his family? The type of soldier who will work hard is the soldier who is confident that if he gives up his life or if he is injured, he will be taken care of. Japan became a number one country not out of chance. They have no natural resources like other countries, like America. They have got a good social system, a social system that takes care of its workers. I think we have to do something about the many workers who will be thrown out of jobs. In this recession, it is true we have to get business picking up again. It is important to help the companies to make sure that the companies survive. But what about the workers? We cannot just ignore them. There are two sides to the problem, the employers as well as the employees. The Member for Whampoa has made an eloquent speech. He is an economist. I wonder what his solutions are.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the amendment to the motion to thank the President for his speech. I would say that this motion must be supported by those who are involved in the trade union movement, those who are employed by the NTUC, if they do really have any concern for the workers. This amendment reads, "... to help the workers thrown out of employment through no fault of their own ...". This is really the situation. The Member for Fengshan has quoted a shipbuilding firm which retrenched workers in three stages. One of these workers came to see me in my constituency. He was one of those who were retrenched last. Why? Because he was honest, he was hard-working and he did not leave a sinking ship, so to speak. The first batch went off with their benefits. The second batch of workers, although they were not working hard enough, were also paid off. This worker who came to me was in the third batch. He was there striving, hard working, not a shirker. And what happened? The company wound up and he did not get anything. So this is the plight of a worker who, through no fault of his, in fact, he worked too hard and being too honest, he suffered. If we have a social system that does not take care of the workers, then if there is retrenchment, I am afraid no amount of singing songs over the TV or slogan shouting can help productivity.”
“Point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. I have accepted the offer subject to 19 conditions. Perhaps he did not know.”
“" This policy has been so successful that, in fact, the Prime Minister in his Fullerton Square speech in 1980 proclaimed, "I have the ground buttoned up", meaning that the ground was secured by securing a large section of the business base that it could never lose any one parliamentary seat in an election. Of course, events proved that he was wrong. So what is the solution? How do we revive the economy again? I suppose, and this has been said many times, keep costs down, be competitive, and of course you must build up the confidence in our economy and, I would add, unbutton the ground. The Government must not politicize business. Leave the running of business to the business community. 12.02 pm”
“Fortunately, I am not his economics student because I do not believe a word of what he has just said. As I was saying, the Government plans or proposes to reduce the CPF by 15 percentage point of the employer's contribution and also to lower personal and corporate tax. If we just follow this path, going backwards and coming forward again, I say that we will end up in the dead-end road. Of course, the Government needs to make fundamental changes, both political as well as economic. I think a very important stand which the Government must take to give the private sector the confidence is to make a commitment or to give an assurance that they will not again interfere or encroach on the private sector. Unless this is done, the private sector will never have the confidence of the Government. When the economy is down, the Government overtly intends to allow the private sector to grow. What happens when the economy picks up again? Will the Government revert to its old ways and encroach on the private sector? I would say that the cause of Singapore's economic downturn is more political than economic. It stems from the political style of the PAP Government. Singapore has become, as one political lecturer has said, "a dominant one-party state". This has been in existence for too long. The PAP since 1968 had absolute power. It was the only Party in Parliament. It ruled the country as it liked. In fact, it had golden opportunities to build a strong, vibrant private business sector. But it never did. I think the PAP was afraid to lose power. It went about building a base by venturing more and more into business. It had a hand in almost every pie in the business sector. People are asking, "What business the Government is not in in Singapore?”
“Thank you for the clarification. But I do not think that is how the workers look at it. You are going to cut their wages and you are asking them not to have increments, a wage restraint and to tighten their belts and make sacrifices and now we have to be as competitive, if not, more competitive than Hong Kong. So how do you do that? Do you expect our workers to receive the same wages as the workers in Hong Kong? The Member for Whampoa, being an economist, perhaps can give the answer afterwards. If we have so many years of zero growth, how is he going to have a sudden great leap forward to attain 15%, 17% or even 18% growth in one year? Let us hear his answers.”
