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 14 of 17.
“Sir, I shall like to bring the Hon. Minister of State back to the urine detector device. Will the Ministry consider, in order to cut down the cost, planting dummy devices in all elevators and hang up appropriate signs to say, "This lift is installed with a urine detector device", just as a deterrence? Some hon. Members: No.”
“Sir, will the Hon. Minister of State then consider improving the scheme by lengthening the period of repayment, so that the repayment per month will be kept as low as possible and only marginally above the rent of a similar type of flat?”
“Sir, Orchard Road is a main thoroughfare of Singapore, well-known to tourists. Orchard Road is also the road that runs just outside the residence of the President. But in this short stretch of 2(r) km of road one can count no less than one dozen traffic lights. Most of these traffic lights are created for pedestrian crossings. Lately, since the MRT has opened, it is no surprise that most of the traffic snarls along the road and the traffic jams occur mainly at the traffic light junctions or pedestrian crossings just outside the MRT stations. I am referring to the Orchard Station, Somerset Station, as well as the Dhoby Ghaut Station. I am sure, Mr Chairman, that you, like me and most other road users, including the Minister, must be wondering why is it that nothing was done during the construction of the MRT stations. Why were there no pedestrian under-passes constructed, or why were there no overhead bridges built? The very simple solution at the time of construction of the MRT, when road users and commuters were inconvenienced, was to construct the pedestrian underpasses. Unless the Minister has not been using Orchard Road and he is not a regular road user, or he does not wander much, he should be wondering why his Ministry has not done something about those crossings along the road, particularly at the stations. My question to the Minister is, why was this not done? Secondly, what is he going to do about the traffic light junctions along the road that is causing a number of traffic jams.”
“What I said yesterday, if the Hon. Minister would recall, was that at the last retrenchment exercise, the workers who were retrenched were mainly over 40 years old and they were males. As far as I understand, the electronics industry requires girls to work in the production lines. Unless the Minister is absolutely convinced that a 45-year old man can work on a production line where all the girls are between 25 and 30 years old, I think it is going to be very difficult to say that you can employ this man to work on the production line. I will like to assure everyone that, as far as I am concerned, 35 years old is very young in Singapore. 12.14 pm”
“But he specially asked whether 35 years old are old Singaporeans. So I feel obliged to reply because I did not make any assertion of that kind.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, in view of the fact that I have been singled out by the Minister, I feel obliged to say a few words on what I said yesterday.”
“I hope that the Minister will enlarge this provision when legislation is introduced in Parliament. On this note, I wish to reiterate my support of the Budget Statement and hope that all future ones will be just as remote to Singaporeans as the present one. ADJOURNMENT OF DEBATE Resolved, "That, notwithstanding the resolution this morning, the debate be now adjourned." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng.]”
“This principle of making Singapore attractive for professionals and entrepreneurs must be the guiding philosophy in our tax system. Whilst it aims to make our system as progressive as possible, we must continue to ensure that Singapore will be an attractive place to those in the higher income bracket. These people are the prime movers of our economy, so to speak. I was surprised, and I am sure many others were, by the fact that a large number of taxpayers who have assessable incomes below $150,000 a year actually pay less personal income tax than those in Hong Kong. The Minister can perhaps highlight a number of other countries in which our tax rates are lower. This must continue to be so not only to retain or keep our profes- sionals but to attract more professionals and entrepreneurs from other countries to make Singapore their home. Finally, Sir, I will like to touch on the subject of deduction of trade losses by companies. I welcome the Finance Minister's intention to empower the Comptroller of Income Tax to allow companies with substantial shareholding changes to deduct their trade losses. This move is welcomed by companies, especially those listed on our Exchanges. In these companies, shareholding changes are common and sometimes not due to planning. This change will benefit minority shareholders and small shareholders as this factor will be taken into account or reflected in the value of their shares. I will only urge the Minister to liberalize the condition that losses will be deductible against income from the same business. Due to a very dynamic environment in which companies operate and the need to improve and diversify their businesses, this change will be self-defeating if companies are encouraged not to change their businesses.”
“Some form of Government grant is therefore necessary. Without this direct linkage, the levy may be introduced and cut-back depending on economic conditions. At the same time, even with a bad year, training and upgrading of workforce can and must go on. This leads me now to discuss about the change in the foreign workers' levy which is difficult to comprehend at this juncture. Sir, ostensibly this levy is to direct our employers to employ our unemployed workers who are mainly from the older age group. These workers are mainly retrenched in the last recession. The problem now is that there is an underlying mismatch in the demand and supply which the foreign workers' levy will not address or solve. Sir, the main demand for workers is from the electrical, electronics, retail, shipbuilding and shipreparing sectors. In the electrical, electronics and retail trade, the demand is for young female workers and older workers are therefore not suitable. Similarly, in the shipbuilding and shiprepairing sectors, the demand is for younger workers, due to the nature of their work. As a result of this mismatch, the foreign workers' levy will end up as another cost item but will in no way help to solve the underlying problem. At worst, the increase in the foreign workers' levy will be an added deterrent to potential investors. As it is, we have already lost one investment promotion tool as a result of the lost of the US GSP. Sir, I now come to the point on personal income tax raised by the Minister. I welcome the Minister's reiteration that our personal income tax system is designed to achieve as wide a tax base as possible and to provide adequate incentives for the industrious and the entrepreneurial.”
“Therefore, he should reduce the level of uncertainty by deferring the property tax rebates for at least for another year. By keeping this property tax rebate under review, it gives a strong hint of an upward revision which at the present moment is not justified. Due to this uncertainty, his Ministry must coordinate and keep an overview of all the moves made by statutory boards in implementing changes which will affect the cost structure of businesses. So far one statutory board, the Jurong Town Corporation, has implemented a major revision in its rent. I shall have more to say on this in the Committee of Supply. If all statutory boards climb onto the bandwagon and, believing that we have a full economic recovery, announce unilateral changes and charges, I think the overall effect will be harmful to say the least. On the question of CPF, I am supportive of the need to move our present rates to the desired long term rates. However, this must also be implemented with caution. With the immediate term uncertain, workers will understand why the Government must act with prudence. On the Skills Development Fund, the Minister has given an indication of the kind of expenditure which will be needed to improve and upgrade our workforce and the Government is in the process of considering how best to increase the SDF levy in order to match the collection and the disbursements. I must express the view that the underlying philosophy between the training and the upgrading of our workforce and that of educating our children is the same. If we accept this notion that the training of our workforce and education of our children are the roles of Government, then, there should not be a direct matching or linkage between the collection and the disbursements of the SDF.”
