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 6 of 9.
“My colleague tells me 25 years. This is ridiculous. How can you consider a 25-year old person as too old? Two weeks ago, there was a photograph in the Straits Times which showed a factory assembly line in America. I think it was dated 11th March. I suggest that the Minister for Labour make photocopies and distribute it to all employers. If you look at the female workers in the assembly line in America, they are at least 40-50 years old. And here in Singapore our employers want young girls aged 25-28 years. Of course, they cannot find so many young Singapore workers and so they want Malaysian workers. And they complain about the foreign worker's levy. In the meantime, our able-bodied women are staying at home. I think we must change the attitude of the employers. Sir, we are facing a shortage of workers in certain sectors of our economy. Our workforce is aging too. Increasingly, a larger proportion of our population are entering the age group of over 40 years old. The employers must be prepared to widen their choice and provide employment to these people. I hope the Ministry will make an effort to change the attitude of the employers and remove their bias against the older workers who, in the first place, should not be considered old. While still on the issue of older workers, I would like to comment on the subject of the retirement age. Sir, with an aging population, it is necessary to encourage Singaporeans to remain in the workforce beyond the age of 55. In 1986, the Economic Committee recommended two measures to encourage employers to retain their older workers. (1) Reduce CPF contribution rate for older workers. The Committee proposed that the CPF contribution rate be progressively reduced after the age of 45.”
“Some treat the part-time workers as temporary workers. There are abuses and some avoid paying CPF. So there is a need for the Employment Act to define clearly what is part-time work, in particular, in terms of number of hours worked per week. We have to spell out the benefits which are relevant and payable to the part-time workers. We can also specify the terms which can be subjects of negotiation between the employers and the part-time employees. While we would like to accord flexibility to the employers to engage part-time workers and make it attractive for the workers to take up part-time jobs, we must at the same time build in sufficient safeguards to check abuses. Sir, one of the main purposes of providing part-time job is to enable the married women who have a family commitment to take up gainful employment. It also enables people who need extra income to work part-time. But we should not relax the condition of part-time employment to the extent that the employers are induced to replace their full-time employees by part-time or temporary workers. Another matter which is of concern is that many employers are still reluctant to employ workers who, in their view, are too old for the job. Take the electronic industries, for instance. A number of employers are still stipulating in their advertisement that the age limit for the job of production operators is 35 or 30. Some even stipulate 28 years as the age limit. An hon. Member: 25 years.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, when Parliament adjourned yesterday, I was commending the Government for introducing the incentive scheme for working women and I also expressed my hope that the private sector employers will follow suit. Of course, I can understand the reluctance of the employers to grant four years no-pay leave because private sector enterprises face greater uncertainty of the future than the Government as an employer. Nevertheless, I would like to see that as far as possible companies, particularly the larger ones, should keep the no- pay leave option open for the female employees. As regards full-pay unrecorded leave and part-time employment, I feel that this is what the private sector employers can provide. It is within the employers ability to provide such employment terms. I would like to ask the Minister for Labour what plans does the Ministry have to encourage the private sector employers to provide special incentives to the female employees similar to the ones offered by the Government. I would now like to turn to the question of part-time employment. While asking employers to provide part-time jobs, I would like the Minister to examine in greater depth the problem of part-time employment. Presently, there is no clear definition of what is part-time employment. The Employment Act makes no distinction between part-time and full-time employment. In other words, all the part-time and full-time employment is governed by the provisions of the Employment Act. But currently, many employers are not sure whether they are obliged to grant all the benefits stipulated in the Employment Act such as annual leave, rest day and maternity leave to the part-time workers. Some feel that certain benefits are not relevant to the part-time workers.”
“Sir, I would like to touch on three issues - the incentives for woman workers, part-time employment and employment of older workers. Sir, the Government has introduced new incentives to allow working mothers in the civil service to take more time off to look after their children. The incentives include (1) up to four years' no-pay leave for child-care; (2) part- time employment for married women who have children below six years; and (3) full-pay unrecorded leave to look after a sick child. I would like to commend the Government for introducing the incentive scheme and hope that the private sector employers will follow suit. Of course, I can understand the reluctance of employers to grant four years' no-pay leave because the private sector enterprise faces greater uncertainty of their future than the Government as an employer. Nevertheless, I would like to see that as far as possible companies, particularly the larger ones, should keep the no-pay leave option open for the woman employees.”
“Mr Chairman, the Minister has not answered my question about the measures taken by the Government to bring forward the public sector development project and the impact on the local industry or local economy.”
“I hope the Minister will consider this suggestion. The other matter which I would like to raise, Sir, is about the measures taken by the Government to accelerate the implementation of the public sector development project. I think in the last two years the Government has attempted to increase the development expenditures and to bring forward some infrastructural development projects. The purpose was to stimulate the economy. I would like to know to what extent our local industries and our economy have benefitted from such Government expenditures. I would also like to know whether the Ministry is able to measure the impact of all the Government expenditures, especially the development expenditures, on our economy.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, the Minister for Finance has taken great pains to explain to this House why consumption tax is necessary or inevitable when we are faced with the prospect of a permanent budget deficit. Sir, I do not intend to raise the subject of consumption tax again for a debate. I am not arguing with the Minister for Finance about the rationale for shifting from direct tax, like income tax, to sales tax or consumption tax. In fact, I am very glad to hear from the Minister for Finance that a broad based consumption tax will only be introduced if the shortfall in Government revenue is substantial and a permanent deficit is inevitable. What I do want to point out, however, is that the timing of the introduction of such a consumption tax requires careful consideration. I would like to request that in a year when we are asking the workers to exercise wage restraint the Government should avoid introducing consumption tax, in particular, on those items which constitute the daily basic necessities of the workers. Whether we like it or not, and whether it is intentional or unintentional, introducing a consumption tax is to place a heavier tax burden on the low income group. We should not impose undue burden on the workers, especially the low wage earners, at a time when they suffer loss of income or loss of jobs. Sir, we talked about exercising wage restraint last year in 1986 and again this year in 1987. It was right that the Government only talked about consumption tax last year without introducing it. I hope the Government will do the same again in 1987. So at this moment, at least for this financial year, the Government should not introduce any measures on new taxes which will negate our current effort to restrain or hold wages, reduce costs and keep inflation low.”
