Goh Chee Wee
Singapore
“Sir, I would like to thank HDB and the Government for the upgrading programmes. We saw 4,900 units of flats in my constituency, Boon Lay, benefiting or about to benefit from the Interim and Main Upgrading Programmes. For older constituencies like Boon Lay, most if not all of the flats are eligible for main upgrading.”
“There will be no need to panic and rush to secure COEs at all costs and this will address the kiasu syndrome expressed by Mr Chew Heng Ching earlier on. 1.15 pm In short, the authority must lay out clear rules and regulations and devise a fair and workable system.”
“The actual cost savings to the taxi operators would, therefore, come only from the existing fleet of taxis which were subject to the old tax regime. Nevertheless, there are sizable savings which could be passed on to the taxi drivers.”
“We already have Mercedes and London cabs on our roads to cater for those who are prepared to pay more to travel in style and comfort. One day we might have Kancil and Daihatsu taxis to cater to the budget-conscious commuters, provided the vehicles meet LTA's conditions.”
“Until such time when the taxi industry is completely deregulated, I propose that the Government fix the price of COEs for taxis in the same way that the taxi fares are regulated. We do not expect the taxi fares to fluctuate monthly, neither should the COE price for taxis.”
“Sir, there is currently no plan to extend the MRT line to the cargo and engineering complexes. Any extension will have to be justified in terms of cost and ridership. We should also consider the fact that the cargo and engineering complexes in Changi are housed in a sprawling area and I believe they cover 70 hectares.”
The complete record
Every one of 409 lines we hold for Goh Chee Wee, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 9.
“' In fact, the Ministry's examination of the food produced showed that the spring rolls contained faeces and the operator had churned out tonnes of spring rolls meant for trade fairs. It was not known how long has the operator been producing spring rolls there. But hundreds and thousands of people must have eaten the spring rolls contaminated with human faeces. [Interjections] Some of the trade fairs were officially opened by the MPs. And I wonder whether the food was served in the reception. For the offence of selling contaminated food, the operator was fined a maximum of $500. So I have two questions to ask of the Minister: (1) Is the Ministry aware of any other illegal food production operation in Singapore; and would the Ministry step up control and enforcement action to make sure that such illegal operations are weeded out? (2) Would the Ministry consider raising the fines imposed on such offences? I would also like to comment on imported food. Most of the fruits, vegetables and food items that we consume in Singapore are imported. Stringent control on the imported food must be imposed to make sure that they are wholesome and fit for consumption. Sometime last year there were incidents of people taken ill after taking vegetables imported from Malaysia. The vegetables were found to contain an excessive amount of pesticides. A recent study in America showed that pesticide traces in farm produce cause cancer and nerve damage in children. The results of the study were alarming that children were far more at risk than adults from the impact of pesticides. The fruits and vegetables we import are sprayed with pesticides, and certain types of pesticides and excessive amount of pesticide residue are harmful to human health.”
“If a hawker centre operator pays a high tender price to the Government, it will in turn charge the stallholder a higher rental, who will in turn charge the consumer a higher price for the food. So, finally, who suffers? The consumers. So it will have a inflationary impact because a large number of Singaporeans eat out at hawker centres every day. I would like to ask the Minister whether he has considered all the consequences of privatization? I would like to know why has the Government found it necessary to privatize the management of hawker centres? What are the advantages and disadvantages of privatization, and how would he address the danger of rising costs or inflation resulting from privatization? I would like also to comment on the adequacy of the food control programme under this amendment. In recent months, we have read reports of the uncovering of illegal food production operations. There were also reports of food poisoning caused by the unhygienic handling of food in restaurants and eating establishments. I would like to ask the Minister if the current measures taken by the Ministry to ensure food hygiene are adequate. The most alarming report was the uncovering of a massive illegal food factory producing fried spring rolls, ngoh hiang, under a most unhygienic and filthy condition. Let me quote what the Straits Times [25 January 1989] said about this illegal factory: 'Houseflies and mosquitoes buzzed around the ramshackle wooden house which was the factory. Just three metres from where food was being cooked was a stagnant pond, into which human waste was channelled. And water from a nearby well, close to filth in which a skinny dog was foraging, was used in preparing ngoh hiang.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Code MC 1500 of the Main Estimates. I would like to raise a few points about food and hawker control. Sir, in the Addendum to the President's Address early this year, the Minister for the Environment revealed that the Ministry plans to privatize the management of hawker centres. This covers both the cooked food centre and wet market. The decision to privatize hawker centres has a direct impact on the existing stallholders. It would also affect all the Singaporeans who now take to patronizing hawker centres as a way of life. With the privatization of hawker centres, I presume that the Government will call for tenders, and those who tender the highest price and are able to comply with the stipulated conditions will be awarded the contract to run a hawker centre. The successful contractor or operator will then let out the stalls to the individual stallholders. The immediate question to ask is: what will happen to the hundreds and thousands of existing stallholders? If the successful tenderer arbitrarily raises the rental of the stalls, does it mean that the stallholders will have to pay whatever rental demanded by the operator? Or will they have to quit and lose their means of livelihood? Will there be any safeguards to protect the existing stallholders? And what about the range of food to be sold at these centres? Does the Ministry have any say on the range of food or market produce to be sold in these centres? Or that the operator has a free-hand to decide what to sell? Finally, and this is an important point, will privatization result in the raising of food prices at hawker centre?”
“I thank the Minister for the reply, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Mr Chairman, I would like to raise another matter which relates to environmental pollution. I am referring to the protection of the ozone layer which is of public interest recently. As we know, the ozone layer blocks out some of the harmful ultra-violet rays from the sun which can cause skin cancer, damage crops and marine life. We read from the newspapers that the ozone layer in the atmosphere are being depleted by the use of chemicals like CFC. And we also read and understand that Singapore recently signed a Protocol which relates to the reduction of the use of the CFC. I would like to ask the Minister to inform this House, as a signatory country to the Protocol, what are our country's obligations, what action do we have to take to comply with the provisions of the Protocol? And is the Minister confident that we can successfully bring down the use of CFC in Singapore to an acceptable level?”