“As we now have a full recovery in our economy, the most important task which the Finance Minister has succeeded is to steer Singapore through its worst recession in 20 years through a skilful and careful handling of the Government budget. He has done so without a major sacrifice in balancing the Government budget. A chronic deficit, as we all know, will have serious repercussions to Singapore's well-being. Although the Budget of fiscal 1987/88 leaves very little room for criticism, it nevertheless leaves a great deal of uncertainty on the question of levies and charges which will add to operating cost of enterprises. In the opening remarks of the Annual Budget Statement last year, the Finance Minister said, and I quote: 'Various cost-cutting and fiscal measures recommended by the Economic Committee were implemented. They represented important policy changes that decisively improved our competitiveness. The lowering of the employer's CPF contribution rate to 10%, the substantial reductions in statutory charges and other costs, and the 50% cut in property taxes all helped to reduce operating costs and improve company profitability.' In other words, the policy changes taken in 1986 and 1987 had improved our competitiveness and helped to reduce operating costs. These were major contributions to our economic recovery. Arguing on this basis that Government revenue and statutory board surpluses have not suffered from these cut-backs, the Government should therefore maintain a status quo for as long as the economic horizon is uncertain. In fact, the Finance Minister has indicated that there is a real possibility of an economic slowdown in the later half of the year.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of the hon. Minister for Finance. The Minister for Finance must be credited with another budget, which in the words of the Straits Times, is "remote to the average Singaporean". It is remote as the vast majority of Singaporeans is not directly affected by the changes. In his tenure as Finance Minister, Dr Richard Hu must be complimented in many other ways. He has done well in making changes to the format and presentation of the Budget documentation in a form which is more readable and comprehensible. Perhaps, this came as a result of his very own admission that he was initially confused by the way in which the Budget was presented. To extrapolate, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if more government ministers are prepared to make such public admissions, we should see further improvements in government. By including a portion of statutory board surpluses after long-term development needs into Government revenue, he has also taken a lot of wind out of the perennial arguments against the excessive surpluses accumulated by statutory boards. In this way, the people are indirectly taxed on their consumption, in the knowledge that whatever excess there is will go towards supplementing Government revenue. Since I am here to shower accolades on the Minister for Finance, I should add that he has set a trend which will be difficult to match by any other Finance Minister here or anywhere else in the world. He has set out to cut down the size of government by reducing its manpower and expenditure. This year, Government expenditure will actually buck the trend and will show a decline from the year before. This is the first time as far as I can recall.”
“With the loss of this important investment tool, we will have to work much harder to be ahead of other developing countries. This is assuming that we are already not doing our utmost. This blunting of our competitive edge as an investment centre means that the Government must do all it can to convince the next US Administration to re-admit us into the scheme. As this is election year and is probably the main motivator of this GSP move, our chances of a good argument carrying weight are almost nil.”
“Lastly, whether we provide adequate and effective protection of US intellectual property rights. We met this condition at the instigation of the US in passing the Copyright Act last year. There is no question that we have played by the US rules and that the absence of the Copyright Act was our only deficiency under the GSP scheme. As the Copyright Act was tied in to the US GSP issue, I think the linkage is very clear. My reaction then at that time, on 29th January, was to support the call for the suspension of the Copyright Act. However, a suspension will gain us little and will alienate friends who have supported our stand on this issue. This morning an American businessman told me that nine out of 10 US businessmen support us in this matter. As a small country, we have few bargaining chips. Therefore, the Copyright Act should be retained so that we can use this as a preamble in all future negotiations and dealings with the US. Nothing is more honourable than to speak with conviction and strength that we have kept our side of the bargain. By all means, diversify our market dependence, increase trade with those who are supportive of us and even use administrative measures to redress the imbalance which will be in favour of the US next year. But I say let us stay on a high moral ground and leave the Copyright Act alone. Besides the apprehension raised by my colleague from Kaki Bukit, the other repercussion is that this may affect our efforts in attracting new investments into Singapore. The access to the US market through the GSP is a very important investment tool. Of the some 50 or so major exporters to the US under the GSP, about 70% are foreign-owned, mainly from the US, the European Community and Japan. Their export value is much higher than 70%.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am obliged to you for letting me join in this discussion. The crux of the matter is whether we have infringed any of the established rules of the US GSP to warrant the action of the US Government. Although the GSP, as we know, is a privilege and not a right, there are nonetheless very clear rules. The US Secretary of State, Mr George Shultz, has stated that the US plays by the rules. Unless Mr Shultz is referring to another set of rules the reality is that Singapore is the party that has played by the US rules. In a mandatory General Review which was completed on 4th January 1987, the US set a ceiling of US$8,500 per capita GNP to define the upper limit income of a developing country. My colleague has already indicated that we are within that limit. There are six other factors which I would like to go over in some detail. First, whether the US has equitable and reasonable access to our market. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the US. Almost all US goods come into Singapore duty-free. Next year, less than half of Singapore's exports to the US will not attract duty. Another important consideration is that our imports up to now from the US are mainly equipment and machinery. This means long term dependence on spare parts and long-term imports. Our exports to the US have no such long-term implications. Second, whether there are any unreasonable export practices. Our record is clean. Third, trade distorting investment practices and policies. Singapore has no such investment practices and policies. Fourth, whether we remove barriers to trade. We are one of the greatest exponents of free trade. Fifth, whether we accord to workers internationally recognized worker rights. Our record of the NTUC speaks for itself.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with regard to this Bill I have two points to raise with the Minister. In clause 5(1) it seems that the fee for a licence is a variable amount which the applicant will know only after he has been issued with a licence. Is this correct? Or is there a prescribed fee that is known in advance? The second point I want to raise is on clause 7 on the question of appeal. The clause here says that the appeal is "to the Minister whose decision shall be final." Some of these child care centres can be a very expensive investment for people who want to get into this business. You will find that it does imply here that there is no recourse to the judiciary. Is it fair to have this clause in the Bill?”