“Sir, the question of pre-primary education has been raised by the Member for Tanah Merah and I would also like to speak on this. Sir, I would like the Minister to state the original objective of introducing pre-primary education in schools and whether the objectives have been or can be achieved based on the evaluation done on the pilot scheme. One of the objectives of introducing the pre-primary programme, as I understand it, is to facilitate early language learning for children, especially those from dialect-speaking homes. But just like any other programme, after a period of time, one tends to forget about the original objective. I would therefore like to ask the Minister for Education, if we had not departed from the original objective, are we admitting the target group of children into the pre-primary programme? Are we offering places to those children who really need help? Of even greater concern, I believe, is the question of the ability of the Ministry to meet the demand of parents who wish to enrol their children into the programme. Hitherto, pre-primary education has been provided by private kindergarten operators without Government subsidies. With the expansion of the pre-primary programme, does it mean that the parents can now expect the Government to provide subsidized pre-primary education to their children as in the case of primary and secondary education? Can the Government cope with such a demand and has the Ministry considered the impact of such an extensive pre-primary programme on the private kindergarten operators? I would appreciate the Minister's response to these questions.”
“Many people do not know, not just the teachers. Sir, I believe that principals and the teachers themselves need adequate briefings too. What about the students who are leaving the school to seek employment in the job market? I think they need career guidance also. And I would like to suggest that the Ministry of Education as well as the schools organize more career talks and visits to the industrial and commercial establishments to enable the students to understand the nature of work and the working environment of different vocations. So when they apply for a job, they more or less have an idea of what the job entails, the prospect for advancement, what the physical environment is like. In this way, perhaps we can reduce the chances of the young people hopping from one place to another in search of a job of his preference. This will help to reduce job hopping among the young workers. And I would appreciate the Minister's response to this suggestion.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, compared to the school leavers, say, 15 years ago, our 'O' and 'A' level school leavers have more opportunities and options to further their studies or undergo skills training. Our universities, polytechnics and vocational institutions now offer a wide range of courses to meet the different academic grades and academic interest of the students. The school leavers who wish to pursue further studies have to make a difficult choice of which institution to enrol in and which course of study to pursue. Much depends on the students' own interest, their parents' influence and their peer group influence. I agree with the point raised by the Member for Leng Kee that there is a need to give the students a proper guidance in choosing a course of study. Sir, with so many institutions offering different types of courses and all stepping up their public relations and marketing efforts to attract students and all promising good career prospects for taking up courses in their institutions, I think the students can be thoroughly confused. What I want to ask of the Minister for Education is whether the Ministry or the schools could provide proper counselling and guidance to help the students to make their choice. And I also wish to know whether the teachers and the principals are themselves knowledgeable enough to offer such guidance. I know of the instance when the students asked the teacher, "What is the difference between the courses offered by the VITB Training Institute and the ones offered by the EDB training centres? How does one compare the status of the Diploma or Certificate awarded by the Singapore Polytechnic and the EDB training centres?" Guess what is the answer? "Don't know." I think this is an honest answer.”
“They will be helping themselves as well as the nation. Equally important, they will be helping their own children, helping to ensure that their future is less heavy and burdensome. Sir, as this is a debate on the Budget statement, I have only addressed in my reply the broader issues raised. However, I would like to assure all Members that all their points have been noted and that my officers will look into them. 2.56 pm”
“Our records show that today there are only about 7,000 ligated women below the age of 35 who have two or less children. I have instructed my officers to see how we can help these ligated women who wish to reverse their ligation. Sir, the Member for Punggol has asked for assurance that the new population policy will not be changed. I agree with him that the people must be given the confidence that they will in no way be penalized should policies change in the future. But no one can assure him that policies will never change over time. It will take us at least 5-10 years to monitor and analyze the effectiveness of the new population policy. It is therefore premature for me to talk about the possibility of policy changes when we are just implementing the new policy. What I can assure him and all Singaporeans is that those who have responded to the new policy need not fear that they would be either penalized or lose the benefits that have been made available to them. Sir, much effort will be needed to reverse our population trend. The success of the new population policy will depend on the attitudes of Singaporeans towards marriage and family formation. If marriage and having children could be seen as a desirable fulfilment beyond career and material possessions, then we will succeed. At the same time, responsible parenthood is very important. The children's interests must be carefully considered by those wishing to have more than three children. Will the children be disadvantaged compared to their friends? Can the parents provide the educational, recreational and home support for their many children? Changes in attitudes will take time. But the process can be made easier if all Singaporeans chip in with their full support.”
“However, there are those who would like to but for our previous Stop at Two policy. We hope that they would proceed to have their third child, now that all disincentives have been removed. Sir, let me move on now to the special tax incentives for the third child. The Member for Potong Pasir felt that the incentives only benefitted the rich and was inequitable. He is again wrong. The special tax rebate is very fair as it gives back to the couple their own money and no one else's. Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir has described the $10,000 sterilization grant scheme as being aimed at "keeping the population down." He concluded therefore that the cash grant scheme contradicts the new population policy. He does not seem to have understood the aims of the cash grant scheme. The objective of the cash grant scheme is to help low-income families with low skills and education to break out of their poverty trap. By keeping their families small, they would be able to maximize their limited resources. Their children will then benefit greatly. The cash grant will also help these families to purchase their own homes. Hopefully, the better home environment will allow their children to have a better start in life. They can then help their parents to break out of the poverty trap, in turn. Therefore, this cash grant scheme in no way contradicts our new population policy. Sir, the Member for Rochore has sympathized with the large number of women who have undergone ligation, as they will be missing out on the new incentives. The numbers, however, should be seen in the right perspective. Over the past 20 years, over 100,000 women have undergone ligation. However, the vast majority, over 75% of them, were ligated only after the birth of their third or higher order child.”
“Sir, the Stop at Two policy by itself was not a mistake. If all Singaporeans married and had two children per family, then we would just be replacing ourselves. But that does not mean that the Government did not make any mistakes. Our mistake was in not recognizing earlier two important population trends. The first is the singles problem. The second is the tendency for married women with at least a secondary school education to have less than two children. Sir, the singles problem is a complex one. It involves many factors such as attitudes, equal educational opportunities for males and females, greater career opportunities, social norms and others. As such, we do not expect to resolve the singles problem quickly. The question is: should we even try to help those singles who wish to settle down but for various reasons do not have the opportunity to socialize with members of the opposite sex? If we follow the suggestion of the Member for Potong Pasir, the answer must be "No, let nature take its course." But would we be helping by doing nothing? Members may be interested to know that the Social Development Section of the People's Association and the Social Development Unit have in their short existence managed to attract a total of over 55,000 participants to their activities. It shows that most singles do find such assistance from the SDU and SDS useful. Perhaps the SDS and the SDU should, in fact, intensify their activities. Sir, since we do not expect to resolve the singles problem quickly, the only way to reverse our declining birth rate in the immediate future is to encourage those married women with few children to have more. We are realistic in our expectations. Not every married couple would want to have a third child.”