“Sir, in spite of the increase in the number of child care places in recent years, is the Minister aware that very few child care centres are taking in children below 2 years old? And what is the Ministry going to do about that?”
“The President has outlined the priorities, like defining a national ideology, consolidating political stability, helping the lower income group and strengthening multi-racial and multi-religious harmony. If all Singaporeans can put our heart and soul together in building a cohesive society and achieving what we set out to do, we shall, as the President said, "be another step closer to becoming a Nation of Excellence." Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.”
“Last year, we witnessed a relatively large number of people re-entering the workforce. This is a good sign. We should encourage more of these people to take up art-time or full-time job. But one of the common and valid complaints is that child-care facilities in Singapore are inadequate. While the Government discourages the employment of foreign maids, which I believe the Government has very good reasons to do so, the lack of alternative arrangements would make it difficult for the women to take up employment. Today, most of the child care centres do not accept children who are below two years of age. Infant care facilities are hardly available. The Ministry of Community Development must find ways and means to encourage and facilitate the setting up of child-care and, in particular, infant care centres. The Ministry must make this its top priority programme. The other alternative open to the working mothers is to take child care leave for a year or two after child birth. But it is not the practice of the private sector employers to grant such a long child-care leave. I believe we must take a multi-pronged approach to address the problem. On the one hand, the Government should facilitate the setting up of child care and infant care centres. On the other hand, employers must be encouraged to be supportive to their female employees who have to take long leave to take care of their children. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have come a long way from where we were 30 years ago. We have solved the basic bread and butter issues. What we are setting out to do is to address some of the important political and social issues.”
“The increase in foreign workers levy is only one measure and the Government has to tighten the control through other measures, like further reducing the number of foreign workers allowed in each company. Sir, I must also highlight the fact that at a time when companies are crying for more foreign workers, many employers are still refusing to employ what they perceive as old Singaporean workers. They have refused to raise the retirement age of their employees. There are still prejudices against the older workers. And I still see advertisements in the newspapers looking for young people to do jobs which can be done by the older people. Recently, I saw an advertisement for Quality Control inspectors which specifies 40 years as the age limit. Even more ridiculous is an advertisement for the post of storeman, the one looking after the stores. One would have thought that this will be the type of job suitable for older workers or even retirees. But guess what the advertiser stipulates? Applicants must be between 20 and 25 years of age! Sir, I believe if persuasion to raise the retirement age fails, some other effective measures including legislation, if necessary, must be introduced to bring about a change in attitude and practices. Talking about advertisements, there was this advertisement for the job of security guard which specifies that the applicant must be a Malay. So Chinese and Indians are out. Sir, perhaps it is time we outlawed advertisement and employment practice which discriminates applicants based on age, sex and race. Sir, another way to expand our workforce is to encourage more economically inactive persons to join or rejoin the workforce. This includes housewives, many of whom have resigned from their jobs because of family duties.”
“As the nation progresses, they too have to have a higher level of income to cope with the rising costs and affluence. When arguing the case for more foreign workers, the employers have often found it convenient to point their finger at the Singaporeans, blaming them for being too choosy and harbouring high expectation. But they have forgotten that these Singaporeans who are generally at the lower strata of our society also need a decent income to lead a decent living. We can get a Sri Lankan maid for $150 a month. Do we expect a Singaporean to work full-time (24 hours a day and staying in) as a maid and live on an income of $150 a month? We can get a Thai worker for $200 a month. Do we expect a Singaporean head of a family to support his family with an income of $200 a month? So if we want to help the lower income group, we must allow the wages of these groups of people to rise too. Liberal imports of foreign workers would do no good to our effort to improve the lives of these people. In the matured industrial societies of the West, manual workers can earn as much as university graduates and professionals. I am not suggesting that we work towards that and encourage our people to remain unskilled but expect high wages. Our guiding principle for progress must always be to reward for skills and performance. That is the way to motivate our people to upgrade and to move up. But let us not be under the illusion that all Singaporeans can become doctors, engineers and skilled technicians. There will always be those who cannot make the grade, but they deserve decent wages provided that they are prepared to work hard. Sir, I fully support the measures taken by the Government to curb the inflow of foreign labour.”
“If we can succeed in using television as an effective tool for education and training, we will be able to achieve much in accelerating the pace of continuing education and post employment training in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, as a country without any natural resources, our progress hinges only on one key resource - people. What we must recognize is that Singapore has a small population base. We cannot attract investment and achieve economic growth simply by offering a large pool of cheap labour. To achieve economic growth, we have to attract capital-intensive and technology-intensive industries. Along with that, we must train our workers to be skilful and productive. While we encourage our industries to automate, to mechanize, to upgrade and to reduce their reliance on unskilled labour, the rapid expansion of our economy in the last two years saw an influx of a large number of unskilled foreign workers into Singapore. Sir, easy availability of cheap foreign labour negates the Government's effort to upgrade the industries. And apart from the undesirable social consequences, the liberal import of cheap foreign labour depresses the wages of the Singaporean workers. I am particularly concerned about the wages of the lower income workers. Sir, society is made up of people of different educational attainment, of different skills, performing different tasks, doing different jobs and shouldering different responsibilities. Not everyone can be a manager. Not everyone can be a skilled technician. There are unskilled workers, semi-skilled workers, manual workers and labourers performing jobs which are not glamourous but essential to keep the economy and the society going.”
