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 7 of 9.
“Sir, one of the main objectives of the present exercise to reduce costs is really to preserve jobs and to create jobs. This is meaningful only if the companies re-invest their profits to expand their operations and create employment. It would be morally wrong for companies to distribute increased profits and savings resulted from wage cost reduction by way of higher dividends and bonuses to shareholders and managers. We cannot possibly expect the workers to accept wage freeze if at the same time the managers are getting increased bonuses. This may sound unlikely to happen at this time but the sad thing is that it does happen. There was this company which has made more profits in 1985 than in 1984. After having paid the managerial staff increased bonuses (in fact, three months' bonuses), the company now comes to the union to ask for wage freeze for the bargainable employees. Is this fair? Should we allow this? What I am trying to say, Sir, is that our workers will be prepared to accept wage freeze or, if necessary, wage cut and the unions will be able to help to explain and convince the workers to exercise restraint provided the cost cutting measures are applied fairly and equitably and that the workers do not perceive their losses as somebody else's gains. There is a Chinese saying (Guo bu huan qiong zhi huan bu jun ( ). Translated into English, it means: A nation's concern or worry is not poverty. Its main worry is inequity. There is much wisdom in this saying. And all those in charge of companies, corporations or the Government should take note of this. With the wage restraint and cut in CPF, will our workers suffer a serious drop in the standard of living? One indication to watch is the cost of living and inflation.”
“Sir, while I agree with the suggestion of the Economic Committee to exercise severe wage restraint in the next two years, I do not think that freezing the workers' wages across the board for all companies, regardless of their financial and competitive positions, is a desirable or practical proposition. The wage levels of different companies, even those in the same business, are different. The average wage cost of a newly established company can be significantly lower than that of a long-established company. The significance of wage cost as a percentage of the total operating cost as well as the performance and profitability of companies differ too. Whilst certain companies may require a wage cut to remain viable, there will be some who can afford to make incremental adjustments, small though it may be. As an illustration, if the average wage of the production workers of a company is, say, $400 as against the industry average of, say $600, there is no reason why the company should be prevented from offer- ing some increments or incentive payments to their employees if the company can afford to do so, and indeed intend to do so. On the other hand, if the average wage of the workers of a company is significantly higher than the industry average and the company is facing financial difficulties, then a wage freeze may not even be enough. So whilst it is wise and necessary to implement a national policy of wage restraint for the next one or two years, we should not have an across-the-board policy to freeze wages. We should not replace one form of wage rigidity by another form of rigidity. We must allow for flexibility, which is the principle advocated so strongly and forcefully by the Economic Committee.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Economic Committee's Report referred to in the Presidential Address has recommended short and long term measures to stimulate growth. It has recommended immediate cost reduction to help our companies to regain competitiveness and to attract investment. In addition to a 15% cut in the employers' rate of CPF contributions, the Committee proposed a wage restraint in the next two years. Sir, it would appear rather easy to achieve cost reduction by simply applying a policy and administrative decision to cut the CPF rate of contribution. To the workers it means a pay cut, a cut in their savings. But the workers would, I believe, accept the cut if they understand that such a move is indeed necessary to save jobs and to create jobs. But one must realize that although a cut in the CPF rate of contribution will help our companies, in particular the efficiently managed companies, to strengthen their competitiveness, it will at the same time help the inefficient companies to remain viable. Already we have heard complaints by some employers crying that a 15% cut is not enough. There are companies who because of poor management will never be able to compete, no matter how low the wage cost is. And there are those who like to operate in Singapore but are only prepared to pay Sri-Lankan wages. Should we make up for the lack of business acumen and efficiency on the part of these employers by further reducing the wage cost and CPF? My answer is no. And I think it is wrong to create in the minds of the employers that if their companies could not perform up to expectation, the Government will help them further by cutting deeper into the CPF or the wages.”
