Chng Hee Kok
Singapore
“Sir, I would like to ask the DPM whether the new Securities and Futures Act will be made retroactive in the Links case. In other words, will the civil penalties be made retroactive in the Links case? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is somewhere in the new Bill [indicating].”
“Sir, one cannot appreciate the enormity of the problem of a poison pen letter unless he is a victim. Imagine the power of a poison pen e-mail done in the midst of a general election. By the time the truth is established, if it can be established at all, the harm is already done.”
“And this is because the transmission is now almost direct, that when orders are placed, they are placed not only with those who supply the items, the same orders are sent to the supplier's supplier's suppliers.”
“Sir, the Minister is aware that in the case of SingTel it is quite different because it is part of our asset enhancement exercise and a fairly large number of Singaporeans own shares in SingTel. Since the announcement of the Optus deal, share prices have dropped by some 30%.”
“This is a follow up of my earlier question. If the market sentiments are favourable, will the IPOs take place this year? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, PSA and Singapore Power would not have appointed investment bankers and proceeded with due diligence unless they have very serious intentions.”
“And in many cases, over a period of time, we would be happy to reduce our shareholdings down below where they are now and, maybe even divest completely. Because the original rationale for building up and maintaining these companies has to be reviewed and may or may not continue to exist.”
The complete record
Every one of 834 lines we hold for Chng Hee Kok, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 17.
“Sir, on the foreign maid levy, I do not want to be seen to be flogging a dead horse. But we know that the Minister has already indicated that the foreign maid levy will likely to continue to increase in future. What I feel is important is that the Ministry of Labour must now work out a more comprehensive solution to this problem. Many working lady parents I spoke to generally feel that some form of control is necessary for foreign workers. I think that is a good sign. Singaporeans are quite pragmatic. What they cannot agree is the way and how we control the influx of foreign maids. Having said that, Sir, the main point that came out of the discussion was that at the moment, there are just not sufficient facilities for working ladies to look after their children, be they infants, children of pre-school age, and those who are in primary school. The whole purpose of a child care centre is actually to encourage female labour force participation. But this is controlled by the Ministry of Community Development. What I feel is that the control of child care centres should be placed under the Ministry of Labour. The Ministry of Labour would have to determine what are the kinds of facilities required, whether they are for, as I mentioned earlier, infants, pre-schoolers, and those who are in primary school, and work out a total comprehensive solution to make sure that sufficient funds are made available to develop this kind of infrastructure. When this infrastructure is available, ladies who are in the workforce will have a way out of their problem.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head S be reduced by $10 in respect of Code SK 1500 of the Main Estimates. Sir, I have two cuts under this amendment. I shall take them together.”
“They have advertised in the papers and they are prepared to buy the shops to form a chain store group. I am sure, in time to come, many such private sector groups will come forward and this will alleviate some of the problems that may be caused to the tenants because they can sell these shops at a discount, make some profit on it and perhaps, in some cases, even lease back the shop. As to my question whether the HDB will open up the tender for those who refuse to buy the shops, will the Minister consider this, Sir?”
“Sir, yesterday, before the moment of interruption, I was saying that I supported the HDB's sale of shop scheme. I indicated yesterday that the means by which the HDB is selling shops is a fair scheme. It allows the shop tenants to buy the shop at the HDB's valuation price or they can establish the price by means of a public tender. On top of that, they will have the first right and a discount based on their length of use of the premises. This is a reasonable way to sell the shops. I also indicated that the scheme seems to be unfair in the sense that a great majority of Singaporeans are deprived of the right to buy the shops. These shops are offered to a select group of people and they comprise maybe about 16,000 people at the moment. Nevertheless, having said that, the shop tenants have done a lot for HDB estates. They have contributed to our nation-building. They have also contributed to improving the amenities of the housing estates. In view of this, I am sympathetic towards what the HDB is doing and I can say that I support what they are now doing by selling the shops to HDB shop tenants at reasonable prices. Sir, there is a third option which I want to talk about. The present scheme allows a shopkeeper who does not wish to buy the shop to continue to rent from the HDB. Since HDB is prepared to sell the shop, I wonder if HDB will modify the scheme to allow the particular shop unit to be put up for tender. This unit will be tendered and sold with tenancy, which means that the new owner will take up the shop with tenancy. Presently, I do not think the scheme, as it stands, will cause hardship to the shop tenants. There is already a report in the Business Times today which says that an investment company, formed by a Hong Kong medical group, is now on the look-out.”
“Sir, I think we are running out of time. I want to touch on the topic about sale of shops. I believe that the scheme announced by the HDB is both a fair as well as an unfair scheme. Sir, the fair part is that the pricing of the shops is reasonable. It is based on market valuation and the shop tenants have the option of going for public tender to determine the price of the shops. On top of that, it is more than reasonable because the shopkeepers in fact will get a discount on the market price. A 30% discount on a piece of property is actually a lot of money. Yesterday, during the debate on the Budget Statement, I made a tongue-in-cheek comment that this whole scheme is also unfair. Why is this unfair? This is unfair because, if you look at it, we are disposing State assets. These HDB shops belong to the State and we are disposing assets of the State to a very select group of people -- some 16,000 shop tenants -- and they will be given the first right of refusal and the advantage of a discount. Whereas an outsider who is interested in the shop --”
“Sir, I am pleased with the Minister of State's reply and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I hope the Minister can take a look into this and determine whether the extra checking by the Building Structural Branch is really necessary in view of the fact that such steel buildings and structures are already independently checked by qualified consultants. Sir, my second amendment relates to the role of the URA. I think it has been more than two years since the URA has taken over the overall master planning, planning and building control from the PWD. Despite being involved in planning and regulating buildings, land use, etc, URA is still presently managing and owning car parks and some properties through, I believe, PIDEMCO. I think this managing and ownership of properties is not a compatible role of a planning authority. In view of this, I wonder whether the Minister has any comments as to whether such properties will be taken out of the control and management of the URA. Sir, the second point is a minor one which relates to the URA. Since they have taken over the planning functions, the name "Urban Redevelopment Authority" seems to be a misnomer. It is very hard to understand why a planning authority is called the URA. Is there any plan to change the name?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head U be reduced by $10 in respect of Code UE 2100 of the Main Estimates. Sir, as you have said, I have two amendments. First, I would like to touch on the question of planning approval and I would like the Clerk to distribute a chart which probably will show Members and the Minister in clearer form what I am going to talk about. Sir, I will like to confine my discussion to planning approval for industrial buildings only for those costing less than $2 million where some piling is required. The industrialists and investors are a bit puzzled. At the moment, for buildings on JTC land, it takes 2-3 weeks for approval. And then an application will have to be made to the URA for planning approval. The planning approval can take anything from six to eight weeks, ie, two months. Having the planning approval, the main drawback is that after that, having obtained the building plan number, the drawings, after checking by external consultants, have to be sent to the Building Structural Branch for checking purposes. This checking can take as long as 8-16 weeks, but as I understand it, it is usually like 12-16 weeks. These plans are for single storey portal-frame steel structure buildings which do not require very much checking. Nevertheless, because of this extra checking by the Building Structural Branch, the whole process, if you look at my chart, can take from as long as up to 27 weeks, something like six months. In other words, if the investor or industrialist wishes to expand his factory, the first pile can only be driven into the ground after six months. For some minor building extension of factories, this seems to be long and I believe the Minister for Trade and Industry will be interested in this particular topic.”