“Sir, in reply to my point on clause 10, the Finance Minister says there are administrative problems. But could not these tax rebates be given to the spouse who has custody of the child? Or it may be part of a divorce settlement? Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: On this issue, the Ministry of Finance uses the family unit concept in determining whether the family is a third child family or not. In the case of a divorce, if we continue to give child relief and the child goes to another family which has more than three children, complications will arise. I think the issue is not as simple as it appears on the surface. This has been considered when the law was introduced.”
“If the main purpose is to solve a social phenomenon or problem, I think this is really asking too much of the Income Tax Act. We frown upon divorce but I do not think this is a right place to use this particular clause.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I refer to the same section raised by the Member for Thomson. The Minister in his opening remarks said that the present Act is grossly inadequate. But my understanding is that in the last two decades there were hardly any cases of tax avoidance that were brought to court. I cannot see how that can be justified. In Singapore where at the moment our tax structure is very streamlined we have one single tax for corporation as well as personal income tax. There is no capital gains tax. There is no value-added tax. In fact, the upper limit of the personal income tax has been brought down to a level which is now in line with corporate tax. This being the case, there is very little room for what you call "tax avoidance schemes." My point is that the present Act itself is quite adequate. Because of this, why do we need to give the impression that this particular Act has been tightened up and cause concern, as mentioned by the Member for Thomson, among the business community? Nothing much has changed. There were not too many cases. The second point I have relates to clause 10, that is, the tax rebate for the third child. The new section 42A (1) (iii) says that this tax rebate or balance will be stopped the moment there is a divorce. In other words, there will be no more tax rebate once the marriage breaks up. I cannot understand the rationale for this particular provision. In the case of a matrimonial failure, the status of the parent and child still remains the same. There is no change in the status at all, unlike the previous provision (para. ii) in which the third child has been given out for adoption. This being the case, I cannot see why this provision is necessary.”
“That is why for the sake of future generations of Singaporeans we are entrenching in our Constitution the right of the three main communities to be represented in Parliament through Group Representation Constituencies. Then we can have free elections and parliamentary democracy and yet not fear that any minority community will ever be left out of Parliament. Now, let me move on to explain the need for two Deputy Speakers. The Constitution now provides for only one Deputy Speaker. Under clause 5 of the Bill, it is proposed to increase the number of Deputy Speakers to two. Having two Deputy Speakers will ensure that there will be an additional person well versed in parliamentary proceedings and Standing Orders to preside at the sittings of Parliament should both the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker be unavoidably absent. The Second Deputy Speaker will have to acquaint himself with parliamentary proceedings and Standin Orders. It is in the interest of Members of the House to have two Deputy Speakers. Sir, this Bill, like the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill, will be referred to Select Committee because of its political significance. Sir, I beg to move.”
“All the points in this Constitution (Amendment) Bill are also found in the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill which Parliament has just debated. The two Bills should be read together. As we have had a full debate running over two days on the concept of Group Representation Constituencies, we need not and we should not repeat the arguments. Let me just reiterate three points: (1) The objectives of having GRCs are, firstly, to ensure that Parliament will always have multi-racial representation to reflect the multi-racial character of our society and, secondly, to compel political parties to take a non-communal, multi-racial, approach when they contend for the right to form the government. (2) My second point. Singapore is a multi-racial society and it should take all precautionary steps to ensure that Parliament will always remain multi-racial with representatives from the Malay, Chinese, Indian and other communities. It costs us nothing to take precautions. It will cost us dearly if we do not, and end up with the problem of Parliament being under-represented by the Malay MPs. (3) Finally, which is my third point, the Westminster model of one-man-one-vote, one-constituency-one-member, does not by itself protect the interests of the minority communities. It does not guarantee that Parliament will always have adequate representation from members of the Malay or other minority communities. In the worst case scenario, it can lead to the tyranny of the majority community over the minority communities. This is what happened in Sri Lanka which is a plural society. The Westminster model for parliamentary democracy has not worked there. There is a lesson there for us. That Singapore does not have a problem now does not mean that we will not have one later.”
“36 pm The First Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, 'That the Bill be now read a Second time. This Bill, the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No. 2) Bill, seeks to amend the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, firstly, to ensure the representation in Parliament of members of the Malay and other minority communities and, secondly, to increase the number of Deputy Speakers from one to two. Clause 4 of the Bill is to amend the Constitution to enable the Legislature to make law to ensure that the Malay and other minority communities will always be represented in Parliament. The Legislature will be empowered to make law for: (a) any constituency having regard to the number of electors in that constituency to be declared a Group Representation Constituency (GRC) to enable any election in that constituecy to be held on a group basis of three candidates; (b) the requirement that every group of candidates for any election in Group Representation Constituencies shall consist of at least one person belonging to the Malay community or at least one person belonging to any other minority community; (c) the establishment of two committees, one to determine whether a person who desires to be a candidate in a Group Representation Constituency belongs to the Malay community and another to determine whether such a person belongs to any other minority community; and (d) the requirement that all the candidates in any every group for any election in Group Representation Constituencies shall either be members of the same political party standing for election for that party or be independent candidates standing as a group. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to speak at length.”
“But we are under no illusion whatsoever that these two Bills are all that we need to do to preserve multi-racialism in our society. It must be followed up by greater involvement and participation of the Malay community in the mainstream of decision-making, whether it is in Cabinet, the Public Service Commission or the Armed Forces Council. This way, every community knows that there is someone from his community to safeguard his interests. Then policies which concern everyone no matter how sensitive the policies are can be properly considered, debated, and decided, without each community feeling that its interests have not been adequately safeguarded. This is not to say that every level of Government, every service, must be racially balanced and mathematically correct. It is not possible. And neither is it desirable because it will lead to tokenism. That is not possible because there are just not enough qualified and suitable Malay candidates. But in the main bodies where key national policies are decided, they should there, understanding and contributing to the formulation of policies which concern all of us. Sir, this Bill will be referred to Select Committee. I look forward to representations from members of the public. [Applause]. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Resolved, That the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Deputy Speaker as Chairman and the following Members: Mr Lee Kuan Yew Mr Goh Chok Tong Dr Ahmad Mattar Encik Sidek bin Saniff Mr Tang Guan Seng Mr S. Chandra Das Mr Lim Boon Heng Mr Chiam See Tong. - [Mr Goh Chok Tong]. CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.”