“Sir, when the Minister said that he is prepared to review, does he mean that he is prepared to consider deferring the implementation of the tax, to introduce gradual changes or to even scrap the diesel tax altogether?”
“My second point is, in the event that penalty interest is levied on the employers who were in arrears of CPF contributions, I understand that the interest collected is not credited to the CPF members but re- garded as the income of the Board. I think this is not fair to the CPF account holders, and I suggest that a portion of the interest equivalent to what the Board pays to the CPF savings should be credited to the members.”
“In recent months there have been frequent reports in the press of the defaults by employers, their failure to pay to the CPF Board not only their contributions to the CPF but also their employee's contributions. Sir, CPF contribution is part of employee's wages, and it will be tantamount to daylight robbery if an employer, after deducting CPF contributions for his employee's salary, fails to credit the amount to his employee's account. I suggest the CPF Board be more vigilant in the collection of CPF contributions. I understand that sometimes the CPF Board does not want to press the company too hard for fear of forcing the company into bankruptcy, but action must always be taken before it is too late. I am aware of cases where the CPF Board tried to give the company some breathing space, but other creditors could not wait and proceeded to take action to recover the debt. The employees were therefore left high and dry. I believe there must be adequate provisions in our legislation which accord top priority to the recovery of the employee's CPF. The interest of the employees must come first under such circumstances. Sir, I would also like to take this opportunity to make two comments regarding some specific provisions of the Central Provident Fund Act. My first comment is, if it is the requirement of the CPF Board that employers must make their monthly payments promptly, why is there a need to have section 6 (1) which authorized the Board to allow an employer to pay CPF contributions at intervals not exceeding six months? Would it not convey to the employers the wrong impression that they can delay payment for as long as six months?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, many comments and suggestions have been put forward by Members of this House, and the members of the public regarding CPF contributions. The most unkind of them all, I believe, is the proposal advocated so strongly by the Member for Potong Pasir, ie, to reduce the CPF rate of contribution. Sir, CPF is workers' money. To suggest reducing CPF is to suggest reducing the pay and reducing the savings of the workers. I strongly object and detest such a move. Rather than suggesting a reduction in CPF, I think the more sensible thing to do is to see how the CPF money can be better utilized to serve the interest and the need of the CPF members. The CPF scheme has enabled the ordinary citizen to own a home. It has helped our citizens to save for old age. It has enabled our people to save money to pay for medical expenses through Medisave. As and when the CPF members have accumulated sufficient savings in their account for old age, the Government should perhaps consider further liberalizing the use of CPF savings. The use of CPF savings for tertiary education of the account holder's children or for their own education, for instance, should be seriously considered by the Government. Here, I would like to express my support for the views expressed by the Member for Kebun Baru and the Member for Jalan Kayu for the use of CPF for education and training. Sir, as I have mentioned earlier, CPF savings are workers' money, and we must ensure that whatever contributions which are due to the workers must be credited to their CPF accounts. It is in this connection that I wish to voice my concern over the collection of CPF contributions by the CPF Board.”
“Sir, on the whole I am still not satisfied with the standard of maintenance in Boon Lay, and I would like to request the HDB to pay greater attention to the improvement and maintenance of this estate. The second point which I would like to bring up concerns the lorry and heavy vehicle parking facilities. In answer to my question yesterday, the Minister for National Development said that centralized lorry parking lots would be provided at Jurong Stadium. This is to serve the residents of Jurong and Boon Lay. I must point out to the Minister that Jurong Stadium is in Jurong and not in Boon Lay. Jurong Stadium is quite a distance away from Boon Lay. The lorry drivers and the owners in Boon Lay are not asking for parking places next to their flats, but certainly Jurong Stadium is a bit too far away. Sir, although Boon Lay Housing Estate is already fully developed, there are a few vacant lands surrounding the estate which have not been developed. I would therefore like to request the Ministry to consider allocating one piece of land around Boon Lay for the building of a centralized lorry park.”