“Yes, they have to resign. You only have one manifesto. You promised that, and only within one year you are already faltering. You cannot deliver the goods. So much for the promise. Just an empty promise. Our economist at the back will remember that the PAP quite confidently said that our economy can maintain that standard because we will have something like 5.5% GNP every year. What do we have? We have zero growth last year, probably for the next two years, zero growth. If you try to attain this 5.5% after the third year you will have a great leap forward of something like 15% or even 17% growth.”
“In my constituency, the flat purchasers are moaning and groaning at the high prices. In Potong Pasir, a 4-room flat costs $78,000. The average worker there does not earn more than $1,500. As a rule of thumb, you should know that in Western countries, the cost of a private dwelling house should not be more or about three times the gross income of a worker for three years. Therefore, if a worker were earning $1,000 a month, three years, that is, $36,000, he should not be paying more than that. Otherwise it would create hardship for him for the next 15 or 20 years. The Economic Committee's recommendation to cut costs by lowering the employer's CPF rate by 15% point and to lower the rates of income tax of private persons and of companies is in fact a measure to take Singapore 10 or 12 years back when the CPF rate was about 35%. In other words, we are back-pedalling. We have put on the reverse gear and go backwards and start all over again by bringing down the costs and bringing in the foreign investors. But what if we take the same path? We will end up where we are today, at a cul-de-sac, dead-end. Of course, there must be fundamental changes not only economically but also politically to avoid a second deep recession. Mr Speaker, Sir, at the last general election, the PAP had only one manifesto. We all know that, and that was the promise to the workers of Singapore that we will attain a Swiss standard of living. Now, just over one year since the general election, the workers are asked to accept a Hong Kong standard of living. From a Swiss standard of living to the sweat-shops of Hong Kong. That is what the Government now is asking the workers to do. If this were in any other country, there would be a complete vote of no-confidence in the Government and the Government -”
“Well, I am not envious. I think the other Ministers should be envious. There is a recommendation for a 15% point cut in the CPF. In fact, there is a lot of talk and a lot of published material by the Economic Committee. But to date, we have seen no concrete steps taken yet. Let us hope that at Budget time we will see some real and meaningful steps taken by the Government as recommended by the Economic Committee. Of course, this 15% cut of the employer's rate cannot be accepted by the workers unless something else goes with it. I would recommend also that the employee's part of the CPF be cut. This is necessary because I think economists are saying that there is not enough money locally to stimulate demand. It is only natural that more money should be put into the local market. The Straits Times, in its editorial of 13th August, 1985, has stated that if the rate of the CPF is cut, then many of the 299,000 members who use CPF would have difficulty financing their housing loans. So what is the solution? If that were true, then the real solution would be that there should be a HDB price cut. We have heard that construction costs have gone down and I believe that tender prices for construction costs of HDB flats in 1985 have also dropped. What is the reason for maintaining this high HDB price? I do not of course agree with the Member for Changkat who said that the HDB prices are cheap when compared to the private sector. You cannot compare the two. One is a public sector and the other is a private sector. We should compare the HDB prices to what the workers can afford. I wish the Member for Changkat will go back to her constituency and tell them that the HDB prices are cheap. I think probably she will not be elected the next round. I have got contrary feedback.”
“This publicity has been given in both the press coverage and on TV, in Chinese and English medium. I suppose whatever the time-table for his promotion, it is well in time. An hon. Member: Envy.”
“Everybody knows that there were already problems two years ago. They have been telling the Government that our costs here were much much higher than the costs of doing business in Hong Kong and yet the Government did not care to listen. What were the high costs due to? They were due to Government policies. We all know that high CPF rate, payment of payroll tax, Skills Development Fund, high land costs, bringing up the rentals. Transport costs were high because of our high road tax, one of the highest in the world. Then there was tax on Telecoms and tax on PUB bills. We all know that all those things have been gone through. Of course, the need now is to cut costs. We have the Economic Committee. Much publicity has been given to it. Of course, the overt purpose of the Economic Committee is to give recommendations to the Government to solve the economic problems of Singapore. But strangely, many people have noted that at the same time one particular Minister has been given more than even the maximum publicity that is given to any other Ministers.”