“Sir, I have just one comment on what the Minister said about the Intra-Orient Marketing Programme. He is right that the IMP comprises 21 out of 58 airlines. But what he has not stated is that these are the major airlines. For example, for flights to London, these are the regular and frequent flyers to this particular destination. In the process, the consumers have very limited or no choice if these 21 airlines come together under IMP. Sir, owing to the shortage of time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“' Sir, my question to the Minister is that this fixing of airline fares has been going on for a long time with disadvantages to consumers. My particular question, and it is also a general one, is that in the event whereby a fixed number of suppliers of goods come together and fix prices to the disadvantage of consumers, like the oil companies coming together to fix oil prices, what will the Ministry's stand be, and whether he will apply administrative pressure or move a Bill in Parliament to prevent this from happening.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head W be reduced by $10 in respect of Code WA 1500 of the Main Estimates. Sir, my subject is fixing of airline fares. Sometime last year, a cartel formed by about 20 airlines which fixed air fares in Singapore called the Intra Marketing Programme collapsed. In the process air fares to London were literally halved what it was. For the last several years, in 1989, there was a different programme called Market Development Programme which was again formed by these similar airlines to set minimum prices for air fares. All this fixing of air fares out of Singapore is to the disadvantage of the consumers, especially Singaporeans. This fixing of air fares leads to a ridiculous situation whereby it is cheaper for Malaysians to travel from Kuala Lumpur to Singapore and to London than for Singaporeans to travel from Singapore to London. All because of price fixing in Singapore. 2.15 pm Sir, I do not think this situation is tenable. I believe that the Minister should do something about it. Perhaps let me quote what he said on 15th January 1990 in reply to a question on deregulation of the oil prices. May I quote from Hansard (Vol. 54, col. 920). He said at that time: 'Deregulation encourages competition among oil companies. It forces them to operate efficiently and to be more responsive to the needs of the consumers. It allows the free market to determine the real price for the products, and is therefore fair and economically rational. The Government does not regulate the prices of food, transportation, or other basic necessities in Singapore. It leaves it to competition to bid down prices and prevent profiteering.”
“The world slowdown, when it finally hits our yards, will on its own take care of the problem of too many foreign workers. These guest workers are also not permanently domiciled here and need not be. In a recession, these people can be easily repatriated. Therefore, if growth is not so certain, the Government should be more careful in putting on the brakes. In conclusion, I wish to thank the Finance Minister on his painless budget. The 5% one-time personal tax rebate, which is running into the third year, is most welcomed. Such reliefs are better than direct unearned handouts, as this is on income that is earned. Our people can better understand such measures. In other words, if you pay taxes you get a rebate. And that, Sir, is my case today. Any largesse we wish to give to our people should be in the form of tax breaks and not direct subsidies on consumption of services.”
“In the 1985 recession, Sir, we recovered within one year and we did that by cutting our cost, and the main cost item we had scaled back was the Central Provident Fund. I think this time round, we may not be able to do the same. Back in 1985, the US economy, the Japanese economy and Europe were still in a state of growth. Today, the US is in recession, with recovery in doubt; Japan is slowing down and the powerhouse of Europe, Germany, because of the reunification, is in to negative growth. Sir, this time round, just mere cost cutting will not work. If world demand drops in the major economies, how will cost cutting help us plug into the system? If there is no demand, even lower cost will not help. While there may be a need to dampen galloping growth during a world economic boom, can we be sure that in a world slowdown - as is happening now - we can still manage 4% to 5% growth rate? With the present drop in world demand, it will be very difficult for our economy to pick up. With all these signs, I feel that the latest Government curb on the number of foreign workers is ill-timed. With all signs of a slowdown already evident, and if growth is still uncertain, it is difficult to understand why the Government is still trying to restrain growth by continuing to take a hard line stand in this area. For example, by insisting on implementing the foreign to local worker ratio at 2 to 1, we may be forcing the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry to shrink at a time when the slowdown will itself force the industry to contract. The shipyard and shipbuilding industry is a cyclical business and we must catch the wind whenever it blows strongly. Why not then let these shipyards hire from abroad more freely now if there is still demand in that industry?”