“Some people, both inside and outside Parliament, have asked whether our family planning programme and, more specifically, our Stop at Two policy was a mistake. The Member for Potong Pasir is one such person. He prefers a laissez-faire approach. His line is that the Government should have done nothing in the mid-1960s and 1970s to restrain the population growth. "We should have let nature take its course and everything would be all right." The question is: would the laissez-faire approach have turned out right? And if it did not, what kind of problems and difficulties would Singaporeans be facing today? Let us cast our minds back to the mid-1960s. Our population was then growing at the rate of about 2(r)%. At that rate, we would have 3.3 million Singaporeans today, almost 700,000 more people than what we have now. After we implemented our family planning programme, the population growth rate slowed down to about 1.9 to 2% by the late 1960s. At that rate, and without the Stop at Two policy in 1972, we would still have an extra 300,000 Singaporeans today. Can you imagine the pressures on our schools, our hospitals, our housing programmes? And could we have generated enough jobs for all the additional people? Sir, was the population policy a mistake, as Mr Chiam claims? Singapore experienced a bad recession during the last two years. Many jobs were lost. If we had not implemented our family planning programme, many more Singa- poreans would have lost their jobs. Fortunately, many of the retrenched were foreign workers who just packed up and went home. Otherwise, our unemployment rate in 1986 would not be just 6.5% but a much higher figure. If that had happened, would the additional unemployed Singaporeans be able to knock on Mr Chiam's door and be assured of a job?”
“In this way, we can maximize the returns to Singapore. In administering the export incentive scheme, the Minister may want to consider giving further encouragement and granting added incentives to those companies which utilize the manpower and material resources from Singapore. For instance, we can treat the Singapore component of the expenditure differently in arriving at the profit figure or in setting the export base beyond which the incentive would apply. Here, I think we can learn a thing or two from the Japanese. When a Japanese company secures an overseas contract, they will bring in the Japanese engineers, Japanese technicians, Japanese consultants, Japanese secretaries and Japanese equipment. Everything Japanese. I say they are smart. When the Japanese tourists come to Singapore, they fly to Singapore by Japan Airlines, shop in Japanese department stores, buy Japanese products, eat in Japanese restaurants and then fly back to Japan again by Japan Airlines. Sir, we may not want to imitate the Japanese style in all respects, but we can certainly try to learn from them the technique of maximizing returns when doing business. 2.45 pm The Acting Minister for Health (Mr Yeo Cheow Tong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, many hon. Members have spoken on the new population policy and measures and I would like to reply to some of the broader points raised. I am happy to note that most of the Members understand the need to increasee our birth rate to replacement level. Their concern is whether the new measures will be adequate to reverse the declining birth rate. Sir, whilst most people realize the need to look forward and plan for the future, some prefer to concentrate on the past.”
“Sir, if we read through the Budget statements of the Minister for Finance all these years, a message which has been repeated again and again, year in year out, is that the Government is doing something to help the local industries. This is understandable. The Government must be seen to help local industries. Many assistance schemes were introduced by the Government. But in the final analysis, if there is no opportunity, no contracts, no business, no markets, what is the use of all these incentives? And I certainly hate to see a day when countries like South Korea and Taiwan take off and join the league of developed countries with their own indigenous technology and industries, we are still sitting here talking about schemes to help local industries. The same principle of maximizing the benefits to our local industries should also apply when we export our services and secure overseas contracts. The promotion of offshore activities has been identified as one of our key growth strategies. In order to encourage such offshore activities, the Minister for Finance has announced in his Budget statement that export incentives, presently applicable to manufacturing activities, will be extended to cover export of selected services. This will include, amongst others, consultancy, management, construction, technical and engineering services. Under the scheme, 90% of the qualifying export income would be exempt from tax. When undertaking projects overseas, our companies must be encouraged to source the materials and expertise from Singapore. They must be encouraged to use our architects, our engineers, our accountants, and even our workers, if they have the skill and cost advantage. Source the materials and supplies from Singapore too.”
“For instance, the Australian government (and it is indeed the same with the governments of many other developed countries) insists that when the government or the government-owned companies purchase expensive equipment from overseas or award contracts to foreign firms, a certain percentage of the components or design and production work must be done locally. In Singapore, I believe there is very few of such arrangement. When the Ministry gets the approval to spend on certain project, they will just go round and see how they can implement the project in the fastest way. It is indeed very tedious to promote local industry. You run a greater risk too by relying on local firms. Furthermore, it may be cheaper to get what you want by outright purchase from overseas suppliers or by awarding the contract to foreign firms. So why bother to give special preference to local firms, let alone creating a new one. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, by adopting such a policy, we are trading off long term gains for short term expediency. We are missing the opportunity to build up expertise and capabilities of our own. I suggest that the Ministry of Finance focus its attention on this matter. The Ministry must have a say on how the approved projects are to be implemented, especially if it involves huge capital expenditure. With all the money under his control, the Minister for Finance should, in consultation with the Minister for Trade and Industry, exploit all opportunities to help local industries to create employment and to encourage joint venture or licensing arrangement.”
“Sir, I have more to say about the Government development estimates. All the pump-priming measures are effective only if they have a positive impact on our economy. The increased Government expenditure should hopefully lead to more business to the local contractors and manufacturers which would, in turn, create more jobs for our citizens. If increased Government expenditure merely means more business to the foreign firms or to foreign suppliers, then I would question the efficacy of all these so-called pump-priming measures. Sir, I believe that when the Ministry of Finance supports major capital expenditure proposed by the respective Ministry, insufficient attention has been paid to the question of whether the project will be implemented in such a way that it will benefit local industry and create employment. Whether it is infrastructural development projects or acquisitions of expensive equipment, many of our capital expenditures go towards paying the foreign firms. We did not seize the opportunity to help or to create local industry and develop local expertise. Or put it in another way, we have not done enough. This is most undesirable. I do not have to mention the experience of the other NICs, like Taiwan and South Korea, where many of their local industries or joint venture firms are created because of the assured government contracts. Even in the more developed countries, there is a deliberate attempt by the government to ensure that the local industries do benefit from the nation's capital outlay, either by the government or by the private firms.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Estimates Committee has deliberated on this matter and has made specific comments and recommendations. The recommendations are contained in the Estimates Committee Report presented to the Parliament on 2nd January this year. I hope the Minister for Finance will give these proposals serious consideration. For a start, I will support the Government's move to require the statutory boards to turn in 33% of their operating surpluses to the Government. This will, hopefully, help the Government to balance the budget and to put the money into productive use. The next step, I hope, is to require the statutory boards to present their budgets to Parliament for scrutiny. Next, I would like to turn to the question of the impact of the Government expenditure on the local economy. In 1985 and again in 1986, the Estimates Committee was given to understand that the Ministry of Finance would support increases in development expenditure and would ask the various Ministries to accelerate the implementation of the public sector infrastructural development projects. The purpose was to stimulate the economy. But as it turned out, the allocations for expenditures by the Government Ministries, including the development expenditure, were underspent last year. This together with the increased revenue resulted in the Government having a sizeable surplus again in 1986. One would expect that such a situation should never arise or should never be allowed to develop in the year when the economy needs extra stimulus. So what has happened to all the pump-priming measures and the development projects? Are we still accelerating, decelerating or have simply shelved all those plans? I think the Minister for Finance should give some satisfactory explanation.”