“Thank you. Sir, when the HDB took over the management of the Boon Lay Housing Estate from JTC in May 1982, I was given the assurance that improvements would be made to the estate. In reply to my complaints of the frequent breakdown of lifts in the estate, the then Minister of State said in this House that extensive repairs and improvement work had been carried out on the lifts, and that if the performance of lifts continued to be unsatisfactory, despite repairs, they would be replaced. Sir, there are quite a number of blocks of flats in Boon Lay, which are as large as 440 units per block and each block is served by only four lifts. There is an average of 110 units per lift. The number of lifts provided is insufficient and the usage is heavy. Coupled with the poor quality and the wear and tear, the frequency of breakdowns has gone beyond tolerable limits. In spite of my request for the installation of additional lifts or replacement of the old ones, the HDB believes in keeping on repairing and repairing. Sir, let me inform the Hon. Minister for National Development that on Polling Day on 22nd December last year, both the two lifts at one wing of one of the blocks broke down, and that was the day when every- one of the households, every voter, including the aged and the sick, had to leave their homes to go to the Polling Stations. I know all my residents who were affected by this breakdown were cursing all their way to the Polling Station. Sir, I must put on record my strongest protest to the Minister for the occurrence of such incidents on the Polling Day, and I want his assurance that such an incident would not occur again.”
“Sir, I have an amendment on Subhead TG-01, under which I will be talking about lifts and certain facilities in my estate. Can I speak now?”
“Sir, can I ask the Minister when will the new arrangement come into effect?”
“There must be other non-inflationary measures which can be explored and introduced by the Government. The imposition of diesel tax too has caused much dissatisfaction and anxiety among the taxi drivers. In spite of the assurance given by the Minister for Communications and Information, there is fear among the taxi drivers of a possible drastic drop in demand, thus affecting their income. I would like to join my fellow MPs in this House to appeal to the Minister for Finance to consider reducing the diesel tax if the income of taxi drivers is indeed adversely affected by a drop in demand.”
“Presently, in my view, the Government has not been providing adequate guidance to the workers, especially those engaged in the sunset industries, on the types of skills that they should try to acquire. Neither is the VITB adequately equipped to train large numbers of existing workers. The SDF too does not have any scheme to sponsor retrenched workers for skills training. If you are out of employment, you do not qualify for SDF grant, the only exception being the BEST programme. I suggest that the Minister for Finance ask the Ministry of Trade and Industry, SDF and VITB, to study the problem or set up a special task force for this purpose. At a later stage, the Government may have to consider introducing incentives to encourage companies to employ older workers. Finally, Sir, let me say a few words regarding measures taken by the Government to curb car ownership. I am sure the Minister for Finance is aware that increasing road tax, diesel tax, petrol tax and taxi fares has an inflationary effect. It causes a chain reaction in price increases. The general public will suffer as a result. Many of my colleagues in this House have already voiced their concern yesterday about the impending rise in the cost of living. Let me inform the Hon. Minister for Finance that the price hike has already taken place. Last night, someone told me that he has to pay 10 cents more for a cup of coffee at a hawker stall which he frequents. A colleague of mine had to pay $2 more for a hair-cut when he went to a barber shop two days ago. Sir, I am not convinced that the ultimate solution to the problem of increased car population and road congestion is to keep increasing levies on car owners and car users.”
“Reduction of SDF levy should not be misconstrued to imply that we are relenting in our effort to train our workers. The Minister said that SDF has accumulated a sizable balance and hence it was possible to lower the rate of contribution without jeopardizing the scope and effectiveness of the SDF programme. I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the need to pay particular attention to the retraining of our older workers. It is true that jobs are plentiful in Singapore. But it is also true that many older workers, especially those who are retrenched by their employers after spending many years with the company, could not fit into the new jobs which are created by the establishment of new industries. There is a mismatch between the job seekers and the job vacancies. Many of these workers who are above 45 years of age are unskilled or illiterate. It would be very difficult for them to find jobs of reasonable remuneration once they are retrenched. Many of them tried to apply for a hawker stall or to become a taxi driver. But the Government has stopped building new hawker centres and driving a taxi today is not necessarily a lucrative vocation. The Government may wish to introduce schemes to encourage these workers to take up part-time skill training. It would be better for them to attend some upgrading courses so that they can acquire marketable skills and seek alternative employment when they are phased out of their present jobs. The solution to the problems of retrenched workers is not, as the Member for Anson suggested, to put them on the dole. This is most humiliating. The solution, Sir, is to help them find gainful employment. This is where the Government can help.”