“Because Singaporeans feel they have paid for it, or deserve more, they may insist on loading their buffet plates with as many Government subsidised benefits as they can, whether they need them or not. In our desire to build a more egalitarian society, we could also risk fostering a society that insists on more Government props. Now is an opportune time for Singapore to review the whole concept of less, and not more, government. While balancing political exigencies, we should take bold steps in preparing our people for an even better and more self-reliant future. Sir, while I am in support of the free market principle, enunciated by the Minister for Finance in his Budget Statement, I must take exception to his philosophy of maintaining or moderating economic growth. We are moderating our growth by imposing Government charges and restricting our foreign workers. Sir, our problem happily is that of managing growth in Singapore, unlike many countries which are trying to get their economies to kick-start or to grow. While it may be necessary to prevent overheating of our economy during a boom, should we give it a freer rein than at present? Should we not allow our economy to catch the wind and grow as quickly as it can? Instead of controlling growth at a manageable 4% to 5%, is it not better or worth debating that we should have less restraint and allow the economy to grow at even 8% when times are good, and allow us to build up our reserves? My view is that holding a rein on growth is a very dangerous concept. Holding the reins in moderating growth is only something which I believe the bureaucrats believe in. No businessman says you can moderate growth because you sell whatever you can, whenever you can.”
“If we free our market, and the Government reduces its role, personal income tax can and must, in fact, be reduced over time. In this way, people will be allowed to pay only for what they use. In the end, the whole population benefits. The Government should review, step by step, the different services with a view to scaling down its subsidy or involvement. Why should Singapore adopt such a move? It is, I submit, the only way forward to a real market economy, greater efficiency for Singapore, and most important, for the long-term well-being of the country. Continuation of a policy of subsidy, even at present levels, will result in perpetuation of a subsidy mentality, a give-me-more attitude and dependency among our people. Sir, I remember when I was a boy, the PUB first installed meters in the housing estates. Up till then when we achieved independence, water bills were charged on a flat rate basis. At that time, the move was very popular because people felt that they should not be paying a fixed rate of water as their neighbour when they might be using less than their neighbour. So the move for fixing water meters was popular. People felt that they were paying for what they used. But contrast this with the recent move of Telecom's time-based charges. We had a fixed rate. We have moved to the time-based system, and people should pay for what they use. We have created a tremendous problem. So over a period of time, the people are used to subsidies, the mentality is so entrenched, that it is very difficult to move people, as seen all over the world. It is like the buffet syndrome that we complain so much about.”
“I understand also that taxi operators also have difficulty in setting different rates, like setting premium rates for special or personalised services. Sir, instead of fixing a rate for all taxi drivers, if they are prepared to offer a personalised or different service, we should allow the taxi drivers to do so. We have, since independence, seen a plethora of bus service companies reduced to one giant Singapore Bus Service (SBS). More recently, new bus companies have been allowed to start and Trans-Island Bus Service (TIBS) is one good example of what can be achieved by good healthy competition. Sir, although we are not prepared to return to the bad old days of mushrooming public transport companies, if we allow these companies to charge what the market can bear, and what makes it profitable for them to operate, I believe we can expect more public transport operators to enter the market and this cannot do any harm to our public transportation system except to improve it. Rigid regulations have been given as one example why people from Hong Kong do not like to come to Singapore. Used to a free for all system in Hong Kong, with minimum and usually absent government, Hong Kong has managed to make tremendous progress despite a high distortion in the income spread. But such a laissez faire state of affairs, as shown in Hong Kong, has been vindicated over time. But because we have an efficient and honest Government, the process of freeing the market can be more orderly. Privatisation in many areas of Government services, such as Telecom and the Public Utilities Board (PUB), is a step in the right direction. Where possible, Government should also allow for other companies to enter those areas formerly monopolised by such Government agencies.”
“This is a step in the right direction, although I must say that the scheme is rather unfair at this point in time. I have submitted an amendment under this topic and I shall bring it up when we discuss the sale of HDB shops. Sir, there is a market value to every shop and HDB should not be involved in setting the rental charges. By working on some uniform structure, certain efficient businesses benefit, others which are less efficient, less productive, will cry foul because the tenants need the subsidies to survive and to continue their business. Once the shops are sold, the owners are able to resell their shop and their business, lease out their premises to others and, in some cases, some of the shopowners would be better off seeking alternative employment and, at the same time, collect rent for the shops. Sir, a second area which requires some review is the public transport system. We have a Public Transport Council that has done tremendous good in stabilising public transport costs, and in helping a good public transportation system take shape. However, in the process, it has also led, for instance, to some rigidity by preventing operators from charging higher or economic rates on certain routes. If these routes are unprofitable, operators will not be willing to maintain these services. If certain bus operators wish to charge higher rates for a run from, say, the MRT station to a housing estate, this should be done. If they can generate some profits from there, and if residents are happy paying a higher rate, we should allow for that. If it is popular, the rates will be reasonable and kept low. If the rates are too high, of course, there will be no demand and the operators may not run the service.”
“A developer has to include the land cost fully into his project and into each unit or flat or apartment he sells. We should continue to subsidise first time home owners only, and this may be done either through the pricing system, or the tax breaks during budget time. Should these flats still be restricted to people earning below a certain level of income? When we have a situation where large profits can be made by selling existing HDB flats, should the HDB continue to operate as it is today, and offer executive flats at prices way below comparable private apartments? Will this not lead to a constant desire to upgrade to larger and bigger flats? Why should Singaporeans who pay high taxes - and therefore are subsidising such services as public housing, that is for those who pay less taxes - be prevented from buying HDB flats? By setting an income limit, those who are earning more and paying more taxes are not entitled to buy HDB flats. Instead of maintaining this state of affairs, with a mature economy, and the end of our housing problem, should the Government not re-examine the role of the HDB and its housing policy? I believe, Sir, now is the time for such a review. For greater efficiency in our economy, the long-term direction should be a freeing of the market and a start should be made now to let the market find its own level in housing. Prices may rise in some areas, and go down in others. But ultimately, it will mean greater efficiency, and better value for the people. And greater and more general well-being at the macro level will also condition our people to compete better among themselves and in the world. Which is why I am in support of the scheme to sell HDB shops.”