“I am suggesting, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that the budget of all the statutory boards, including those of the self-financing statutory boards, be subject to Parliament's scrutiny. The point has been raised by the Member for Kaki Bukit last Friday. The fact that a statutory board does not require Government funding should not absolve the board from the obligation to account to Parliament. It must be stressed again that the statutory boards are indeed managing and committing public funds. No doubt, the statutory boards are set up by the relevant Acts of Parliament which granted the boards certain authority, including management of funds. But Parliament should have the right to require the statutory boards to present their budgets to the Parliament for scrutiny, if not for approval. A practical proposition is to include the budgets of the statutory boards as a supplementary information under the respective Ministries in the Annual Budget document. Although the budgets of the statutory boards would not form part of the total Government expenditure to be approved by Parliament, such information would nevertheless enable Parliament to examine the financial commitments of the statutory boards and to enable members to raise queries. Inclusion of such information would also give Parliament an idea of the overall magnitude of the public sector revenue and expenditure. Currently, the annual reports of the statutory boards are presented to Parliament. But the annual report is a report of what had already taken place. What we really want to know at the beginning of each financial year is how much the statutory boards are going to spend, how are they going to raise revenues to finance their operations and how much are they going to borrow, etc.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before the lunch break I was talking about the size of the statutory boards in Singapore. The statutory boards employ a total of 60,000 people, including a disproportionately large number of high-powered senior officers. And I mentioned that there are more than 1,000 Superscale officers in the statutory boards and institutions of higher learning, more than double the number in the whole Civil Service. In terms of income and expenditure, the statutory boards' budget is sizable too. The total revenue of the seven major statutory boards in Singapore, including HDB, TAS, PUB, PSA and JTC, amounted to more than $6 billion in 1986. The total expenditure in the same year was near to $8 billion. Sir, most of the statutory boards are set up to provide services to the members of the public. They charge fees for their services. Examples are PUB, TAS and others. They are what we know as mono- polies. The public have to pay whatever fees or rates charged by the boards. And in the absence of competition, there is no way we can compare and evaluate their performance and efficiency. Of even greater concern is that these statutory boards have the authority and autonomy to commit huge amounts of public funds and to borrow money without first notifying Parliament, let alone seeking Parliament's approval. Last Friday, we heard the Member for Punggol telling us that PUB had to borrow large sums of money to finance its development plan. In other words, the statutory boards can borrow huge sums of money, make us heavily indebted as a nation, without even Parliament knowing about it. The present state of affairs is, in my view, unsatisfactory.”
“The public sector employment to population ratio in Singapore is extremely high, much higher than those in the OECD and other NICs. The Government itself employs about 70,000 people. Another 60,000 people are employed by the statutory boards. Furthermore, the statutory boards employ a large number of high-powered senior officers. It is indeed surprising to note that all the statutory boards, including the institutions of higher learning in Singapore, employ more than 1,000 Superscale officers, more than double the number in the whole Civil Service. And because of the autonomy and the free hand given to the statutory boards, the boards can afford to be more generous in employing and promoting their officers. In terms of income and expenditure, the statutory boards' budget is sizeable too. The total revenue of the seven major statutory boards in Singapore, including HDB, TAS, PUB, PSA, JTC, amounted to more than $6 billion in 1986.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, much has been said about the various policies to be introduced by the Government as outlined in the Finance Minister's Budget statement. I do not intend to repeat them and I would like to confine my comments to the contents of the Budget document presented to Parliament, the question of the impact of the increased Government expenditures on our economy and the tax incentives on offshore services. Sir, it has not been easy to understand the actual financial position of the Government. The format of the Budget presented to Parliament this year is supposed to be an improvement over the previous ones. But if one hopes to get a complete picture of the financial position of the Government by just examining the Budget document, then one is in for a great disappointment. Where are the financial resources and the assets of the Government? They are held by the Government. They are vested with the statutory boards and they are hidden or kept in the Government-owned companies. What Parliament is asked to approve is the budget of the Government which does not include the statutory boards and the Government-owned companies. The statutory boards by themselves operate on a huge budget. Only the amount of grant to be givento those statutory boards which depend on Government funding is stated in the Budget document presented to Parliament. The Budget document makes no mention at all of the self-financing statutory boards, such as PUB, TAS, PSA and STPB. The budgets of these statutory boards are not subject to Parliament control and approval. All of us know that the statutory boards in Singapore constitute an integral and a sizable part of the whole public sector.”
“Invest in new machines, upgrade operations, and improve productivity. The job security of the workers hinges on the viability of the companies they work for. 9. Do not let up in the training of the workers. Do not discontinue the basic education and other skill training and upgrading programmes just because business has slackened. Make full use of the dull period to train the workers. 10. Do share the fruits of success with the workers when good time returns. Devise a suitable productivity incentive and profit sharing scheme. I hope the Acting Minister for Trade and Industry has taken down all my suggestions and observations and convey them to the employers. I have some suggestions for the Government too. I have five proposals to make to the Government. 1. Keep a close eye on the state of industrial relations and ensure that fair play, good sense and reasonableness prevail. 2. Check against companies taking advantage of the situation by -”
“This will help to convince the union leaders who will in turn be better equipped to explain and convince the workers. 3. Do not abdicate the responsibility to explain to the employees the reasons for wage restraint. Do not tell the workers, "I do not mind paying some increments, but the NWC and Government say no." 4. Do not pass the buck to the union. When confronted by any workers, do not take the easy way out by saying, "Your union has agreed to the wage cut. Ask your union." 5. Do not attempt to undermine the position and strength of the union. Employers who think that this is the time to weaken the union and take the opportunity to prove to the workers that the union is indeed useless is committing a grave mistake. You may be successful in undermining the confidence of the workers in the present union leadership. But, in fact, you may be helping in the removal of a responsible union leadership and instal- ling in its place a group of more militant union leaders. The most precious commodity or rather one of the most precious ingredients contributing to our success in attracting investment and maintaining employment stability has been the absence of industrial strife. So, I say, do not destroy our industrial peace and harmony. 6. Do apply the principle of equal sacrifice. Do not freeze the wages of bargainable workers but at the same time give increments, bonuses and other fringe benefits to the management staff. 7. Do not take hasty decision to retrench workers. Workers make sacrifices because they think that will help the company to survive and help to preserve their jobs. So do not make the workers feel that they have been taken for a ride for agreeing to a wage freeze. 8. Do make good use of the savings resulted from the CPF cut and wage restraint.”