“' So wrote President Jayewardene to our Prime Minister. The President has lived for a long time. He was born in 1906. He is about 81 years old now. He first entered politics in 1940 when he became a member of the Colombo Municipal Council. After so many years in politics, after so many years embroiled in the politics of his country, he is doing for Sri Lanka what our Prime Minister did for Singapore years ago, 1965 for example when we became independent, four official languages, not one. After the signing of the Indo-Sri Lanka agreement on July 29th, when the President was asked for the reasons for his failure to avoid four years' of escalating violence, he replied in sadness and humility, "My own lack of intelligence, lack of foresight and courage were the reasons." This Government had the intelligence to establish the Constitutional Commission in December 1965, soon after independence, to consider representations to safeguard the rights of the racial, linguistic and religious minorities in the Constitution. It had the intelligence and foresight to set up the Presidential Council for Minority Rights. It had the intelligence, foresight and courage to have four official languages when the political ground was dominated by the Chinese educated. That was 22 years ago. Today, do we, the Parliamentarians, have the intelligence, the foresight and the courage to take affirmative action to avoid a situation where Parliament may end up where one community is not adequately represented? The amendment to the Constitution and Parliamentary Elections Act will ensure that the interests of the minority communities will always be represented in Parliament.”
“So I wrote to the Prime Minister asking him whether he could ask President Jayewardene to give me permission to quote extracts of his letter. I have the permission of President Jayewardene to do so. And I quote from his letter of 26th November 1987 to our Prime Minister: 'All our earlier constitutions had assumed homogeneity and uniformity in the society when the realities were otherwise and hardly warranted the assumption. As might be expected, the realities asserted themselves and did so in a manner that communally diverted key postulates of a democratic society. Majority vote became the voting power of communal majorities, driving minorities increasingly outside mainstream politics into politics aimed increasingly at their own communal electorates. Not only did the country become entrapped in the divisiveness of such politics but also the party system, one-man-one-vote, representative institutions, the principle of the greatest happiness of the greatest number, all cherished features of democratic systems recording centuries of evolution and maturation, became norms subverted in the reality, virtually keys turning the wrong side in the lock. It is a pity, of course, that the realism and pragmatism that contributed to this evolution of the constitutional setting for national political life in a plural society did not come earlier. But my sorrow is tempered by the realisation that the very bitterness of the fruit has taught us the lesson. Most important, it has helped us to give effect to measures of constitutional reform which, I believe, strengthen our unitary system by enhancing its responsiveness to the realities of our society and by expanding the frontiers of democracy through the mechanisms created for more participatory politics.”
“Before that, there were far too many Tamils entering university, so Parliament allowed the government to restrict the number - standardization as they called it - so that you had more Sinhalese entering university as compared to Tamils, not necessarily on the basis of merit. Could the Tamil minority do anything? They could not because they had less than one-third the number of seats in Parliament. And estate Tamils had their votes taken away from them. There are two kinds of Tamils in Sri Lanka - Jaffna Tamils, that is Tamils who had settled in Sri Lanka long, long ago; and estate Tamils, those who came from India to work at the tea plantations. The estate Tamils were disenfranchised. Their votes were taken away from them. So the Tamil minority never had a chance to make their views felt in Parliament. They could say what they liked, but they had no power in Parliament to change the course of events dictated by the majority community. Sri Lanka gained its independence in 1948. The first major outbreak of communal violence took place 10 years later, in 1958. The next major outbreak occurred in August 1977. In 1983, a violent war broke out between Tamil separatists and government forces. In 1987, Indian troops intervened. So on 12th November 1987, a new Bill was passed in Parliament. An amendment was made to the Constitution to make Tamil an official language, to set up provincial councils in a unified North and Eastern Tamil area. President Jayewardene wrote to our Prime Minister on 26th November 1987. Our Prime Minister circulated the letter to other Cabinet colleagues. I thought it was a touching letter. I thought the sentiments expressed in that letter contained a lesson for us.”
“We are trying to remove a weakness in our system to ensure that Parliament never ends up with one community under-represented, or worse, that Parliament never ends up with only one community in this House. So we are making improvements to the system. We are making changes to enhance multi-racialism which is in our long-term political interests. I do not have to go into a critique of the weakness of the Westminster model of democracy for us because some Members of Parliament have adequately dealt with this question. But again, by way of illustration as to what can happen with this system, let me cite Sri Lanka again. I know it might not be 100% fair to use Sri Lanka as an example because our two societies are different. The Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka have centuries of rivalry, even enmity, between them. We do not have that between the Malays, the Indians and Chinese in Singapore. But nevertheless, what has happened in Sri Lanka provides useful lessons for us. The crux of the problem is in Sri Lanka the system has resulted in the majority community, which is a Sinhalese community, ending up lording it over a minority community, which is a Tamil community. Sri Lanka gained its independence in 1948. At elections thereafter, the Sinhalese captured more than two-thirds the number of seats in Parliament. With that kind of majority, the Tamil minority could do nothing to stop any policy that the government wanted to implement. So the government made Sinhala the only official language. It introduced a quota system whereby access to higher education was controlled.”