“Sir, today I want to make out a case for a deliberate move by Government to free the Singapore economy further. We should, instead of allowing contemplation of any new Government subsidies, direct our minds now at reducing where possible - and without causing drastic short-term hardships to the people - those subsidies which are no longer necessary, or are not in our people's long-term interest. After 27 years of independence, Singapore and Singaporeans, I believe, are ready to be weaned away from subsidies. It is also not a question of choice. It is better, while we are still able to, to prepare and focus our people on the need to earn what we get, and pay for the services we demand. History and current world developments prove the merit of a free market. Our people and our nation will be the better for it. We should allow free market forces to reign in as many areas as possible except in the most basic social services. Up to now, Singapore has focused on three major areas, housing, education and health. I think in these three areas, high Government subsidies have enabled us to arrive where we are today. Subsidies on education and health can be argued for continued support. But can we say the same thing about housing? Today, with more than 80% of our population already housed in HDB flats, we should examine and ask if flats of larger room types should continue to be subsidised to the present extent. This subsidy is real, Sir, if you make a comparison of the prices of the flats built by private developers on URA land and that of a comparable HDB maisonette or executive apartment. The difference is as much as 50% to 60% and this difference comes mainly from the land cost.”
“Despite consistently very high credit rating for some years now, I think no banker will lend Singapore any money, once its economy runs aground for extended period of time. At the first whiff of trouble, creditors will foreclose. All it takes is a few years of deficits and drawdown of our reserves, and there will be no more lending to Singapore but foreclosure. Foreclosure will take the form of high unemployment, hyper-inflation and all the woes that come with economies that have gone wrong. Sir, last Sunday, Straits Times columnist, Sumiko Tan suggested that, and I quote: "The government has more than made its point about the dangers of mindless handouts. But by doing so, it has also given itself a bad press - inadvertently." I have high regard for Sumiko Tan and the contents of her article headlined "Reserves and Subsidies - Time to let the matter rest". However, I believe this headline and her conclusion have somewhat marred the excellence of her arguments. Seeing what is happening to the rest of the world, and the national income level that Singapore has achieved today, the question we must surely ask is: are we ready to restructure and remove further subsidies and cross-subsidies which may make our economy less rigid and of course remove distortions wherever possible? My view is that now is the time to go further into this somewhat painful and divisive subject. The Member for Bukit Gombak, the Opposition Member, yesterday asked how much reserves must we accumulate? My regard for him would have been notched up several rungs if Mr Ling How Doong had asked: how much subsidies should we have in our system? My regard for him would have improved if he had asked that question.”
“Countries with generous welfare benefits, countries that have maintained high social welfare handouts without a matching return in revenue, are experiencing economic hardship, high unemployment, and a universal drop in the people's standard of living. And because the subsidy mentality has taken such deep roots in these countries, political leaders are paralysed. The politicians only look forward to the next election and dare not take the political risk of voting to cut off or reduce such spending and put their countries back on an even keel. It is said that a small increase in petrol taxes in the United States could overnight help to wipe out the country's recurrent budget deficit. But has any American leader in the US dared to suggest that? No, the American's love affair with the car is also another sacred institution. This is why, Sir, Singapore should never succumb to the temptations of subsidising spending or digging into our coffers to finance the whole array of social services. Free market forces, and less subsidy -- not the US way -- is the only way for Singapore to go. Unlike powerful and large countries like the US, Singapore does not have the clout to finance profligate spending, or to support budgetary deficits. How does the US do it? Despite its huge and persistent budget deficits, the US can keep on borrowing from the rest of the world. Banks and countries are still buying US bonds. The world has to prop up the US economy. No one can afford to let the US economy go down. Today, the United States is the most indebted country in the world. But the same cannot be true of Singapore, and probably never will, given the facts of life.”
“In rejecting the President's budget, congressmen were merely re-prioritising expenditure to where they can win most votes. The US budget deficit last year was US$400 billion, more than $2,000 for every man, woman and child. For the next fiscal year the budget deficit is projected at US$330 billion. The Straits Times reported, and I quote one particular sentence which says here, "Both the budgets of the President and the Democrats, neither budget address the swelling national debt." In the US, Medicare, social security and other social programmes are sacred cows. Profligate spending and high government subsidies are bringing ruination to the most powerful nation in the world. The three examples I have quoted -- India, China and the US -- show the insidious effect of government subsidies if mindlessly applied. Moves by India and China to remove subsidies at very high political cost and China's strongman Deng Xiaoping is no easy pushover. Surely the very fact that they are asked to do so or forced to do so must mean that the survival of the state is at stake. As for the US, the failure to address the deficit and public spending on social programmes points to a decline in a once economically strong country. Sir, all over the world, we see many former economically strong countries have been wounded, hurt by something more drastic than bombing by hostile alien forces. What we are seeing is economic harakiri, a suicidal beaching of whales among some of the once rich developed countries. There is no doubt that mindless spending and government subsidies are bringing ruination to once powerful nations. Yet, leaders of these countries are shying away from unpopular measures to curb such spending. Today, all countries with high subsidies and deficit spending are in trouble.”
“An economy whose potential in the 1950s stood comparison with that of the East Asian tigers, on a much larger scale, today remained mired in poverty." Sir, we started with India on about the same basis after independence. Today, our per capita GDP is no less than 40 times the size of India. No wonder we have many Indians who like to come to Singapore to look for ways out of their economic misery. I think India has no choice, and Prime Minister Narashimha Rao, at high political cost and opposition, has to bring about economic reform. Amongst many free market moves, the Indian budget last month sought to remove a string of subsidies which were sacred cows. The string of subsidies included cutting the subsidy on fertilizers -- a very sensitive issue to farmers. Also, contrary to socialist principles, the wealth tax in India was removed. The maximum income tax rate was brought down from 50% to 40%. Sir, my third example is the United States of America. The world recently witnessed the spectacle of a US President, with chief executives of some of the world's largest auto makers in tow, going to Japan to ask for trade concessions. Such a development was once inconceivable. Who could have thought it possible that 46 years after General MacArthur rode triumphantly into Japan to dictate terms to a vanquished Japanese nation, the supreme leader of the same nation would have to go to Japan today as supplicant to bargain for more favourable trade terms? Sir, it is Pearl Harbour all over again! In a different form. Last Friday, 6th March, the headline in the Straits Times sums up all that is wrong with the US economy. The headline reads "US House rejects President's Budget." President Bush is from the Republican party. Congress is controlled by the Democrats.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for letting me join in the debate. Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Finance. The headline in the newspaper said, "Socialist China Mustn't Totally Reject Capitalism". This headline will be nothing unusual if it is made by some economic journal. But it is not an economic journal. This headline was the headline of the China Daily - the English counterpart of the People's Daily of the People's Republic of China. Learning from the experience of the now defunct Soviet Union, China's leaders are fully aware that the capitalist road -- once a very feared description -- is the only way forward for China. In freeing the economy, one of the very first prescriptions of the Chinese leadership was the removal of subsidies to state enterprises. Subsidies cause distortion, lead to inefficiency and prices of manufactured goods that bear no resemblance whatsoever to the cost of production. The Chinese leaders are going one step further - in trying to remove subsidies in social programmes. For example, rental of state housing at $1.00 per month is something which will lead inevitably to an inordinate demand for state subsidised housing. My next example is India. Let me quote one paragraph from The Economist on 7th March 1992. The opening paragraph of a leader says: "In all the world there is no more striking a case of opportunity squandered than India. For decades a breathtakingly inept approach to economic policy - one that contrived to make even less sense than communist central planning - separated the country from the world economy, held back growth and defeated progress on almost any measure you choose.”