“Years ago, having three or more children was considered anti-social which went against the society's norm. Today, it is to be highly praised and commended. I do hope that, as and when we chart our developmental plan, the Ministry of Education will re-examine the need and the possibility of extending tertiary education to the working people, through part-time diploma or degree courses, or even through the open university concept where students can study at their own pace. We can always tie up with overseas institutions which have had experience offering such courses. We need not reinvent the wheel. Sir, over the last few years, we have introduced several programmes to improve the quality of our workforce. The Basic Education for Skills Training (BEST) programme has helped the workers to acquire basic proficieny in English and Mathematics. The Workers' Improvement through Secondary Education (WISE) programme provides opportunity for the workers to pursue secondary education. The Modular Skills Training (MOST) programme enables the workers to take up part-time skills training courses. Other programmes like the Core Skills for Effectiveness and Change (COSEC), Tools for Problem Solving, Computer appreciation and information technology courses, all serve to improve the efficiency and problem solving skills of our workers. To further widen the access to learning and training, the Government has decided to implement a pilot project on television-based open learning for workers. In 1990, the National Productivity Board will start using television to broadcast programmes for workers' training. Sir, I support such an initiative. Television is a powerful communication medium.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if we aspire to become a nation of excellence, we must adopt a total approach in upgrading the educational and skills level of our population. Providing good education to the children is an essential but not a sufficient measure to achieve our goal. No doubt every opportunity must be given to our students to go for higher study. But at the same time, we must also provide opportunity to those who are already in the workforce to upgrade themselves. As we know, many of the working people do not possess a university degree. They have missed tertiary education for one reason or another. Many of them would like to pursue part-time study while still working. They have the motivation to improve and upgrade themselves. But unfortunately, opportunity for part-time study for a higher degree is sadly lacking in Singapore. Elsewhere in the world, there are various part-time degree or diploma courses offered by tertiary institutions. In Singapore, such opportunities are generally lacking. I am aware of the constraints faced by the local tertiary institutions. Our university has to cope with the increasing demand for university places. There are physical and manpower constraints. But I believe there is nothing that cannot be resolved. It is a matter of whether we are convinced of the need and whether we have the will to do it. Sir, nothing remains static. Circumstance changes, priority changes and policy changes. Years ago, a proposal for a third university would be dismissed as being frivolous and unrealistic. Now it is becoming a reality. Years ago, the proposal to use CPF for education was rejected outright by the Government. Today, the Government itself has found the proposal feasible and sensible.”
“This is not only consistent with our policy of providing opportunity to every citizen to develop to his or her fullest potential, but it would also reduce the pressure of parents wanting to send their children overseas because of the limited number of places in the local university. Parallel to this, the Government has also decided to allow Singaporeans to use part of their CPF savings for tertiary education. Sir, the question of using CPF for education has been debated for a long time. Those who supported the use of CPF for education argued that expenditure on education is a form of investment. It makes more sense to invest on education than to invest in gold and shares which is allowed under the present CPF rules. Those who opposed the scheme argued that the use of CPF for education would undermine the basic objective of the CPF, which is to provide for old-age security. In spite of the initial resistance and under tremendous pressure from Members of this House and from members of the public, the Government has at long last agreed to change its stand and allow the use of CPF for tertiary education. But I would like to add a word of caution. As we liberalize the use of CPF, the basic objective of the CPF, which is to provide for old age savings, should not be undermined. There must be safeguards to ensure that there is sufficient savings for old age. I therefore welcome the decision of the Government to make it a condition that those who utilize their CPF for tertiary education must pay back to CPF the funds they used after they graduated and started working. If necessary, appropriate legislation must be introduced to empower the CPF to enforce the repayment.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion moved by the Member for Siglap. Sir, in the opening paragraph of his Address, the President stated very clearly that the "Government's goal is to create a better life for all Singaporeans." The President said: 'Every working Singaporean should have a skilled, well-paid job; every family should live in an affordable, comfortable home; and every child should be educated to the limits or his or her potential.' Sir, the key to a better life and better-paid job is through better education. I therefore support wholeheartedly the Government's priority to further improve the education system in Singapore. As spelt out in the President's Speech, our primary schools will be upgraded. More secondary schools will be converted to single-session schools. As more students can qualify for university admission, the Government will expand the university intakes, upgrade NTI into a full university, and study the feasibility of building a new tertiary institution to complement NUS and NTI. Sir, you will recall that sometime last year, the question of expanding the university intake was raised in this House. There was a fruitful discussion on this subject during the budget debate. Many Members of the House contributed to the debate. The Hon. Minister for Education took pains to explain the Government's thinking on this matter. At the end of the debate, the Minister promised that as more students qualify for admission to the university, more university places will be created. Sir, I am very glad indeed that the Government has decided to go ahead to expand our tertiary institutions. This will enable more Singaporeans who are capable of pursuing university education to find a place in our local university.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I propose that Mr Lim Boon Heng be elected as a Deputy Speaker of this Parliament.”
“Although it is illegal, it is legally binding as far as the Registry of Marriages is concerned. If you want to divorce your wife, you must go through the normal legal procedure to break off the marriage." What is the person supposed to do? He came to see me again and said, "In the first place, I want to get married, the Government said cannot. Now I want to divorce my wife, also cannot." Can I ask the Minister what advice should I give to my constituent? I think there must be some coordination. I suggest that if, in the first place the Work Permit Department rejects the marriage, the Registry of Marriages should not solemnize the marriage. Under the policy of the Registrar of Marriages, they just solemnize marriage on application. I suppose there should be some coordination. It does not make sense to me that if the Work Permit Department rejects the marriage, yet the Registry of Marriages goes ahead to solemnize the marriage. Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe: Sir, I just want a clarification from the Minister. Where the applicant wants to marry a work permit holder whose family members, in some cases many of them, are Singapore citizens but for one reason or another the work permit holder is not a Singapore citizen, could such an application be considered more sympathetically?”