“If the outcome is "no" which, in my view, is unlikely, but let us assume the outcome is "no", what are we telling members of the minority communities in Singapore? We are telling them that as a majority community in Singapore - because I think the Chinese will swing the votes - we do not have to make provision for the fears, the sentiments, the interests of the minority communities. The Chinese in Singapore form 76%. If the referendum is a "no", it must be because the Chinese in Singapore vote against the GRC system. And any way, all of us are agreed that we should look for ways to enhance multi-racialism. So the question is, how does a referendum help you to look for a better solution? It tells you "no", it tells you "yes", to go ahead or not to go ahead. But how does it improve upon the scheme that we have? It does not. The way forward is as we have done - refer the Bill to Select Committee. In a Select Committee, members of the public can through the Select Committee examine the Bill, the details of the Bill, the clauses, under a microscope. In Select Committee there is still a chance, a possibility for changes, for a better alternative to be suggested to the GRC. That is the way forward, and that is the way we have taken, referring the Bill to a Select Committee and not putting it to referendum which serves no useful purpose in this case. The Chairman of the Feedback Committee, the Member for Ayer Rajah, told this House that some members of the public felt that we were tinkering with the parliamentary system. Now, I object quite strongly to the word "tinkering" because that has got negative suggestion. I do not think we are "tinkering" with the system. We are making improvements to a system based on 22 years of experience working it.”
“We now have more than two-thirds the number in this House to pass this particular Bill. Anyway, election is not due until 1989, plenty of time for us to have a proper discussion on the question of an elected President before an election is called. Several Members of Parliament urged upon me to answer the question of a felt need for referendum. Whilst the Bill has been referred to Select Committee, they urged me that I should answer this question to convince the public why we do not need a referendum. I think we should think a little deeper on this question before we freely call for referendum. Maybe by way of illustration, I can look at the Sri Lankan example. The Sri Lankan Parliament on November 12th approved the constitutional amendment to grant the Tamil minority limited autonomy in the North and Eastern provinces or districts, setting up provincial councils, and elevating Tamil to a second official language. The opposition demanded that such an important issue must be put to referendum. The government wisely did not put this issue to referendum. The Sinhalese form 74% of the population, Tamils 18%. To put this issue to referendum, what is the likely outcome? I think the likely outcome would be that the government would have been defeated. And how does that solve the problem of bringing peace to Sri Lanka? How does that improve upon the accord that has been reached between the Indian government and the Sri Lankan government? The purpose of going to referendum is to get a "yes" or "no" answer. Let us say we put the GRC concept or Team MP concept to a referendum, to be decided by the people. If the outcome is going to be a "yes", why do it? Incurring unnecessary costs just to get a "yes" for it.”
“If this Bill has the effect of forcing them to merge with a non-Malay Party, I think it is a positive step even though the SDP may become stronger and take one whole GRC or several GRCs from the PAP. That is not our primary concern. Our concern is to ensure that there will be long-term political stability where parties fight, contend on moderate multi-racial ground. And if Opposition parties can so merge and become a stronger Opposition as a result, we may see the beginning of a two-party system in Singapore or if not a two-party system, at least a PAP and a more credible Opposition party. Then the level of debate in this House will be raised. We will not be talking about silly proposals or silly issues but real issues, real exchanges in debate and solutions offered if the Opposition thinks that the policy of the Government is wrong. I know that the public thinks that this scheme is to fix the Opposition so that the PAP can win all seats in the next election. I can disabuse them of this very easily. There are still going to be at least 40 single-member constituencies at the next elections. So there will be plenty of seats, even for those parties that cannot merge to field a GRC team to stand for election at the next general elections. 40 single-member constituencies can include Potong Pasir and it can also include Anson, had the Member for Potong Pasir not chickened out of Anson in October 1981. We allow the Opposition the choice of retaining Potong Pasir as a single-member constituency. The Opposition Member also advanced, in my view, the rather silly argument that this scheme is to ensure that we win all the seats the next time so that we will be in an overwhelming position to pass through the proposal to have an elected President. There is no need to do so.”
“There is no use saying, "I support multi-racialism." The test is in the deeds. Would you change your constitution to reflect this point in the party's objectives? Would you field a multi-racial slate of candidates in the next election? Yes, we recognize that this Bill will disadvantage the Opposition. It will, because the Opposition in the present state would not be able to field a multi-racial or a credible multi-racial team in more than one or two Group Representation Constituencies. They are going to be disadvantaged. But is it our fault that they are so weak, that they cannot get together? It is not our job to nurture an Opposition. It is their job to build themselves up and the way for them to build themselves up is to merge if each party is weak. I can see the effect of this Bill already. Maybe not so good for the PAP but certainly good for the country. The newspapers reported the Singapore United Front as having merged with the Workers' Party. Maybe the Party has become stronger. Maybe some MPs here are unhappy that that Party has become stronger because now it is a combined force - the Workers' Party and the Singapore United Front. But for the country that is a positive movement. You force two parties to merge in order to meet a new situation and I would urge the Member for Potong Pasir to negotiate with the Singapore Malay National Organisation to see whether or not they can merge. Then in the next election they would have candidates from the Malay community standing on a new party ticket, perhaps on SDP ticket or on a PKMS ticket. That is for them to sort out. What is the advantage for us if they do merge? It forces PKMS to take a non-communal line. At the moment, that Party takes a communal line. Its job is to represent Malay interests only.”
“' For this reason, Article 152 of the Constitution of Singapore which relates to minorities in Singapore and the special position of the Malays does not equate Malays with Islam. If you look up the Constitution there is no reference to Islam or for that matter any other religion in the Constitution. The aim of this Bill before the House is to ensure multi-racial and not multi-religious representation. Hence, we use the term "Malay community", not "Muslim community". Under the definition, whether a person belongs to the Malay community or not will be left to members of the Malay community, out of which a Committee will be set up to decide. If the Committee feels strongly that to be a member of the Malay community you must be a Muslim, that Committee can so decide. We leave it to the Committee and the Committee's decision will be final. Anyway, the Bill has been referred to Select Committee and we can see how we can improve on the definition of Malays or members of the Malay community in the Bill. We look forward to to suggestions by Members over here as well as members of the public on this particular point. Although the Member for Potong Pasir is not here, I think I should still meet some of his criticisms head on. First, we all know that he supports the principle of multi- racialism. The question then is whether he has a better alternative for us to ensure that Parliament will always be multi-racial. That is the question. Has he or has he not got a better alternative? It is not whether he rejects GRCs or not but whether he has or has not got a better alternative than GRCs. I was going to ask him: if he supports multi-racialism, would he pledge to field a multi-racial slate of candidates in the next election? That is the test.”