“Sir, I do not think it is as simple as that. Unless the employee signs a statutory declaration to say that he is not, the employer is still not protected, because at the end of the day, the employer can still be charged as he has relied upon the statement of the employee. I think it is an important point for employers to resolve. In the Malay community, I do not know how it is done. Maybe there is less of a problem. But in the Indian community, there are many denominations and so on. I wonder whether the Minister has really considered this in full.”
“Sir, my question to the Minister earlier in the Second Reading was that the Bill makes it incumbent upon the employer to determine that a certain member belongs to the Indian community. And in the event of a doubt, the employer does not make a deduction from that person who happens to be a person from the Indian community, then he is guilty of an offence. My question is: what is the protection for the employer in the case when he is not sure whether an employee is an Indian or not an Indian?”
“Sir, I am afraid the Minister misunderstood my question. I wish to seek a clarification from the Minister.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to raise one question with the Minister. This relates to the opting out scheme contributions. There is a prescribed penalty for employers if they do not make the necessary deductions or contributions from employees, but it is incumbent upon the employer to decide whether a particular employee belongs to a particular community. If an employee does not opt out, then the employers can be left with the problem of trying to decide whether certain employees are members or not members of a particular community. I just want to know what is the experience of MENDAKI and whether the Minister has considered how employers can be protected in the event that there may not be a very clear-cut case of whether certain employees belong or do not belong to a particular community. The Minister of State for Information and the Arts and Education (Dr Ker Sin Tze)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am aware that the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the clan associations are in the process of forming a council to help the Chinese community. I would like to ask the Minister for Labour whether this amendment Bill will be applicable to the fund raising campaign of this proposed council.”
“And it is one labour force that is prepared to slog it out like a fighter. But if we go for softer options, we will no longer be able to last 15 rounds in the ring. And also to our neighbours and outsiders, a house divided is one which is ripe for the picking. Not the immediate present, but some years down the road, we cannot presume that some other country in the region will not have a more adventurous leader. We must, Sir, send the right signals to all. We must show to all in and outside Singapore, that we are not easy to push around; consultative and open Government does not mean an unsure, easy, or soft Government. I believe our greatest enemy is within. We can be a more caring society but, at the same time, we must have a Government that means business. We have in The Next Lap visualised a great tomorrow. This document will guide us into the next century. What we must all do together to run the Next Lap is that we must stay the course together. ADJOURNMENT OF DEBATE With the consent of Mr Deputy Speaker and the general assent of Members present, Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That the debate be now adjourned. - [Dr Lee Boon Yang].”
“Beneath that benign exterior, however, lies a man, I believe, with a hard rock determination to carry out what he believed to be good for the people. I am for the Government's more open and friendlier style. However, it need not be emphasised that the Government must also balance this with governing with a firm hand. I am glad to hear this assurance from the Deputy Prime Minister just a moment ago. There must be firm and resolute leadership, and we must not send conflicting signals to the population. If I may recall, the proposed expenditure on the upgrading of HDB flats and the Edusave were unfortunately linked to the spending of our reserves. Now we are exhorting the people not to adopt a 'give-me more' attitude by spending from our national reserves. Needless to say, I oppose any such linkage. If money is to be needed to upgrade our housing estates or set aside for Edusave, it must come from Budget operating surpluses every year. Better still, the Government should use fiscal measures like tax breaks. Tax breaks are wonderful mechanisms for allowing individual Singaporeans to exercise discretion to qualify for tax breaks which are then used to upgrade their homes. The public must also be educated to realise that going for softer options and going at odds with the Government of their choice will send wrong signals to investors and also to outsiders and our neighbours. To investors, Singapore is a maturing economy, and returns on their investments are decreasing because we mature. If investors are able to get substantial economic returns or better returns elsewhere, then we must do all that we can to retain our competitiveness. One key ingredient is a skilled and hardworking labour force. This has won us many years of good economic growth.”
“More important, it is knowing how to market our policies to the people, however unpopular they may be, or how to make a bitter pill tastes less so, and sometimes a bitter pill can even taste sweet. Good leadership is, therefore, being able to get the ground to accept unpopular policies even if they have to pay a price for it. The controversy over Telecom's new time-based method of charging for telephone calls is in principle a good move that will ensure that the higher cost of our telephone service is equitably shared among the Singapore public. But there was strong opposition. I think the fault lies not in the cost to the telephone subscriber but, I believe, in the way that Telecom fails to market or sell the scheme. A well-thought out marketing strategy can sell the most difficult policies and the Government or Government Minister need not necessarily lose points. Dr Tony Tan, who for several years and until a few weeks ago had the hot seat of Minister for Education, was not only a great Education Minister but one who was able to see through many delicate, controversial and potentially explosive changes in Singapore's educational system. But everybody in this House, I am sure, agrees with me that he remains one of the most popular and well-respected politicians in Singapore. The people blame the Government for the education policy, but I have yet to hear anyone who I have come across blaming Dr Tony Tan for implementing it. What was Dr Tony Tan's secret? I submit it was his firm but fair leadership, reinforced by an ever present smile, unwavering and unruffled calm in explaining drastic changes, a very patient persuasiveness that won him the people's ear.”