“Sir, on this question of marriage of work permit holders, I would like to give an example to show how a person can be utterly confused by the various policies of the different Government departments. In fact, this involves the Ministry of Labour (Work Permit Department), Ministry of Community Development (the Registry of Marriages) and the Ministry of Home Affairs (Immigration Department). I have this constituent of mine who applied for permission to contract marriage with a work permit holder and, of course, the application was rejected. Approval was not granted and this constituent met somebody who claimed to be a middleman who could arrange for the marriage to be approved, of course, on payment of certain fees. And it turned out that this person was a big swindler. True enough, he brought this person to the Registry of Marriages and got the marriage registered. Of course, this constituent was very happy. In spite of the rejection by the Work Permit Department, the marriage was registered by the Registry of Marriages. Of course, the happiness was short-lived because, soon after, the Immigration Department sent a letter and wanted to deport the wife, saying that she had already breached the work permit regulations and had to be deported. This person was confused. On the one hand, you have one Government department which refuses permission for the marriage, a second Government department registers the marriage, and a third department tries to break up the marriage. So he came to see me and asked what could be done. In fact, after realizing that this marriage was illegal, he went to the Registry of Marriages again and said, "No, no. Since this is an illegal marriage, I want to have the marriage nullified." But the Registry of Marriages said, "Oh, no.”
“We should not allow our employers to employ foreign workers so freely if at the same time they are refusing to employ older Singaporean workers or to raise their retirement age. I hope the Minister would respond to the various proposals raised.”
“Ideally, the retirement age should be determined by negotiation between employer and the union. But if voluntary negotiation fails, the Government may have to take more affirmative action. So far the Government has introduced legislations to enforce contributions to the Central Provident Fund (CPF), Skills Development Fund (SDF) and other employment benefits as stipulated under the Employment Act. Legislations were necessary because the employers by themselves were not likely to contribute to schemes like CPF, SDF. On the question of raising of retirement age, so far the employers do not seem to heed the advice of the Government and the request of the union. I would, therefore, suggest that if all persuasions fail and no further progress is made, the Government should seriously consider introducing legislation to set the retirement age at 60. Of course, I can understand the disadvantage of legislating retirement age. It introduces rigidity. It may not be desirable to insist on the same retirement age for all workers, regardless of the nature of the work and the physical condition of the workers. But I believe this can be overcome by allowing the employers and employees to agree on earlier retirement under mutually acceptable terms and conditions. In other words, the retirement age can be legislated at 60 but the employee can opt to retire at an earlier age. Apart from raising the retirement age, the Government should also consider other incentive and disincentive schemes to encourage the employment of older workers. For instance, employers who wish to employ foreign workers should be required to either raise the retirement age of the existing workers or to employ a certain number of older workers, say, those over 40 or 45 years of age.”
“Sir, I need not go into detailed arguments as to why should we raise the retirement age. There are essentially two basic arguments for the extension of the retirement age: (1) We would like to encourage our people to remain in gainful employment for as long as they are physically fit. And with the improvement of health standard and longer life expectancy, it does not make sense to retire our able-bodied workers at the age of 55. (2) We have limited human resource. To reduce our reliance on foreign workers, we have to encourage more of our people to remain in the workforce to contribute to the society and economy. The Government has set the pace years ago by raising the retirement age from 55 to 60. It has also announced plans to reduce the CPF contribution rate for employees who are over 55 years of age. This is to encourage employers to continueemploying workers beyond the age of 55. But, unfortunately, employers in general are still reluctant to raise the retirement age and the latest data collected by the Ministry of Labour and NTUC show that instead of moving towards higher retirement age, many companies are going backwards. And over the last three years, the number of collective agreements stipulating 55 years as retirement age has increased, whereas the number of collective agreements specifying 60 years as the retirement age has dropped. In many overseas countries the retirement age has been raised gradually from 55 to 60, and then to 65. In America, they have done away with the retirement age, that is, no employers can now retire an employee merely on the ground that he had reached a certain age. Now, we have not reached the stage of America, but we certainly have to persuade our employers to raise the current retirement age.”
“I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Will this make our manufacturers lose their competitive edge? I do not think so. So far this year our exports have been high. there is no sign of difficulty and I do not expect there to be. Will this help our smaller local firms? I think if they are small, efficient local firms, yes. This is the way for a small local firm to break in. He is competitive, he can make more money out of the quota, he tenders higher, he wins it, and is launched in business. Under the previous system he had no chance because he had no track record, and could never get started. But this allows a small firm to get started. So what do we do next? MTI is evaluating how the system is working to decide whether to make any further adjustments. The garment manufacturers have listened to us, and asked us to give them some time. They are also studying it. They in fact employed a consultant to do so. They would like to receive the report and show it to us before we make our next move. We still have some time. The quotas for next year do not have to be settled till November. That gives us a few months to work out the next steps. But as I have said before, it is not the purpose of the Government to kill an industry. How does that help us? We want to be fair. We need to allocate a valuable resource efficiently. We have a responsibility to the public, to whom these quotas belong, and we are trying to do that to the best of our ability.”