“We can look at the definition and if it makes the Indians happier - it is a sizeable community in Singapore, about 6% - I think we can still recognize that. The Malay Members of Parliament who were primarily concerned with the definition of members of the Malay community were in full support of the move to provide for multi-racial representation in Parliament. I have noted that each and every MP from the Malay community who spoke supported the scheme. Even Dr Ahmad Mattar who had his reservations - and these are reservations of an honest man, honestly spoken - came round to supporting the concept of GRC because he recognizes that there is no other way if you want first-time Malay candidates to be elected in the 1990s and the years beyond. Should we include in our definition that a member of the Malay community must profess the religion of Islam? We can understand the desire of the Malays to have Islam included in the definition. To them, to be a Malay you must be a Muslim. The two must go together. That is how the community feels. But this is not a new issue. It was settled in 1966 by the Constitutional Commission established to formulate constitutional safeguards for the minority groups. At that point of time, in 1966, many political organizations urged the Commission to define Malays as in the Constitution of Malaysia which basically means to include Islam in the definition. The Commission rejected this, and I quote: 'It would be inappropriate and indeed inconsistent that there should be any provision in the Constitution of a democratic secular state such as Singapore expressly singling out a particular religion for special treatment of this nature.”
“But that is a matter of detail which we can leave to the appropriate committee later on. There was a comment that whilst a team is selected on a multi-racial slate, after the election, should the minority Member vacate his seat for whatever reason and we are not providing for by-election, that team would not have a multi-racial team. Should we have a by-election or should we not have a by-election to fill that post? Bear in mind that GRCs are meant to ensure a multi-racial Parliament, not a multi-racial team in the constituency. I do not expect in practice that all 13 - should we opt for 13 in number - MPs from the minorities would vacate the seat for one reason or other. I think it is unlikely. We will not want to provide for by-election to replace somebody who has vacated his office and there is a reason for this. If you provide for compulsory by-election to fill that vacancy, you are introducing the possibility that one MP can hold the other two to ransom. The minority candidate, for example, can hold the other two to ransom because if he resigns both the other MPs would have to resign with him. I do not think you want to allow that to happen. All three MPs were elected by the people. If one resigns, so be it, or even if two retire, for whatever reason. If both MPs were to vacate office, the other one who has been duly elected by the people, should remain. Otherwise you introduce the possibility of an MP using his position on the GRC or on the team to extract concessions from the other Members. This is to be discouraged. The Member for Bo Wen noted that some Indians were a little unhappy that their community has not been mentioned in the definition. We can provide for that, not here, but at the Select Committee.”
“For example, if Marine Parade, Joo Chiat and Kampong Kembangan were to be grouped as a GRC called Katong GRC, I, Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng and Yatiman Yusof will have to serve the Katong GRC. I can be appointed as Advisor to Marine Parade, Yatiman to Kampong Kembangan area because it is no more a constituency, and Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng to Joo Chiat. We will rotate the appointment after 18 months so that while I am the Advisor to Marine Parade in the first 18 months, in the next 18 months I will move over to Joo Chiat. Somebody else will move over to my place. This way you will not end up in a situation where there are too many cooks spoiling the soup, and you can pinpoint responsibility on a particular MP, because for those 18 months he is the Member of Parliament with primary responsibility for that area. Of course, he has secondary responsibility elsewhere. He cannot not serve the constituents from the other areas. He is their Member of Parliament but he has primary responsibility for one area. That is how I see the GRCs working in practice. How will the GRCs be selected? This is a question of detail which, I think, we should leave it to the Elections Department or the Electoral Boundaries Delineation Committee that will be set up to see how GRCs would be selected from existing constituencies. I would expect that GRCs will come from areas where the Malay community would be sizeable in numbers. That is one criterion. But I think it is also possible that you do not just look for the top 13 constituencies with the highest number of Malays in them because you do want to spread the GRCs all over Singapore. You may have GRCs in Ang Mo Kio, GRCs in Sembawang, GRCs in Tampines, Bedok and Jurong. That is my expectation.”
“Very quickly you will have a Malay-based party, an Indian-based party and a Chinese-based party, because each party can get a certain number of votes and they would enter Parliament through proportional representation. In essence there are two approaches to our problem. One is to have communal-based parties or communal-based elections to ensure multi-racial representation in Parliament, and the other, which is our proposal, to have a multi-racial team of candidates voted in by a multi-racial electorate. That is our proposal, a multi-racial team of candidates to be voted by the electorate comprising Chinese, Malays, Indians and other communities, a multi-racial approach. We know that the GRC, whilst it is the most appropriate solution to our problem, is not ideal. It is still not perfect. We do not claim that it is a perfect solution. Hence, I can understand the reservations raised by Members of Parliament and I shall now deal with the major reservations raised by Members. How would GRCs work in practice? What is the status of Members of Parliament? All candidates on the team in the GRC will be elected as a group. So all of them will be Members of Parliament for the entire GRC. Their status will be Members of Parliament for that GRC. There will be three Members of Parliament. They are expected to serve all constituents in the large constituency. In practice, however, after a general election, if the GRC is won by the PAP, we will divide the GRC which is about the size of three constituencies into three separate areas. Each of the three MPs can be appointed as an advisor to the grassroots organization in an area.”
“Each community elects members of its own community. If we do this for the Malays, we have to do it for the Indians, and others. We have to do it for the Chinese. Then we slip into the Cyprus model where the Greeks elect Greeks, the Turks elect Turks. What is the result? The result is eventual partition of the country because, in order to be elected into Parliament, the candidates will have to appeal to the emotions, to the gut feelings of the people within their own community. If you are a Greek and you want to be elected by the Greek community, you have to be more Greek than other Greeks. You try and show accommodation to the Turks, you will not win any election. If you are a Muslim and a Turk and you want to be elected to represent the Turkish community, you have got to be more Muslim, more Turk, than any other Turkish candidates, otherwise you will not be elected. Again, this solution was quickly rejected by us. In fact, the PKMS, or the Singapore Malay National Organization (that is the English name for PKMS), went one step further. They suggest that the Malay community should have two votes, one to vote a national MP (who can be a Chinese, Indian or Malay) and another vote to elect Members from the Malay community to represent them. Is that fair? One community two votes? And again, the second vote will result in the Malay MPs taking a communal line because to represent the community they have got to prove that they are more Malay than other Malays. All MPs in Singapore will have to represent all constituents, not constituents belonging to one community alone. So the PKMS suggestion is not applicable to a multi-racial society. Proportional representation. It has the same effect as voting along communal line.”