“Wavering or modifying to please the vocal opponents of those policies, however many there may be, has never been the style of this Government. Indeed, our country's success, and the very impressive list of statistics given by the Deputy Prime Minister bears testimony to this, is due in no small measure to our predictability and steadfastness. Besides selling a difficult policy, the Government must think through and anticipate the hardships they might cause to certain sections of our population and provide for such contingencies by incorporating mitigating measures into the policy. We should not wait for protests or mistakes to surface before we start tinkering around with a new policy. I am an advocate of free market principles, but free market also has imperfections. This must be mitigated against, especially if it is a result of a new Government policy or a new measure. Such an example is the unhappiness over the elimination of C class wards in the Singapore General Hospital. This policy implementation and the unhappiness it will cause should have been anticipated and it is not very difficult to foresee this. Sir, on to my second question: Should the Government then shy away from difficult policies? The short answer is obviously no. The Government has been elected to lead the country and implementing unpopular and tough policies has always been the hallmark of this Government. With a younger and better educated public, what has changed? The only thing that has changed is the policy implementation calls for more preparation, better packaging and sugar coating, wherever necessary. In short, we must adopt a total marketing approach in selling our policies. Good leadership is not just being a visionary, planner or architect of great policies.”
“Sir, I must confess that I am an advocate of firm Government. In the debate on the President's Address in January 1989, amongst other things, I advocated a conciliatory approach to replace contention with consensus. I have also cautioned and I quote from Hansard [Vol. 52, col. 390]: 'We must be wary that in the process of consensus building, we may be raising the expectations of the people to such an extent that all measures are, in fact, subject to a de facto referendum.' Sir, it gives me no pleasure today to feel that my warning is in fact coming true rather quickly. Sir, consultative style in Government is not necessarily taboo, but we must know what policies need consultation and those that need not. Let me borrow this well-known little prayer. I hope that the Government has the serenity to accept things which cannot be changed, the ability to change those that can, and the wisdom to know the difference. Having decided on the policies that need consultation, the process must take place before finalisation of the policy. Once decided and implemented, any change and fluctuations seem to make the Government a patchwork affair of trial and error and experimentation. We should not announce or implement new policies too hastily, only to modify them as we go along to suit the mood of the country. Each policy change should be thoroughly thought out before implementation. And fine-tuning should be done before, not after, or at least not before the policy has run its course. And if a necessary but unpopular decision has to be made, our people and voters, and there are many people like me, the older generation, the middle-aged, expect our Government to see the policy through.”
“I think, to some, the Government appears to be in retreat. Some equate consensus building and the Government's open consultative style as a sign of weakness, and so emboldened are making stronger demands or becoming increasingly vociferous in their criticisms of the Government. There is this perception that vociferous criticism will force the Government to make changes or concessions. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with due respect to your Chair and also to Mr Speaker, it appears that parliamentary seating arrangement is also negotiable in the press. Sir, it took me three terms to make a gradual progress from the last row to the second row. I honestly hope very much that I will keep this seat, Sir. I think the unofficial Leader of the Opposition should consider that this is too trivial an issue to be raised. Sir, at a grassroots seminar that I attended last Sunday, a Residents' Committee member felt that his role as a grassroots leader is becoming very difficult. He com- plained that despite voicing feedback on objections to Telecom's time-based charging system, the Government still went ahead anyway. I have also met others who believe, mistaken or otherwise, that this whole system of time-based charging will be changed after the six months trial period. To me, Sir, this is a very dangerous development. If there is this perception that the Government will modify policies to please the vocal opponents of those policies, then all Government policies are subject to results of opinion polls, not what is necessary and good for our long term well-being. This, therefore, raises two important questions. Is consensus building and a consultative style in Government no longer appropriate? Does it mean that the Government should shy away from implementing difficult policies?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of the Member for Hong Kah GRC. Sir, the fine principles enunciated in our President's Address and the notable goals he has outlined for a progressive Singapore society, I think, deserve nothing less than strong support of all Singaporeans. Our task now is to move society towards these goals. However, in moving forward, we have arrived at this juncture that there is a perception that the Government and the people are not looking in the same direction. In a period when there is relative calm and widespread well-being, unlike the life threatening struggles of the past against the Communists, communalists and potential economic collapse, it is sometimes becoming more difficult to galvanise the people and get them to come behind the Government. It is even easy to lose votes for no strong reason other than people wanting an Opposition for the sake of one, whatever the platform or lack of a platform by an Opposition candidate in the general elections. Today, there is no life threatening crisis. It is both a fortunate and an unfortunate state of affairs. Unfortunate because there is no lesson to be learnt. I think on the surface and materially, everything seems well. There is no common enemy. In such a situation, people ask for softer options. The temptation is to yield to such requests. Such indulgence can be the start of the downhill slide. The generation that came up the hard way realise that Singapore cannot afford that, but I believe that this message is somewhat lost. As a result, the electorate, after last August's general elections, may have received some wrong signals. And there are those who think that the Government is fair game and they can take pot-shots at the Government at will.”
“Will the Minister of State confirm that this policy was not made because a gathering of teenagers at a MRT station is considered an eyesore?”
“Sir, the Prime Minister has been quoted as saying that he will cause a review of Government policies which the people consider stifling. Since the general agreement among the public is that this rule is stifling, will the Minister of State cause a review of this particular rule?”
“Sir, will the Minister not say that from the point of view of planning, implementation and control, one agency that specialises in land sales will still be more efficient and better for the people instead of duplicating this process?”
“Sir, yesterday I raised with the Minister another issue on the designation of trades for HDB shops, on whether it is possible to make the shopping areas more complete by designating certain shops for essential trades like medical clinics. I also did mention barber and hairdressing shops.”