“It was a drastic change. They were not confident that the tender prices would be reasonable. So as a compromise, we worked out a system, three-quarters of their quotas are given out based on historical track record. And we just charge a nominal levy, 0.5%. A factory which has been productive you get an allocation of quotas next year, three-quarters of what it was producing last year. The balance of the quotas, one-quarter of it, we will auction. This establishes the market price which can be the basis of further adjustments. The result is instructive. The quotas which we have auctioned off, have been fetched an average of about 4% of the export value of the products. Whereas the levy on the three-quarters of the quotas which have been distributd based on track record is only 0.5%. So the value of what is being distributed is not in question. As for the quotas which have been handed out at 0.5%, we incorporated a further safeguard. If any factory feels that even 0.5% is unreasonable, he can forfeit his allocation, which goes back into the pool. He can then tender for it, offering what he thinks it is worth, whether it is one-tenth of a percent or one-hundredth of a percent. Only one-tenth of these quotas have been surrendered in this way. In other words, the manufacturers know that 0.5% is an extremely reasonable levy and there is still profit to be made. And indeed there must be profit to be made because who sets the price of the quotas? The manufacturers who tender for it. Can the tender price be so high that there is no profit to be made? It is not possible because whoever tendered for it, at whatever price he offered, must have been confident that he could make a profit. If he could not, he would not have tendered in the first place.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister for Trade and Industry, if the textile and garment manufacturers' fear of losing their competitive edge because of the levy and auction system is a well founded one, can the Minister give the assurance that the Government will monitor closely the impact of the new allocation system on the garment industry and make whatever adjustment, if necessary? As we are aware, many of the garment firms are foreign owned. We should like to see the growth of the Singaporean owned companies. Under the competitive bidding system, I would like to know whether local companies, many of them are smaller in size, stand a chance to secure quotas? Would they not lose out to the larger and stronger foreign owned companies under the new bidding system? I would appreciate it if the Minister could respond to the various points raised. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, in fact, I answered a question on quotas a few months ago in this House. Let me just reiterate some of the points. Quotas are scarce resources in demand by the industry, belonging to the State. They belong to the State because they arose out of a Multi-Fibre Agreement which is a treaty between different sovereign countries. If the Singapore Government had not negotiated and bargained for our share of the quotas, there would have been none to distribute. How do you distribute the quotas fairly? Either you hand them out, which is giving away something valuable, or you impose a levy, set a price, which is more reasonable. But then you have to ask: at what price? So you tender. And the quota is sold at the price which it is worth. My original preference was for a clean system of tendering all the quotas. The industry had some reservations because they were not sure how the tendering would work out.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head V be reduced by $10 in respect of Code VI 3000 of the Main Estimate. Sir, last year the Government introduced a new quota allocation system for the export of garments. The main features of the system are: (1) 75% of the quota is allocated to existing companies based on their past performance but the quota is subject to a levy of 0.5% of the export price of items. (2) the remaining 25% of the quota is allocated by auction. The Government has good reasons to introduce the new system. It hopes to make it easier for new companies without a performance record to enter the business. The system also encourages the growth of competitive and efficient companies. However, the textile and garment manufacturers appear to be very concerned about the adverse consequences of such a system. They are afraid that the new system would increase costs and undermine their competitive position. Although the Government holds the view that the quota allocated to Singapore by the importing countries are national assets, the garment manufacturers are of the view that the quotas that have been built up all these years were the results of the efforts and the performance of the manufacturers. If the garment industry as a whole did not perform, Singapore would not have earned the quota. The manufacturers are therefore unhappy that the quota which they have earned should be taken away and redistributed. And on top of that, they are now required to pay a levy to the Government. They are also worried about the plan of the Government to raise the levy. They feel that with the upward revision of the levy, the viability of the industry will be threatened.”
“TDB is promoting a good industrial design, has introduced a design venture programme to subsidize designing cost, a national good design award so that within Singapore the importance of design is recognized. But the important thing is we must have something which is special to sell to America. If you ask whether today we already have something special and indigenous to sell and to promote in America? Perhaps some furniture and jewellery, but not so many other indigenous products. What we sell are multi-national products. That is the problem which we will gradually have to tackle and which we discussed earlier on under the SME subject.”
“With Singapore Girl, we have had some success. But remember, you are promoting to a more select audience. It is not just anybody in America but the business community - the people who fly, the people who have international links, and need to know about the world, who have heard about the Singapore Girl. They have heard about Singapore Airlines. It matters to SIA, because if people have not heard of Singapore Girl they may not want to fly SIA. But with goods, it is not quite the same. All these ignorant people who said Singapore products are no good probably have a large number of Singapore products in their homes which they do not know were made in Singapore. As long as we are able to sell to them and, at the same time, as long as our goods are, in fact, of high quality, I think we are all right. Half the goods which we sell to America are actually sold under other people's brand names. Either it is a Hewlett Packard's product or it is some component which goes into another multi-national's product before it is sold. Only if you look at the fine print will you see that it says, "Made in Singapore". That is all right, again, as long as it is a good product. I think we have established a very high reputation within the trade. Certainly in the electronics sector, our goods are second to none. In our local export sector to America, that is a little bit more difficult because they are smaller companies which do not have the imprimatur, that chop, to identify it either as Motorola or Hewlett Packard or any of the other big household names in America. They have to build up their brand name recognition. We have got some programmes to help them.”
“I would like to ask the Minister for Trade and Industry what efforts are being made by the Ministry and the various bodies under its charge to improve the quality and image of our products and whether we can look forward to a better rating for Singapore if a similar opinion poll is conducted in America, say, five years from now. Before I end, let me draw the attention of the House again to the other findings of the Newsweek opinion poll. If you were to look at the second question: "Of those countries, which do you believe have fair or unfair trade policies with the United States?" 24% of the people interviewed said that Singapore practise fair trade, but 31% said that we have unfair trade practices. So in spite of what we have said about Singapore, about ourselves - that we are a country which practices free trade and that we do not erect trade barriers against imports - many of the American public still believe that Singapore is no different from the other Asian countries which are engaged in unfair trade practices. So we must try our best to correct the wrong impression and we must try to influence the American public perception of Singapore. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, my conclusion from the survey which the Member for Boon Lay quoted is that the people who are surveyed are extremely ignorant about Singapore. Otherwise there is no explanation for, first, the low number of responses on the Singapore column. So many "don't knows." Secondly, the large number who said we practise unfair trade. It is not really surprising because many Americans think that Singapore is either in China or in Vietnam somewhere. That is our starting point. It is not promoting an image of a Singapore product. In the first place, we have to promote an image of Singapore.”