“The ground will be confused by such statements and allegations and we just have to keep on countering all these illogical and nonsensical arguments. And we can expect to hear more cries for unemployment benefits, as if the solution to retrenchment and unemployment is to put more people on the dole. Experience elsewhere has shown that the more attractive the unemployment benefits are, the higher the rate of unemployment will be. Secondly, we have to face with some employers and management personnel who do not follow the spirit and the underlying principle of wage restraint or who fail to give adequate explanations to the workers. I have more to say on this later on. Thirdly, there will be some workers, minority though it may be, who are reluctant to accept wage restraint because their employers are seemingly still doing well. I must stress that it is the responsibility of the management to explain and justify to the workers the need for wage restraint. Management must be prepared to share information with the workers and the unions. Whatever wage restraint policy agreed upon must be applied equitably. Management must also demonstrate that the return for wage restraint is job security and employment stability. I would like to propose the following Do's and Don'ts for the employers to consider. Altogether, there are 10 proposals. 1. Do consult and discuss with the union before introducing wage restraint or wage freeze. Do not take unilateral action. If wage increments are embodied in the collective agreement, union's consent must be sought before implementing wage freeze. 2. Do share information concerning the company's financial position with the employees and the union.”
“We cannot afford to wait until more companies close down and more workers are unemployed before we start to take remedial action. We cannot wait until all the foreign companies start to relocate elsewhere before we take effective measures to attract investment to create jobs. Our union leaders have the unenviable task of telling and convincing the workers to accept an unpleasant alternative for the time being, ie, to accept wage restraint. I do not doubt the ability of our people to accept good reasoning and explanations. I am quite confident that our workers are rational. But, of course, that is not to say that all these wage restraint policies can be implemented so smoothly without any hitch. We face some obstacles. Firstly, we have to face all the false allegations made by the opportunists and Opposition politicians who are out to discredit the Government and the unions. They will confuse the public. They will not say that all these wage restraint policies are indeed necessary to protect employment and preserve jobs. I do not expect them to say so. What they will say is that all these are just exercises to exploit workers. When the Government pursued a high wage policy, forced the wages to go up, forced the employers to contribute more to the employees' CPF accounts, all for the benefit of the workers, the Opposition parties said that the Government policies on high CPF and high wages have caused the economic downturn. They joined the employers in campaigning for lower CPF. So when the Government lowered the CPF rate and advocated wage restraint, they said that this was not fair to the workers. So what is wrong and what is right? There is simply no principle involved.”
“The policy has an economic as well as political implication. The Government and the unions have to carry the ground with such a policy. Not only are our political and union leadership put to the test but also are the mettle and determination of our citizens. A number of people have expressed their views privately that perhaps the Government should not force through the wage restraint policy now. This is an unpopular policy. Why not let the event take its own course and when the situation gets worse and the workers' own jobs are threatened, they themselves will volunteer for a wage cut without being told to do so. They will then not resent the Government or the unions' call for wage restraint. Should we take the approach? While the suggestion appears to make some sense, I think it is just not the style of the PAP Government, a responsible Government, to tackle problems in such a manner. This is certainly not the way NTUC and the unions respond to challenges. If we are heading for trouble, we just have to face the problem squarely, take immediate action now, unpleasant though it may be. Yes, we run the risk of losing the support of those who do not realize the seriousness of the problems or understand the justification for corrective action. But to do nothing, or to do otherwise, is to court disaster and lead our country into deep trouble and massive unemployment. The end losers will be our own workers, our own citizens. It is a fallacious belief that the situation today is not serious enough to warrant immediate action. Look at the dismal performance of our economy. Look at the number of workers retrenched. Look at the falling investments. The figures are telling. It calls for immediate action now.”
“The unions are prepared to call on the workers to make short-term sacrifices to help economic recovery and to save jobs. If we ask ourselves, of all the recommendations made by the Economic Committee and the NWC and of all the decisions made by the Government to reduce costs, which is the one issue that has the most profound political implication and is the most difficult to implement, I would say it is the wage restraint policy. Let us look at all the cost-cutting measures and concessions offered by the Government. Cutting rental, cutting property tax, cutting payroll tax, cutting SDF levies, cutting CPF and cutting corporate tax. All these are administrative decisions and incentives which are more than welcomed by the employers. The Government does not have to worry about carrying the ground with such decisions. The employers are happy. They will give their full support. But how about wage restraint? Will our workers be happy? Will they support such a policy? Are we in the situation where our workers are so worried and desperate that they would appreciate and support the union and the Government's call for wage restraint wholeheartedly? Or will they view this as unfair sacrifices forced upon them for the sole purpose of benefitting the employers? For companies which are losing money and facing the prospect of closing down, the workers will no doubt see the need to accept wage freeze or wage cut in order to save the company and to save their own jobs. But if the company is still staying afloat or making profit, though with reduced profits, will the workers accept wage freeze voluntarily and willingly? There is no doubt that the successful implementation of wage restraint policy requires the total understanding of our working populace.”