“We all can agree that certain service trades or businesses like general practitioners, clinics, barber and hair dressing saloons are not only useful but also necessary to meet the needs of residents. On the full tender basis, certain trades may not be able to compete with some of the other more lucrative businesses, as has already been mentioned by my hon. colleague, Dr Koh. In view of this, will the Minister consider modifying the policy and set aside a certain number of shops for the service trade so as to better serve the residents in the HDB estates.”
“The last point is that despite the very efficient system which we have, or claimed to have, we are not able to inform the prospective buyer on the scheduled ballot. This results in a great deal of anxiety and much time is wasted, both by the applicant as well as by HDB officers. Residents are naturally very keen to know the outcome of the ballot. They call up the HDB and the officer will tell them this: you will know next month. This resident of mine who wrote to me said that he called up the HDB at least several times over 10 months and each time he was told that he would be informed the next month. So with all these problems, I hope the Minister will perhaps look into fine-tuning or modifying some of the problems associated with the present allocation scheme. Sir, the second topic I wish to raise is a matter relating to the allocation of shops for the different trades in HDB estates. In the private sector, the owner of a shopping complex, in marketing his shops, will go for a certain mix of business or trades. By doing so, it enhances his shopping complex. He hopes that by doing this, ie, when it enhances his complex it will maximise the value of the complex. This enhancement is achieved when the traffic flow is increased, the shops are patronised and business improves. And also more importantly, the complex will then serve the needs of those who patronise the shops. Using the example of the private shopping complex, we can see the problem of the present system of shop allocation. There is no designation of trade and because of the tendering system, they do not designate the use of the shops. It is not uncommon to find that we have several video-tape rental shops and also provision shops in one particular HDB shopping complex.”
“Sir, I have two topics to bring up under this amendment. The first relates to the present housing allocation scheme. I think there is quite a bit of press coverage as well as complaints by my residents on the present housing allocation scheme. Perhaps I will just summarise a few points for the Minister to look into. The first point is that under the present scheme, unlike the old one, there is a great deal of uncertainty. Under the old scheme, the applicant knows that at some future point he will be allocated a flat if he is on the waiting list. Presently, unless he is in the ballot, he will not be able to get a flat and when the ballot is over, he has to wait for the next ballot. The second problem with this scheme is that there is an inordinate time taken between the registration, the ballot, and the applicant being informed. I have a letter here from a resident who told me that it took him 10 months from the time he registered to the time that he was informed that he was not successful in his ballot. Ten months, in my view, is too long. The third point is that the eligibility criteria must be established in each and every ballot. This, to my mind, perhaps can be easily changed because when the person first registers for a flat, he is eligible, but subsequently his income may change and this makes him ineligible. I think this is a simple matter and the scheme should be modified. Another point which applicants are not happy about is the $10 registration fee. It seems to be a bit of a lottery here. Every time they want to get a flat, they put down $10 for the ballot. I think this again should perhaps be waived. The $10 should apply only for the first time applicant and for subsequent ballots there should be no charge.”
“Sir, the issue I wish to raise with the Minister concerns the problems faced by buyers of residential property. Presently, a buyer takes over a house or apartment upon the housing developer receiving a TOP (Temporary Occupation Permit). But having taken over the property, the owner is then confronted with poor workmanship and a lot of problems related to water seepage. The buyer finds out that there is a leakage in the water pipe or in the sanitary pipe, and water seeps through the walls. From here on I think the buyer seems to have very little recourse. The buyer in fact becomes most irate when he finds out that not only is his problem not satisfactorily resolved by the housing developer but that the developer is finally given a Certificate of Statutory Completion (CSC). I have such a problem in my constituency. There is a private development in which many years after the owners have moved in, there are a number of problems relating to water still not resolved. Sir, the buyers can easily discern the problem of poor workmanship relating to poor finishes like poor paint work, poor laying of ceramic tiles, and so on, before they take over the property. But on water and piping works and their belated problems, such problems only surface after the property is occupied. But by then it is already too late. Will the Minister consider some measure to protect property buyers in such cases like holding up the issuance of the Certificate of Statutory Completion or perhaps apply some other administrative measures to coerce the developer to resolve these problems before the CSC is issued?”
“On the contrary, the 1985 recession has taught us most vividly that the rising volume of complaints is only the lull before the storm. The level of complaints should be treated as a barometer of potential problems on the horizon. The Government should have delayed the 1% hike in CPF until the aftermath or effect of the post-Gulf war economy is more certain. It is still not too late to reverse the process. Given the choice of smaller CPF increases or putting our CPF on hold as opposed to losing our jobs, I think the choice is very clear. Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend this sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.15 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.29 pm until 3.15 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.15 pm [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Debate resumed. ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT”
“And Hong Kong's largest problems are those related to the political uncertainties of 1997. This has discouraged investments and made worse by large-scale emigration from Hong Kong. Hence, by focusing on the NIEs which have similar problems to ours, I think we may not realise that all the NIEs including ourselves are heading towards a stage in which we are all no longer competitive. Our competition must surely come from rising industrialising economies like Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. Reading published reports like the Economic Survey of Singapore and the budget statement of the Minister, one could not help but feel that scant attention is paid to competition from these three countries. Their high economic growth rates, their abundant land and labour resources and the tailoring of economic policies and incentives to attract foreign investments must pose a serious threat to us than warranted by the attention or lack of attention paid to these countries. In fact, the competition is made more acute by Johor and Batam which are directly plugged into our trade and communications infrastructure. Therefore, I suggest that we must begin to publish indicators of competitiveness of these countries, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia, as we have done for the other NIEs. Hence, it is imperative that the Government do an immediate review of our cost competitiveness before we run smack into another 1985. This time around, we may coincide with a world recession which we may not be able to recover so swiftly. With this scenario, mere cost cutting measures will not help. The Government's attitude towards the complaints of business is not quite unlike that of the years leading to 1985, that businessmen just complain too much.”