“One of the reasons of their ignorance of Singapore made products could be that we do not export as large a volume of consumer goods to America in comparison with Hong Kong and Taiwan. Sir, although the sample size of the opinion poll is small and cannot be taken to be absolutely conclusive, nevertheless, it gives us an indication of how the Ameri- can consumers view our products. There is no doubt that more efforts must be put in to project the image of Singapore made products. We have an internationally-known airline, the Singapore Airline. We have created an excellent image of the airline. We have created an excellent image of the Singapore Girl, a great way to fly. But obviously we have been less successful in creating a quality image for Singapore made products. We have to do a great deal of promotion. We have to tell the world that Singapore not only produce beautiful girls as advertised by SIA, but we also produce good quality TV sets, computers, garments, etc. This is where our Trade Development Board must focus its attention and it must step up the promotional drive. Of course, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. There is no use promoting and advertising if the Singapore made products cannot live up to the quality image which we seek to project. To have consumers believe in the quality of Singapore made products, our manufacturers must build quality into the products. They must keep improving the quality and this is where the Singapore Institute of Standards and Industrial Research (SISIR) can play an important role. So does the National Productivity Board. There must be concerted efforts made by the manufacturers and the various statutory boards under MTI, including SISIR, NPB, TDB to improve quality and promote the image of Singapore made products.”
“I repeat the question, "Are products from the following Asian countries generally better, worse or about as good as similar US products?" You will find that 40% of the people interviewed said that Japanese products are better than the US made products. 19% said "worse", and 35% said "as good". You can see the good image of Japanese products in America today. Most of the Americans interviewed believe that Japanese products are either as good or better than American products. This is, of course, in sharp contrast with the poor image of the Japanese products immediately after World War II. This is a complete turn-around, a complete reversal. Now, how about products from China, South Korea and Hong Kong. About 8-9% of the respondents said products from these countries are better. About 30% said that they are as good. 40-50% of them said that they are worse. So a relatively small number of respondents felt that products from these countries are better than US products, but most of them thought that they are only as good, if not worse. Now, let us look at Singapore. The poll result is disappointing. Only 3% of the respondents felt that Singapore made products are better. So we scored poorer than China. This is, of course, not the complete story. If we add up the percentages attributable to each country, say, in the case of Japan. 94% of those interviewed gave comments. The rest, 6%, presumably either did not give an answer or gave an "I don't know" answer. In the case of China, 76% of the respondents gave comments. For Hong Kong, 84% commented, but in the case of Singapore, only 60% of the people interviewed gave comments. I think the remaining 40% either have never bought Singapore made products before or simply do not know where Singapore is.”
“Sir, under this amendment I wish to speak on the image of Singapore made products. Sir, we have an export oriented industry. We depend on exporting our products to the world to earn a living. And to succeed in exporting our goods, we must build up a good image of Singapore made products. Sir, imagine an American consumer. When he picks up a radio set and sees that it is made in Singapore, what will be his immediate reaction? Will he have confidence in the quality of the product, or will he have doubts? Put it in another way. When an American consumer goes to a department store and finds on the shelves similar products made by different countries, say, Taiwan, Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore, would he have better confidence in Singapore made products than the products made by the other countries? Even if the product carries an internationally-known brand name, say, a Sanyo radio, would the consumer have the same degree of confidence in Singapore made Sanyo radio as the one made in Japan. I believe manufacturers in Singapore should be keen to find out where we stand in this regard. Recently, the Newsweek carried out an opinion poll among the American consumers about the Asian countries and their exports. One of the questions posed to the consumer was: are products from the following Asian countries generally better, worse, or about as good as similar US products? The Asian countries named were Japan, China, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong. With your permission, Sir, I will ask the Clerk of Parliament to distribute the survey findings and this appeared in the February 22nd issue of Newsweek. [Copies of document distributed to the Members.] Sir, let us look at the findings. This is actually the first question asked in the opinion poll.”
“If CPF could be used for education, then there is a chance that their children can be sent abroad to get a degree. If not, then that is the end of the road. And this is the root of the problem. Can NUS take in all students who can make the grade? Can the University cope with the increasing demand for university places? What standard should the University maintain? These are the questions. And I believe an explicit policy on tertiary education and University admission must be spelt out clearly at this juncture.”
“But I don't believe we should deny places to those who can make the grade merely on the basis of manpower projections or for fear of producing too many graduates. As the quality of the students improve, more and more students will be able to make the grade to obtain a university degree. The University will have to expand its intake. The students intake should not be constrained by manpower projections which, in the first place, is never an exact science. Between the options of producing too many graduates and under-producing, I suggest we rather err on the generous side. Train more if we can afford it. This is good for our society. This is good for our industry and our economy. Sir, the Estimates Committe has made its observations based on the data and information submitted by the Ministry of Education. If the Ministry has other factors which it must take into consideration in determining the admission policy, it is best that such considerations be made public. With growing affluence and rising expectations among our population, and with better and better 'A' level results, the pressure for more university places will continue to build up. As it is, there is already increasing pressure on the Government to allow the use of CPF for education. The root of the problem is that those who could not gain admission into NUS are left with no alternative but to go overseas if they wish to obtain a university degree. Parents who have the financial resources could afford to send their children abroad. But to many, going overseas to get a degree would just remain a dream, as they could not afford to pay for the high cost of overseas education. Their only hope therefore hinges on the use of CPF.”