“To attract investment, corporate tax reduction and a host of other incentives were also introduced. To reduce the wage cost, the Government has suspended the payroll tax and reduced the Skills Development Fund levies. The most drastic measure was, of course, to cut the employers' rate of CPF contribution by 15%. The National Wages Council (NWC) has concluded its deliberations recently. Unlike the recommendations of the previous years which gave quantitative guidelines for wage increases, this year the NWC has recommended a severe wage restraint. What the NWC has recommended, in essence, was that there should be no increase in the average national wage level for this year, and thereafter for as long as necessary. To keep wages down, the NWC recommended that the annual increments to employees be reduced or other components of wages such as the annual wage supplement or the incentive allowance be adjusted. In particular, employees in companies losing money must be prepared not only to forgo their annual increments but also to accept a reduction in wages. Even companies which are still profitable, but are not doing better than previous years, ought not to increase their average wage costs per employee. This is to improve the rate of return on capital and to make investments in Singapore more attractive. NWC is a tripartite council. Its recommendations represent the consensus or agreement among the three parties - the employers, the unions and the Government. The trade union movement's endorsement of this recommendation reflects the unions' serious concern for the state of our economy and the increasing number of jobs lost and unemployment over the last one year.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have claimed the right to speak on the Motion for the Adjournment today on a matter which is of serious concern in the current recession, and this relates to wage restraint. Mr Speaker, Sir, the pressing issue which occupies the mind of all Singaporeans over the last one year has been the state of our economy, the severe recession and unemployment. The Economic Committee has made a thorough study of the matter, identified the root cause of our problems and recommended remedial actions. The Government has subsequently made several policy decisions to help the businessmen and to stimulate the economy. There has been much public debate on this issue and I do not intend to repeat the arguments on what causes the recession, who is to blame and what could have been done, etc. We cannot possibly keep on talking about recession, we have to get on with the task of overcoming the recession. I would therefore like to offer my views and comments on the implementation aspect of the various measures which are designed to combat recession. The central theme of the recommendations of the Economic Committee and the decisions of the Government is to lower the cost of doing business in Singapore. The primary purpose is to regain and strengthen our international competitiveness and to make Singapore a more attractive place for investment. There are two essential components in the cost reduction exercise. One is to reduce the wage cost. The other is to reduce all the other operating and overhead costs. Towards this end, the Government has already introduced measures to reduce the companies' operating and overhead costs by lowering various Government tariff and statutory board charges, like rental, property tax, port charges, etc.”
“It is no longer like haggling and bargaining in the market place as in the past. There is going to be a more scientifically enlightened and sophisticated systematic type of analysis of the company and negotiations. In view of this, I believe the proper staffing both in terms of quantity and quality in the industrial relations section of the Labour Ministry in this respect is very important. Therefore, I hope the Acting Minister for Labour would give the Labour conciliation officers more power and proper guidelines in order to carry out their role more effectively. I would also call upon the Ministry of Labour to organize more study courses and seminars through the National Productivity Board in order to train the Labour relations officers of the unions and the management personnel on the employer side in order to maintain the existing good relationship between the parties concerned in future.”
“The reason is that when a secret balloting is being carried out, the procedure itself gives rise to a worsening of the relations between the two parties from the very start. In many countries, including Japan, when the employees want to form their union, they need not go through secret balloting. I wish to point out that in Singapore the relationship between the employer and the employee is quite mature. Therefore, when the employees want to form a union, it would not be necessary to ask them to take a secret ballot. The other point I would like to raise is that the Ministry of Labour should strengthen the staffing of the Industrial Relations section. I believe in the next five years its staffing position should not be reduced in spite of the Government's policy to reduce manpower by 10%. On the contrary it should be increased. The reason is that the Industrial Relations section will play a continually important role in the future employer-employee relationship towards an era of free collective negotiation and wage reformation. In future, industrial relationship and negotiations will be more complex and will not be dependent only on the profit and loss situation of the company but also on the various systems and the various investments of the company, its capital yield analysis, and so on. Also, in wage reform, there would be the evaluation of each job and the individual assessment of the employee's qualification, background experience, etc. All these will be taken into view. At the same time, in going about wage reform there will be the gradual doing away with annual wage increment in keeping with the company's business condition and its prospect and even a comparison will have to be resorted to with capital yields in other developing countries.”
“A corresponding reduction in the employer's CPF contribution rate for the older workers would have a positive and desirable effect of encouraging the employers to engage these older workers. Sir, I would like to suggest to the Minister to consider these proposals very seriously. Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (Yuhua)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to express my opinion on certain matters under the Ministry of Labour. I support the Member for Kebun Baru for what he has said about CPF, that it is part of the salary of the workers. What we should pay attention to now is that many employers are in arrears as regards their CPF contributions. Not only has the employer's part of the CPF not been paid up, but also the employee's part. That is to say, part of the employee's salary deducted from the employee's pay for CPF contribution is not paid to CPF. This has not only caused a loss to the employees but also when they submit income tax returns because their figures do not tally. Therefore, this has affected the truthfulness of the income tax returns. Therefore, I hope the Minister would review the CPF regulations and if necessary, amend them in order to protect the interest of the employees. The second point is about secret ballotting for recognition of a union. I would urge the Ministry of Labour to review this provision because employer-employee relationship has reached maturity nowadays. We have very responsible unions and workers. When workers want to form a union and before they could request their employer to recognize the union, they have take a decision by way of a secret ballot. I feel that this regulation should be amended because this regulation usually causes a worsening of the relationship between the employer and the employees.”
“Either he will look for jobs which can evade CPF contributions, or the law-abiding employers will have no choice but to raise their salaries in order to attract the workers. Given a choice between a low-paying job which attracts full CPF contribution and another job, say, an odd job which can avoid CPF contributions, a person will tend to take up the latter job which offers a higher take-home pay. If today we are serious in wanting to convince our workers, especially the retrenched workers, to accept and adjust to a lower salary under the present difficult economic conditions, then a lower employee's CPF contribution rate for the lower wage level is a proposal which merits consideration. This will help to ease the pressure on both employer and the employee in offering or requesting for high salary. I would therefore like to suggest to the Minister for Labour that a complete review of the employee's CPF contribution rate be made. To start with, the floor salary above which CPF is payable should be raised. I suggest that the limit should be raised from $200 a month to $300 a month, that is, an employee starts to contribute to CPF only if he earns $300 a month. Even then the employee's CPF savings rate should only be 10%. But the rate of contribution can be increased gradually to the full 25% when his income reaches, say, $800 a month. This 25% contribution rate can be maintained throughout the working life of the employee until he reaches the age of, say, 50 years old when the rate can be gradually reduced. By that time, he will have sufficient savings or would have already owned a home. Hence a reduction in the savings rate could possibly be justified.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, under this amendment I would like to talk about the CPF rate of contribution, in particular the employee's contribution. Sir, presently, employees who earn less than $200 a month need not contribute to CPF. A person starts to contribute to CPF when his salary exceeds $200 a month. He has to contribute the full 25% CPF only if his salary reaches or exceeds $363 a month. Sir, it is pertinent to note that while the CPF contribution rate has been raised over these years, the salary level above which CPF is payable has remained unchanged. As a matter of fact, this floor salary of $200 a month above which CPF is payable was first introduced in 1968, some 18 years ago. Even at that time the full CPF payable for those who earned morethan $363 a month was 6(r)%, and today we are insisting that all those who earn $363 a month must save 25% of their salary for old age or for buying properties. Sir, the take-home pay of a person earning $363 after deducting CPF is only $272. I think it is unrealistic to insist that a person who earns $363 a month today must save 25% of his income. The full salary is not even enough to meet the expenses of the family. Sir, I am not against savings for old age or for helping our citizens to own their homes. But we must be realistic enough to acknowledge the fact that the immediate concern of a person who earns $363 a month is to make ends meet. I believe it is just wishful thinking that we can effectively sustain a high compulsory savings rate for a person earning $300-400 a month, especially if he has to support a family. He will have to resort to ways and means to beat the system.”