“At that time, by trimming our costs and a cut in the CPF rate, we could plug into the world economy, especially the US economy which was still growing. In this way, we turned the recession around rather quickly. Today, the situation is less certain. At home, we have completed most of our major infrastructure development projects. The public housing building rate is declining. The MRT is almost completed. Our major road building programme is likely to be completed with the completion of the Central Expressway. The US economy is heading for a recession, and of course the continuing US problems of budget and trade deficits are much worse today than in 1985. The German economy is already affected by the reconstruction of former East Germany. The Japanese economy is badly affected by the decline in stock and property prices resulting in banks trimming their loans. All these countries are also adversely affected by the necessity to raise large sums of money, especially through taxation, to finance the just completed Gulf war. The result is tight liquidity. I think the much touted boom of post-Gulf war reconstruction may take a little more time to come about. In the light of this, I am most surprised by the budget which seems to be oblivious to the problems which we have wrought on ourselves in 1985. By continuing to focus on comparison with the other NIEs on cost competitiveness, we may be going on a wrong track. The other NIEs have their own problems and not unlike Singapore's. South Korea also suffers from problems not unlike ours. They have substantial wage increases, high oil and land prices and they have continuing trade friction with the US. Taiwan suffers from a severe labour shortage, high production cost and very high land prices.”
“The surplus recorded in 1988 was about $1 billion. This has increased to $2.4 billion in 1989 and last year it was projected to have increased to $2.7 billion. As can be expected, the major share of the increase came from the business sector, and it appears that our memories of the 1985 recession amongst bureaucrats are shortlived. I think fundamentally the Government must raise its revenue from tax on healthy company profits and not raise revenue through other sources in the form of statutory board levies. Another disturbing trend is declining company profits. Profits of public-listed companies, especially those in manufacturing and industrial based, are declining. Not unlike pre-1985, profits of property-based and hotel-based companies are now good. These companies have benefited from increased rental income and higher room tariffs for hotels. Although the total aggregate profits of public companies may still look comforting, it must be realised that certain sectors, especially the property-based companies, are doing well at the expense of the others. Reminiscent of 1985 is also the strong Singapore dollar against the US currency. This has a significant impact on competitiveness of Singapore manufactured goods and products. Most exports from Singapore are sold or quoted in US dollars. As a result, exports have declined or in some cases Singapore products are no longer competitive because we just cannot compete on US dollar prices due to our high cost. All the trends which I have just mentioned are indeed worrying. Unfortunately, unlike 1985, the world was then not in recession. Only Singapore was in recession. The recession in Singapore was confined to our shores as a result of our own internal cost structure which went up.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for letting me join in the debate. I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of the Finance Minister. However, I am not sure whether congratulations for the Minister are in order, Sir. While it is true that the new budget contains no shocks or unpopular taxes, it also contains no surprises or creativity. Perhaps because our economy is cantering along at a steady pace, there is less need for a more creative budget. However, it is in a period of calm that we have the greatest latitude for creativity in planning for better times and dire contingencies. With the uncertainties of the post-Gulf war still present, I would have thought that the Minister should have shown more initiative in his budget. Sir, the focus on cost of business at the moment is on the 1% increase in employers' CPF rate. Most speakers before me have mentioned this particular subject. I believe the focus is on the 1% mainly because it epitomises a string of other cost increases which are worrying the business sector and most industrialists in general. Although the Minister may argue that we are cost competitive to the other newly industrialising economies (NIEs), it is the trends which are reminiscent of the 1985 recession which businessmen are most worried. What are some of the trends? First, unit labour cost. Compared to the other NIEs, the Minister has indicated that Singapore's unit labour cost is still competitive, but he did not mention that we are the only one which is showing an increase since 1986. The unit labour cost of Taiwan, South Korea and Hong Kong in fact declined last year. Another worrying trend is the increasing statutory board surpluses. Similar to the years leading to 1985, our statutory board surpluses are again on the upward path.”
“Our bureaucrats should also be enlightened on the fact that a valuable Singaporean need not be only those good in scientific formulas or one who can design bridges or perform heart transplants. Artists, writers - even qualified motor mechanics - should be included in our list of desirable persons. Based on reported figures on the numbers who have physically settled here, our immigration programme has achieved only limited success, as most immigrants from Asia have chosen instead to go to countries such as Canada, the US and Australia. Hence, it is one good reason for us to focus more of our efforts on retaining and bringing home our existing talents. Finally, Sir, losing Singaporeans from our shores need not mean a permanent loss of people or their talents. With more Singapore corporations venturing overseas, these ex-Singaporeans could be recruited in their new countries of domicile to run our foreign subsidiaries. Instead of recruiting locals in those countries, or training someone here to relocate abroad, we can make use of these Singaporean expatriates already there. They would bring to the job a wealth of talent deep in the Singapore culture plus local knowledge and an affinity to Singapore. As Singapore corporations venture increasingly abroad, our Government should assist businesses to identify and attract such ex-nationals to their ranks. And in keeping with the globalisation and internationalisation of our country and people, we should attune ourselves to having a new breed of Singaporeans: an international citizen who remains loyal to Singapore wherever he may be. Sir, I support the motion.”
“More attention should also be paid to keeping our citizens at home, and immigrants already here from leaving. Government ministries and departments should be more sympathetic to the needs, even special ones, of these Singaporeans who return with their families and, in some cases, their foreign spouses as well. Indeed, these spouses of some returned Singaporeans have been treated like undesirable immigrants! We sometimes hear of cases where a valuable Singaporean emigrates because of the hassle he or she has to go through to renew the permit of the spouse just to remain here. Until recently, too, we have not taken kindly to Singaporeans who have taken up foreign citizenship, or had to give up their Singapore passports because they had acquired foreign ones. Not surprisingly, we may have even treated them as traitors! With the exception of those who have left our shores to escape national service or other national obligations, such an attitude might have been an over-reaction. Emigration and the crossing of national boundaries in search of one's calling or fortune is not a new thing, nor need it be detrimental to a country, as we are now recognising. Many transients do return after their international meanderings to enrich their home countries. Now that we are paying more attention to the arts, I would refer to writers such as Rudyard Kipling and George Orwell. They worked and even settled abroad, but continued to write and enrich English prose. They were never ostracised by their home countries. The world was their stage. Our citizens should also be assisted to become international players on a world stage. Surely this is also the aim of the Singapore International Foundation.”