“That is the issue which we are now discussing, not the principle of multi-racialism because we are all agreed on that, but whether GRCs or Group Representation Constituencies offer the best way of doing it. We think so. We have gone through several models practised by other countries. We have spent several years thinking about this problem. We think Team MPs elected by Group Representation Constituencies is the best way for us to solve this problem. The Member for Potong Pasir does not think so.But has he offered a single suggestion on how we can entrench the right of the minority communities to be represented in Parliament? Not a single suggestion from him. Not a single suggestion to improve on the details of the workings of the formula which we have offered. Since some Members of Parliament, like the Member for Kebun Baru, have weighed several models or alternatives against GRCs, I do not propose to examine them in detail over here. I will go through very quickly the reasons why we have rejected some of these proposals. First, we can always nominate Malays or Indians if they are under-represented in Parliament after an election into Parliament. We rejected it. Not democratic because they are not elected by the people. It is against the principle of democracy. Next, we can reserve certain constituencies for Malay candidates. Problem: we accentuate communalism. The Malays will always appeal to Malays and their sentiments for support. They would be living in separate enclaves. They would not be integrated into the mainstream of life in Singapore. So again, we rejected this idea. Communal representatives to be elected by members of the community, as suggested by PKMS. Again rejected, because that is communal-based voting.”
“After some years of deliberations, the Government decided, with the support of the then Malay MPs, that it is in the interest of the Malay community and the interest of the country that the Malay population in these areas should be integrated with the larger population. In other words, no separate enclaves for each community but spread them out all over Singapore where they can be integrated into the mainstream of life. The consequence of this is, no single constituency in Singapore today can boast of a sizeable proportion of Malay constituents that can guarantee them election of a Malay representative into Parliament. We have therefore to recognize this and make right the result of a successful multi-racial policy, and that is the purpose of the Bill - to ensure that there would always be a multi-racial representation in Parliament. Although many points have been brought up by Members, in essence there are only two issues facing us. One is the principle, the other the mechanism or the details. On principle, the question is whether or not we should make provision in our Constitution and in our Parliamentary Elections Act to ensure that Parliament would always be multi-racial. That is a question of principle. On this there is total agreement, even from the Member for Potong Pasir. The agreement is unanimous. We are a multi-racial society and all Members of Parliament here support this principle that there should be multi-racial representation in Parliament. The question is how? So we narrow our debate down to one issue, how to do it? We suggest that Group Representation is the best way to do it. If you do not agree, then you suggest a better alternative.”
“I was going to suggest to him that he should borrow a crystal ball because we are not talking about history. We are trying to anticipate a problem in the future: will there or will there not be a problem in the future? Every election brings about some 200,000 first-time voters onto the electoral register. By the next election, every one in two voters would be those who were either not born in 1965 or were under 10 years old in 1965. These voters have no experience whatsoever of how Singapore had come about, the difficulties that we faced, the communal riots, the tensions in the country in the early years of Singapore. It is a matter of political judgment whether these voters would vote a party slate of candidates that is racially balanced or pick candidates on their personal attributes. It is a matter of political judgment - reading of trends and how we see the trend will evolve in the future. On matters of political judgment I would back the Prime Minister anytime as against the judgment of the Member for Potong Pasir. In a sense the problem we are discussing is a result of our own successful policy of multi-racialism. In the 1960s there were several constituencies which could be called Malay constituencies because they had a sizeable Malay population, constituencies like Kampong Ubi, Kampong Kembangan and Geylang Serai. The Malays there were dominant in numbers and the Government had a choice of either preserving these constituencies or resettle them into six or seven constituencies where Malays would again be dominant, or to spread them over Singapore where the Malays could be integrated with the population in the country. The problem was discussed with the then Malay MPs, former MPs like Othman Wok, Haji Ya'acob, and Rahim Ishak.”
“In this, I support a similar view raised by the Member for Whampoa. All these measures will go a long way towards countering the popular view that this is not just another machination of the PAP. The public's sense of fair play may tilt the balance in favour of opposing views if not properly countered. We can ill afford the backlash as a result of a well-intentioned but much maligned piece of legislation. 2.45 pm The First Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank all Members of Parliament for their constructive criticisms and contributions and also for their overwhelming support for the Bill. Twenty-eight MPs have spoken, 14 yesterday and 14 today. Twenty-seven hon. Members fully support the Bill, one opposes. Some of those who supported the Bill have expressed certain reservations over certain areas or raised certain questions. I shall answer them later. All non-Chinese MPs who have spoken supported the Bill. This is very significant. They reflect the sentiments of the minority communities. They tell us that they want their rights of equality under the Constitution to be reflected in a multi-racial Parliament. They recognize that although under the Constitution they are equal, the vagaries of the electoral system may result in their being under-represented or in some circumstances not represented in Parliament. This Bill and the Constitution (Amendment) Bill will rectify this flaw in the present electoral system, ie, remove any possibility of the system resulting in one community either grossly under-represented or not represented in Parliament. The Member for Potong Pasir, who unfortunately is not here this afternoon, quoted history to show that Malays have always been elected into Parliament.”