“But the fact was that because of the keen competition and the limited number of places in each faculty, the actual admission requirement was higher than the stipulated minimum. Those who could just meet the minimum entry requirements were not likely to be admitted. The cut-off point for admission varies from faculty to faculty and from year to year, much depends on the number of places available and the grades of the students competing for the places. The number of places available in each faculty is in turn determined by the manpower projections. With such admission criteria, it becomes questionable whether all those who were rejected by the NUS were indeed incapable of making the grade to obtain a university degree. We are aware of people who have gone overseas and obtained degrees from reputable universities after failing to get a place in NUS. And these are the people who should have been accepted by NUS in the first place. There is therefore a need for the University to relook at the question of entry requirements. To start with, the entry qualifications should be defined more clearly and specifically. Instead of specifying just two 'A' level passes as the entry requirement and giving false hopes to many who apply, the NUS should be more specific and states the minimum grades and points required for admission. If two grade E passes are not good enough for admission, then state so. After determining the minimum entry grades, the University should try to admit all applications who can meet the grades into the University. Manpower projection notwithstanding, the policy of the University should be to try to accommodate all those who can make the grade. We can reject an applicant if he cannot make the grade.”
“With limited human resource, the stated goal of the Government has always been to develop each and every of its citizens to his fullest potential. In other words, if a person has the ability to complete tertiary education, he should be given a chance and, indeed, every encouragement to do so. Here, of course, the question of the standard of the University arises. If our University pitches its standards at a level set by the best universities in the world - Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard, MIT - and admit only the best students, then we will end up with confining tertiary education to only a privileged few, and denying a vast majority of our people the opportunity for university education. This would not be to the interest of the nation. On the other hand, by setting low standards which make it possible for students of low calibre to get in, the University degree will lose its value and become worthless. A sensible way is, therefore, to set the standard of our University at a level comparable to some of the reputable universities in the world, specifically those universities whose degrees are recognized by the Public Service Commission. The policy of the university should be to allow all students who can meet the standard to enrol into the university. Let us now look at the entry requirements of NUS. Currently, the minimum requirements for admission to NUS are two 'A' level passes, besides the General Paper and other requirements. I believe almost all the applicants who applied for admission in the past could meet the minimum entry requirements, which is 2'A' level passes. The applicants were therefore under the impression that they did qualify for entry into NUS.”
“Sir, the recent debate on the University admission policy has arisen because of the observations and recommendations made by the Estimates Committee as contained in its Report presented to Parliament in February this year. In the report, the Estimates Committee expressed concern that a high percentage of applicants (about 50%) were refused entry into NUS each year. So the Committee has recommended for a review of the admission policy as well as the funds made available to the University with the view to providing opportunity for more of our citizens to recieve tertiary education. The Committee has also stressed that the increase in students intake should be done without sacrificing academic standards. Since the release of the Report, there has been questions raised as to whether the NUS could or should increase its students intake. The question of manpower projections were also raised. Some misinterpreted the Estimates Committee's recommendation to increase students intake as a suggestion to lower standards. Sir, as the Chairman of the Estimates Committee, I must take the opportunity of the Budget debate to re-state the Committee's recommendations, the basis upon which such recommendations were made, and what we really hope to achieve. Sir, what has driven Singapore to progress as a nation is the desire of our people to seek improvement and advancement in life. Pursuing higher education is seen as the key to success. The motivation to upgrade, to excel and to succeed in life provides the momentum and the driving force which pushes our society and our nation forward. The quest for higher education and better skills is obviously our strength, and we should well treasure that.”
“Question No. 11, Sir. The Minister for Trade and Industry (BG Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, textile quotas are a scarce national resource. The new allocation sytem aims to distribute them more fairly and more efficiently. Under the new system, 25% of the textile quotas will be tendered out. The balance is still allocated to manufacturers based on past performance, but it is subject to a levy which will be regularly adjusted to reflect the actual tender prices. This year the levy is 0.5%. The Trade Development Board called the first tenders for the 1988 quota on 17th November last year. Some 190 companies submitted a total of more than 4,500 bids for 118 categories. 164 companies or 86% of them succeeded in tendering for at least one category. Of these, 11 companies without past performance record were successful in bidding for 'hot' categories in popular demand. The new quota allocation system will make it easier for new companies without a performance record to enter the business. It will encourage competition in the industry. Quotas will go to the more efficient and competitive companies. The less competitive manufacturers will have an incentive to sell their performance quotas to other manufacturers, to other stronger companies, or to shift to producing items whose quotas are in less demand. We can therefore expect the industry to consolidate itself in the next 2-3 years. The result should be a leaner and more competitive textile industry.”
“On behalf of Mrs Yu-Foo, Question No. 13, Sir.”
“Financing of the Joint Industrial Training Centres (8) That the sum to be allocated for Head V be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead VF-01 of the Main Estimates.”
“We are aware that there are unscrupulous traders who sell counterfeit goods in Singapore and my Ministry is working closely with the Ministry of Law to tighten the Patents Act and the Trade Marks Act to prohibit such trade practices.”
“Mr Chairman, I want to raise a question on these leading indicators again. The Minister has made some prediction of our economy based on the models developed by the Ministry of Trade and Industry. Of course,the Minister was quick to qualify that economic prediction is hazardous. There is uncertainty. It is hazardous. Can I suggest that the Ministry encourages some private institutions, universities, or even some research units in enterprises to offer an alternative model so that there is competition of ideas. We can compare and over a period of time we can improve and refine the model? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir says he remembers that 15 years ago when the Indonesians decided to develop Batam, Singapore entrepreneurs were encouraged to invest in Batam, and asks if we should do that again. He did not say who did the encouraging 15 years ago. It is the Singapore Government's policy to encourage all entrepreneurs to seek opportunities, evaluate them, make their own judgments and move in where they feel that there is business to be done and profits to be made. It is not the Government's policy to back specific projects, particularly when they are not projects of the Singapore Government, because that leads to possible misunderstanding later on. If the project does well, well and good. If the project does not do well, what responsibility does the Government bear for pushing the private sector to do something which perhaps was against its better judgment? We can leave this to the private sector. It is a development on Batam. It is not appropriate for me to advise the Batam authorities how to proceed. I do not really want to discuss retail and banking again but I will give the Member for Leng Kee an answer on counterfeiting.”