“May I know whether the Ministry has plans to improve the conditions of this road? The residents also wish to convey their thanks for the measure to asphalt the road in Lengkong Lima. I wish to ask whether each resident of the area will have to pay for the construction of the road. The last matter, Sir, is in connection with a notification sent to several residents in Kampong Kembangan requiring them either to (a) demolish their timber houses and instead build brick houses or (b) pull down their houses and plant trees so as to enhance the aesthetic value. May I ask what is the rationale behind the proposed measure? And is the Ministry prepared to consider the merits of each individual case in respect of landlords who cannot afford to build such houses. Thank you. 3.45 pm”
“I would like to ask the Minister in charge as to the specific plans for Kampong Pachitan Estate, ie, how many blocks will be built; what types of housing units will be available and what are the facilities that will be provided for the estate? I would also like to ask the Minister how many from among the affected families will enjoy compensation according to the new approved rates. My second question is how were the owners of the semi-detached houses at Lorong Sarina compensated? What was the highest and the lowest compensation payments? Thirdly, I underestand that two or three families have not as yet been relocated. How much longer will they be resettled from this area? The next important matter that I wish to touch on concerns the construction of the underpass which links Chai Chee with Kembangan. I wish to thank the Ministry for the proposal, but many people are asking as to when will the underpass be completed. My third point is in connection with trees in Kampong Kembangan Constituency. I agree with the sentiments expressed by the Member for Kampong Ubi that active attention be given to large trees. In Kampong Kembangan Constituency, there is one private housing estate called Frankel Estate which is 30 years old. In this particular housing estate, there are many large trees with roots blocking the free flow of water in the drains and overhead electrical wires. I am keen to know whether the Ministry has any comprehensive plans to carry out a survey on trees in Frankel Estate and also trees at Jalan Ismail, Jalan Awang and Lorong Marzuki. I also understand that plans are afoot to overcome the traffic congestion in Siglap Road consequent upon the construction of a condominium in Flamingo Valley.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) was set up with the primary objective of promoting and upgrading the construction industry in Singapore. I would like to ask the Hon. Minister for National Development whether significant progress has been made towards achieving the Board's objective. I would like to pose the following questions to the Minister. (1) Has the CIDB been successful in upgrading the building construction industry in Singapore? It has been commented that our construction technology and productivity still lag behind those of the developed countries. Is this assessment correct? (2) Has the Board been able to help local contractors to upgrade their operations and secure more projects both in Singapore and overseas? (3) Has the Board been successful in attracting more Singaporeans to join the building construction trade and undergo skills training? Are we less dependent on foreign workers today? (4) In view of the slow-down in the construction industry, what are the employment prospects for Singaporeans in this particular sector? Encik Yatiman Yusof (Kampong Kembangan)( In Malay): Sir, first I would like to thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. I have six matters to raise with the Minister for National Development. Firstly, it concerns resettlement. Kampong Kembangan Constituency has undergone three resettlement exercises. The first was for Kampong Pachitan Neighbourhood, second for Kembangan tributary and the third for the MRT line. Many residents have already been resettled and to date, the resettlement work has almost been completed.”
“Can I ask: if a motorist wishes to park his car or vehicle for less than half an hour, why should he be asked to pay for one-hour parking?”
“I thank the Minister for the reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $12,849,300 for Head E ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $2,275,400 for Head E ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head U -”
“The Minister's answer is that the claims brought about by the consumers are settled quite expeditiously. Can I ask, on the average, how long does a person have to wait before a case is heard and settled?”
“To the first question, I think he is right about the figure. Indeed for the period that he has mentioned, about 80% of the claims were brought by traders and about 20% by consumers. Is this a cause for concern? I think he would be right about there being a cause for concern if indeed this represents an abuse, or if this is in some way at the expense of the consumers. I would like to assure him that I have looked into his question and I have also discussed this with the Registrar of the Tribunals. The answer is that, although there is a large number of cases brought by traders, it has not been at the expense of consumers or factually causing delay in cases brought by consumers. I have been assured that claims brought by consumers have heen fixed speedily. The point, therefore, is that it may be necessary to have more publicity and more awareness brought about so that consumers may exercise their right to a greater extent. How can this be done? The Consumers Association of Singapore, I think, has done a good job in publicising the workings of the Tribunals and we will get in touch with CASE to see if more can be done. Perhaps the Member for Boon Lay could also assist in publicising the advantages of the Tribunals and the systems for consumers at large. But I would like to assure him that although, at first glance, the number seems surprising, it has not impeded or delayed the settlement of cases brought by consumers. Furthermore, whether or not it has been abused, the answer is no because there are provisions in the Act which enable those in the court to reject cases which are frivolous.”