“No serious political party can afford to field a group of three candidates with token representation by anyone other than a serious candidate from the minority race. With education and increasing electoral awareness, such a grouping with token representation must fail. In fact, we can go further to say that once minority representation in Parliament is assured, it must lead to less rather than more polarization of the races as some critics have charged. Nevertheless, the introduction of this Bill has offended the sensitivities of some in the minority races. It has also offended a large segment of the population who sees this as nothing more than an attempt by the Government to hamper the Opposition parties. The public's sense of fair play dictates that the system must be left as it stands. Despite the excellent presentation of the First Deputy Prime Minister in moving this Bill yesterday, we must make concerted efforts to educate the public on the motivations and objectives of this Bill. I therefore welcome the fact that this Bill will be referred to a Select Committee. This Bill, when passed, will have wide ramifications and during its implementation, we must not only be fair but seen to be fair. There are a number of possibilities. We can limit the number of GRCs to a very small number in the first election after the passage of this Bill. Secondly, early and advance knowledge of the electoral boundaries of the GRCs will give the electorate time to digest the practical effects. This will also give all political parties time to organize. Lastly, as this goes towards solving a long-term problem, I think there is no urgency to include a constituency with an incumbent Opposition member in any GRC. I refer to the Potong Pasir Constituency.”
“In addition to the several arguments raised by my colleagues in support of this Bill, I would like to look at GRCs from a slightly different angle. In a one-man-one-vote system, and where the majority votes prevail, the minority groups must view this as a serious attempt by the government to curb or curtail the rights of the majority so as to safeguard minority interests. It is a curb of majority rights as it sets the maximum number of seats to be gained by the majority race. The number is actually the total number of seats less the number of GRCs. In an election, minority race candidates can contest in all constituencies and in any number. A Chinese candidate coming from the majority race cannot do so. In fact, if Opposition parties field successful candidates from the minority races in single-seat constituencies, it may be argued that it will lead to an under-representation of the majority in Parliament. To the majority, they must come round to the view that such a sacrifice on their part will lead to the enhancement of their overall interests. Only a stable and harmonious society will lead to our improved well-being. This balancing legislation hence seeks to enhance an overall improvement, and mathematicians like to call this a non-zero sum situation. The overall effect is a positive gain with some sacrifice from all parties. This aim of moving forward together is, in fact, the cornerstone of the philosophy of this Government, be it in education, economic or social fields. In my view, this Bill actually emphasizes the importance of the minority races. It imposes on the majority to take them into consideration.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill standing in the name of the First Deputy Prime Minister. Sir, since independence, the representation in this Chamber has always reflected the various segments of our society. First and foremost, its numbers reflect the composition of the various races in our society. It reflects the views of business and represents the interest of unions. It has a mix of academics as well as professionals. The numbers also reflect the age structure in our society. More recently, it is beginning to make attempts to represent a very important half of our population. This attempt is being reflected by our honourable colleagues from Ulu Pandan, Changkat and Yuhua. This continuing objective of constituting a Parliament to reflect all segments of our society did not come by chance. It came as a result of a conscious effort of the ruling party - a point sorely missed by the Member for Potong Pasir and critics alike. Sir, the legislation before this House represents the most profound change to our Constitution and election process since our independence. The core of it is that we should not continue to leave this to chance, but to institutionalize minority race representation in this Chamber. Critics may scoff with derision at what is popularly known as the Team MP concept but, as the Member for Whampoa has pointed out this morning, none has criticized the imperative of a multi-racial Parliament. With external influences and world trends indicating increasing polarization of the electoral process, this Bill is a very realistic attempt to nip the problem in the bud. It is naive to think that such a sensitive problem can be easily resolved once the majority race has gained absolute control of Parliament.”
“I think it can be extended to cover not just spouses but parents and siblings. Section 29(2) which specifies that the Board will pay up to two years the loan instalment in the case of permanent incapacity and the loan will only be discharged if this incapacity goes beyond two years. I am requesting the Minister to consider lowering the two-year period. I am sure the Minister is aware that, after a lengthy chronic illness, a person is unlikely to be as effective as before, and he may also be boarded out of his company. In the event he gets alternative employment, he is likely to get a lower salary. So a two-year period seems a rather long time. I wonder if the Minister would consider lowering the two-year period to one year. Clause 8(b) amends the Scheme which presently covers "house or flat" to any "immovable property". I do not understand the rationale. But I can only surmise that the Scheme may be extended to cover commercial or industrial property sold by the Housing and Development Board or the Jurong Town Corporation. I hope this is not the case. Commercial and industry property is used for business. They are separate entities and they do have regular rentals or other forms of revenue. The final comment I have is not on the Bill itself but it is nevertheless on the Home Protection Insurance Scheme. I wonder if the CPF Board has taken steps to have a portion of the Home Protection fund reinsured outside Singapore. In the event of a catastrophe, the CPF Board will be saddled with a huge liability, and of course this huge liability will be translated into higher premiums in future.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. In the debate in Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Labour on the 24th March this year, I raised the issue of potential abuse of HPIS. I think this Bill goes towards addressing this problem. I am also very pleased that it goes further than that. Instead of just tightening up the HPIS, it has also introduced a number of features which, I think, will go towards enhancing this Bill. I have a number of comments on the Bill. In the new section 25(6), the Bill states that members covered by the present Scheme before the passage of this Bill will continue to be subject to the present terms and conditions. However, the new Bill has some improved features. I refer especially to the one which allows non-CPF members to join the Scheme. In view of this, I think the Minister should consider a modification to allow existing members to take advantage of these new rules and be covered by the new Scheme. The new section 25A is an amendment to ensure that no one can join the Scheme unless the Board is satisfied that the person is in good health. This is across the board group protection against the kind of abuse which the Minister is concerned about. However, as good health is relative, the Board should specify in greater detail the degree of ill health a person must be suffering from before rejecting him from the Scheme. I think a rating system should be introduced so that those who are suffering from lesser forms of ill health can be covered by the Scheme by paying a higher premium. Section 25B(4) states that the CPF of either spouse may be used for payment of premiums. As we are encouraging three-tier families to live under one roof, it will be a further improvement to the Scheme.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister if it is true that workers have been recruited from the People's Republic of China to ease the labour shortage.”
“Is the Minister not aware that there are some estates like Yishun and Woodlands which are less popular than other estates?”
“Sir, should not this discount be applied to those estates which are less popular?”
“Sir, in view of the improved situation, will the Minister direct his Ministry to be less stringent in issuing work permits for local industries?”