“Sir, under this amendment, I just want to ask the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Ministry has made any progress in developing an econometric model which will provide a forecast of our economic performance. I would also like to know if a series of leading indicators for the economy have already been developed. If so, have the indicators been tested to be accurate and relevant? For instance, could we have predicted a recession in 1985 and a recovery in 1986 using those indicators? Assuming that these indicators are tested to be accurate and relevant, and looking at the indicators today, what would the Minister say about our economy for the next few quarters?”
“Child Care Services (5) That the sum to be allocated for Head J be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead JD-03-1210 of the Main Estimates. The Chairman: Amendment No. 5. Mr Goh is not here. Amendment No. 6, Dr Vasoo.”
“Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for supporting my suggestion to have a senior citizens' campaign. There is an objective. By keeping on telling our people to show care and concern for our senior citizens, we try to instil a sense of filial piety. I think all this is necessary. It cannot develop just by itself. The Government has been launching a lot of campaigns. Singapore will not be as clean today if not for the real extra effort made to keep Singapore clean, and all these are the results of the campaign. With that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“And for certain places like the Chinese Garden and Japanese Garden, I think they should be open free of charge to all those aged 60 and above. In fact, why should we charge the old men and women for taking a stroll in the gardens? Sir, I understand that a number of establishments in Singapore are already offering concessions to senior citizens, but it is not widely publicized. Very few people know about it and I believe more can be done. Sir, I would like to suggest to the Ministry of Community Development that the Ministry makes a special effort to: (1) Encourage social behaviour among the population to show care and concern for the senior citizens; and (2) Encourage more establishments to offer concessions to senior citizens and to publicize all the schemes designed for the senior citizens.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head J be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead JA-01-1100 of the Main Estimates*. Sir, in moving this amendment, I would like to talk about the respect and concessions for the senior citizens. Sir, our population is aging. More and more of our citizens are entering the age group of above 55 or 60. We have tried to instill in the minds of our young people the sense of filial piety and respect for the elderly. It is certainly not enough just talking about care and respect of our senior citizens. We have to prove it by action. We have to encourage such social behaviour among our population that the care and consideration for the elderly becomes a way of life in the society. I believe more should be done to encourage such desirable social behaviour. Let us look at some of the behaviour of Singaporeans. When we rush for the lift, for instance, do we give way to the elderly persons? When we board a bus, do we give special consideration to the aged? The answer to these questions is generally no. We do hear of our gentlemen saying, "Ladies first", as an expression of civilized and gentlemanly behaviour. But we have never heard anyone saying, "Senior Citizens first". Sir, I think we really need to launch a Senior Citizens First campaign and our children too need to be taught all the little acts and behaviour which help to demonstrate our care and consideration for our senior citizens. What else can we do? I say let us make it a norm that all the senior citizens should enjoy special concession for admissions to all places of interest, including cinemas and theatres and for taking public transport like the MRT.”
“Sir, the Minister has not answered my question about the raising of retirement age from 55 to 60. I propose that the Government come to a decision very soon about reducing the CPF contribution rate for our workers beyond the age of 55. Currently we are facing the problem that the employers are very reluctant to raise the retirement age to 60 and I think a decision must be made soon. On the question of part-time employment, I think the Minister has explained that the Ministry is looking into the various options. One point which I would like to stress, as I said it just now, is that whatever changes we are going to introduce and whatever flexibility we want to provide, we must build in safeguards to check for possible abuses. For instance, we should never exempt the part-time employment from CPF contribution because this can give rise to a lot of abuses.”
“Sir, while I do not believe that it is wise to reduce the CPF contribution rate from the age of 45, I would not hesitate to support reduction of CPF contribution rate after the age of 55 if this will encourage employers to retain their workers beyond this age. I would therefore suggest that the Government makes a decision soon to reduce the CPF contribution rate for workers beyond 55 years of age, so that the employers can be encouraged to raise the retirement age to 60.”
“(2) Encourage employers to offer part-time employment to retired workers. Sir, for the last 15 years, the trade unions in Singapore have been pushing hard for a raising of the retirement age. Let me give some comparative figures. The Ministry of Labour and the NTUC have made an analysis of the retirement age specified in the collective agreements signed between the employers and the unions during the period, 1972 to 1974, and for the period, 1982 to 1984. The figures have not been published but I will quote the findings. In all the collective agreements signed between the employers and the unions during the three years, 1972 to 1974, a total of 11% of the collective agreements provided for retirement age of 60 years. Largely due to the effort of the trade unions, the percentage of the collective agreements specifying retirement age of 60 was increased to 21%. This is 10 years later in the period, 1982 to 1984. But unfortunately, there has hardly been any progress in the last two years, notwithstanding the active encouragement of the Government. Recently, the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) published its Comparative Guide to Collective Agreements, 1987. Of the 121 collective agreements signed last year, only 14% specified retirement age of 60 years, which means that there is a drop from 21% to 14%. This indicates that instead of making progress, we are sliding backwards. Sir, employers are unwilling to raise the retirement age. I think they are concerned about the cost of employing older workers. Perhaps they are waiting for the Government's incentives and schemes to encourage employment of older workers, such as reduction of CPF contribution rate.”