“Minister for Law: (1) Has the Small Claims Tribunals been able to settle all cases and claims expeditiously and provide adequate consumer protection? (2) Is there an increasing trend of more traders utilizing the services of the Small Claims Tribunals? If so, is there any indication of abuses, and how does the Ministry propose to check such abuses? (3) Are the consumers in Singapore sufficiently aware of the avenues that are open to them to seek redress through the Small Claims Tribunals, and whether further public education is necessary? The Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, in reply to the Member for Boon Lay. During the Second Reading of the Small Claims Tribunals Bill, he indeed, together with other Members, raised certain concerns about provisions of the Bill. One of the concerns he expressed was the provision which allowed both traders as well as consumers to utilize the court. I believe he was of the opinion that the Small Claims Tribunals Court should be exclusively reserved for claims brought by consumers. But, as I had explained during the Second Reading of the Bill, there were good reasons why both consumers as well as traders should be allowed to utilize the court. I might add that this feature that both traders and consumers utilize the court was emphatically proposed by the Judiciary itself. I do not think it could probably be otherwise, for then it may attract constitutional argument of violation of the equal protection provisions in the Constitution. The main question that arises from the figures mentioned by the hon. Member is whether that gives an overwhelming majority or a large majority of the cases attributable to claims by traders and, if so, is this an abuse at the expense of the consumers?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head E be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead EA-04 Object Group 1000 of the Main Estimates. Sir, the Small Claims Tribunals Act was introduced in 1984 to provide for a speedy and inexpensive machinery to handle small claims arising from disputes between consumer and the supplier. The setting up of the Small Claims Tribunals is to provide consumers with a simple, informal and inexpensive way of seeking redress for the shoddy services or defective goods supplied by the sellers. Sir, when the Bill was introduced in this House I spoke in support of this Bill but I did caution against the possible abuse by traders who might take advantage of the services of the Small Claims Tribunals to recover money from their debtors, thus turning the Small Claims Tribunals into their debt collecting agency. It has been more than a year since the Small Claims Tribunals were established, and the statistics on the number of cases handled by the Tribunals show that my initial reservations and fears were not unfounded. In fact, between February and December 1985, the Tribunal received 3,788 claims. However, the majority of these proceedings were brought by traders rather than consumers. In fact, 3,049 claims, or over 80%, were lodged by businesses or companies, either against other traders or against individuals. 11.45 am Sir, we must prevent the overwhelming domination of the Small Claims process by businessmen and traders at the expense of the consumers. We must also at least prevent abuse by some traders who repeatedly utilize the service of the Small Claims Tribunals for the purpose of collecting outstanding debts. I would, therefore, like to pose the following questions to the Hon.”
“Stop recruiting young and able-bodied persons for the relatively simple and unproductive jobs. Give the older workers a chance. Sir, in conclusion, I would like to express my support of the broad strategies and policies recommended by the Economic Committee. The Committee's Report is no doubt a very comprehensive one. There may be differences in views in some specific proposals among different interested parties. But that should not divert our attention from the basic issue and the pressing need to enhance our competitiveness, attract investment, stimulate growth and create jobs. Let us also not forget that how soon we can get out of the current recession depends not only on our own effort but also on the development in the world and in the region. Our neighbouring countries are also facing difficulties. They have revised their growth targets more than once and the future is still not that certain. If we do not make painful adjustments now, we may lose out both in the short term and in the long run. For Singaporeans, this is a time when our ability and determination to work as a team to withstand and overcome adversities is put to the test. Can all Singaporeans, whether they are employers or workers, work cohesively with the new generation of political leaders to overcome the current difficulties, or will we just quarrel among ourselves and sink in the process? This is the question. And I would like to believe that the answer to this question would be a positive one. Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of the Member for Changkat. 11.18 am”
“In many instances, the employers are not willing to employ older workers even if they are prepared to accept a lower salary. Furthermore, most of the jobs that are available and the new jobs that are created do not suit the older workers. For instance, those who are retrenched by the shipyards could not possibly find jobs in the new electronic or computer firms. This problem of structural unemployment will become more serious in the years to come. There is an urgency for us to tackle this problem. The Economic Committee has suggested several measures to encourage the employment of older workers. I would, in principle, support the measures recommended, including the proposal to reduce the CPF contribution rate for older workers. I would go further to suggest that the Government should take a lead and set an example in offering employment to the older workers. Certain jobs should be reserved exclusively for the older workers. As an illustration, let us look at the job of URA and HDB car park attendants. I think it is a mere waste of valuable manpower resources for the young men and girls in their 20's and 30's to do such unproductive work; walking and strolling around the car park. They are able-bodied and should be working in the productive sector of our economy. The job of car park attendants and wardens should rightly be reserved for people who are, say, over 50 years of age. When the URA and the HDB recruit car park attendants, they should not look for young and pretty girls. They should employ older men and women. What I have just quoted is one example. I am sure there are other jobs which can likewise be done by the older workers. Perhaps the Government should form a task force to identify such jobs.”
“But at the same time, the Committee has suggested that the Government should shift from direct to indirect taxes as its main source of revenue. If the idea is that the loss in the Government revenue resulting from a cut in income tax should be made up by the imposition of indirect tax, such as consumption tax or sales tax, then I would urge the Government to consider very carefully the impact of such a consumption tax on the low income group. In contrast with income tax, is progressive and places heavier tax on higher income, the general application of sales or consumption tax is regressive and places relatively heavier burden on the lower income group who spend most, if not all, of their income on food, clothing and other basic necessities. I would not support any move to impose the sales or consumption tax now or in the future, unless a tax is imposed selectively, only on the non-essential items and services. By all means, impose taxes on those who patronize restaurants and nightclubs. But do not ask our poor wage earners to pay tax at hawker centres, markets or provision shops. Sir, in the Report, the Economic Committee has focussed its attention on ways and means of helping our businessmen and employers. This is rightly so as the recovery of our economy hinges on the viability and success of our business enterprises. But at the same time, we must be sympathetic to the plight of the workers who lost their jobs in the current recession. In this connection, I would urge the Government to pay special attention to the retrenched workers, particularly the middle-aged and older workers. The problem which the older retrenched workers are facing is that the employers are reluctant to employ them. There are prejudices against the older workers.”
“Just as wages are difficult to come down, so are the prices of goods and services. In the past, whenever the NWC made its recommendations, the prices of hawker food would go up. So would the costs of other goods and services. Even the bus fare and other Government charges went up, usually justified on the ground of increased wage cost. With the proposed wage restraint and the CPF cut of 15%, will the cost of hawker food go down by 15%? Will the bus fare go down by 15%? Will HDB rental and conservancy charges go down too?I would think that all organizations, Government or private, who provide services to the public and who have in the past raised their charges by citing reason of higher wage cost, have the moral obligation to lower their fees after the implementation of cost cutting measures announced by the Government. I do not intend to dwell further on this matter. But suffice it to say that the Government should monitor the cost of living closely. If the wages are held constant but the inflation goes up to the extent of hurting our people badly, especially the low income group, then temporary measures like reducing the employee's contributions to CPF should be considered. This is to enable the workers to have a higher take home pay to tide over the difficult times. It is well for the Government to be paternalistic and insist that every Singaproean must own a home. But let us set our priorities right. To the low income group, their immediate concern is to make ends meet. Owning a home is of secondary importance. I think the Government should recognize this. Sir, the suggestion to cut personal income tax, as proposed by the Economic Committee, appears to be an attractive proposition.”