“" But what puzzles me is that, while highlighting the importance of education and training, the Minister has, at the same time, allowed for a reduction of the Skills Development Fund levy. I can understand the reasons why the Government has decided to scrap the payroll tax and to reduce the SDF levy. This is to reduce the costs of doing business in Singapore. While I can join the employers and the businessmen in applauding the Government's decision to suspend the collection of payroll tax, I cannot agree to the reduction of SDF levy without expressing some reservations. First of all, employers must be reminded that SDF levy is not a Government tax which is slapped on the companies arbitrarily. SDF was set up during the implementation of the economic restruc- turing and wage correction policy for a very specific purpose of upgrading our workforce. The Fund was set up with the consensus of the employers, the unions and the Government. The contribution to the SDF, which started from 1979, was as a matter of fact part of the wage increases agreed upon by the NWC. The 4% SDF contributions could have been added to the disposable income of the workers. I cannot therefore agree to the reduction of the SDF without feeling some loss on the part of the employees. I must remind the employers of their obligations to train and retrain the workers. The Minister for Finance has decided to reduce the SDF levy with the good intention of lightening the burden of the employers which I would have no objection if this is indeed going to make the company more competitive. After all, if our workers can help to make the companies more viable, why not. But the employers should not lose sight of the original objective of the SDF.”
“The NWC usually recommends a range of wage increases as a guideline. The recommendations take into consideration the previous year's economic performance, prevailing business conditions, and projection for the future. The employers and the unions use the guideline as a basis for negotiation and the actual settlement depends on the profitability of the establishment, the existing wage level, the productivity of the workforce, and the situation of supply and demand. This explains why there are employers who are prepared to pay even beyond what the NWC recommends and there are some who pay below the guideline because of financial and other constraints. But if you take away NWC recommendations and ask both parties to start negotiating from a blank sheet of paper, you are asking for a lot, of trouble. The Member for Rochore has suggested yesterday that the union should not use the reduction of payroll tax and SDF levy as a leverage to ask for more wage increase. My response to him is that instead of leaving it to the individual union and employer to argue over this matter, NWC is the best forum where such issues can be discussed sensibly and rationally. NTUC will ask for what we think is fair to our workers. I hope the Minister for Finance do agree with my view of the need to retain NWC. Sir, in the final analysis, the wage level and earning capacity of our workers will depend basically on their education and skill levels. I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister for Finance's statement that "education and training is the cornerstone of our economic upgrading strategy and the key to a better life for our people.”
“I hope that the Committee will examine thoroughly all the factors that affect Singapore's competitiveness. Sir, the distribution of wealth and the share of economic and productivity gains in the form of wages has, in the past more than one decade, been determined to a significant extent by the National Wages Council (NWC). NWC has served a useful purpose. Not only has this tripartite body brought about orderly wage increases in the last 13 years but it has also contributed greatly to the industrial peace and harmony which we are enjoying today. There is no denying that because of the existence of NWC recommendations, intense negotiation and bargaining, which is adversarial in nature, has been alleviated at the enterprise level. Wage increases and collective agreement negotiations have been concluded rather expeditiously because both parties, the union and management, could use the NWC guidelines as the basis for negotiation. NWC, as an institution, has served us well. It has contributed to the industrial peace which should not be taken for granted. We should not forget that political stability and industrial peace is the single most important factor in influencing an investor's decision to invest in Singapore. You can have the cheapest labour cost in the world. You can have the most attractive incentive schemes to lure the investors. You can scrap all the Government taxes and levies. But with political strife and industrial unrest, you are going to attract nobody. Some employers have suggested that NWC should be phased out because it resulted in unrealistic wage increases. Under the present business and economic conditions, the pressure is even greater for the abolition of NWC. But the arguments and reasons put forward are, in my view, far from convincing.”
“But I am rather annoyed that the rising wages of our ordinary worker is singled out as the factor which affects the competitiveness of our industry and exports. If Singapore wishes to remain competitive, not only should the wages of the production workers be competitive, so must the wages of technicians, engineers and managers. And how about the overheads and other operating costs? We all know that land cost and property prices in Singapore are high. The transportation cost is high and is getting higher, The utilities and other overhead expenses are high. I think it would be wrong to pursue a policy which allows the overheads and other operating costs to rise while, at the same time, trying to maintain our competitiveness by keeping wages low. Our people will become worse off at the end of the day because they will have to live with rising costs and inflation. I must also caution the Minister for Finance that if we want to succeed in attracting high-technology, high value-added industries into Singapore, we must build up a sufficiently large pool of technicians and engineers who are available at reasonable cost. Our competitiveness and our ability to attract high technology investments will be determined not by the availability of a large number of unskilled cheap labour but rather by the supply of a large pool of skilled workers, technicians and engineers. The Government must intensify its programme to produce more engineers and technicians so that, by supply and demand and pricing mechanism, the wage cost of such categories of personnel can be adjusted to a more reasonable level. Sir, I welcome the Minister's plan to set up a high level committee to undertake an in-depth review of our economic development plan.”
“But a stark fact which is thrown up from these figures is that although, in percentage terms, all categories of workers enjoy more or less the same rate of wage increase, the income gap between the manual worker and the managerial staff in quantitative terms, in dollars and cents, has widened. This can be easily understood. A 10% wage increase for a person who earns $500 is $50. But a 10% wage increase for a person earning $2,000 is $200. Whereas in 1975, the income gap between a manual worker and a managerial staff was $900 in 1984, it has widened to $1,700. Sir, as we know, the disparity in income between the manual and the skilled and managerial staff is due essentially to the difference in educational and skill levels and the influence of supply and demand. Because of the rapid economic growth, skilled workers, engineers and managers were in great demand. Their wages therefore went up. While we could bring in unskilled workers in large numbers to meet our demand for labour, we were not able to do so for the professional and technical staff because of the scarcity of such personnel. The wages of the technical and managerial staff in Singapore have escalated to the extent that today our engineers and managers are getting more than their counterparts in the developed countries. While the production workers in Singapore are earning about one-third or one-fourth of their counterparts in Europe or America, our engineers and managers are getting more than their counterparts in these countries. Sir, I am not begrudging the high wages of our engineers and managers. We know that the cost of living of the middle income group, for instance, the cost of owning a house and the cost of owning a car, is very high.”
“Even if the figures were adjusted for inflation, the average real growth in wages is over 6% annually. By any standard, this is a remarkable achievement. Due credit must be given to our Government, our businessmen, our workers and, of course, our trade unions. The next question is, have our ordinary citizens benefited much from the wage increases in comparison with the better qualified professional, technical and managerial staff? Is it true that the wage increases enjoyed by the ordinary worker is what we call "peanuts", which is nothing to boast about? Let us look at the figures and statistics again. In 1975, the average wage of the production and manual worker was $320. In 1984, the average wage was $730. The annual increase over the 10-year period averages 10.2%. For the clerical, sales and service related workers, the monthly wages increased from $400 in 1975 to $810 in 1984. The annual increase was about 8.5%. Now, how about the professional and managerial staff? In 1975, the average wage of this category of employees was $1,200. In 1984, it was $2,400. The annual increase was also around 8.5%. So, over this 10-year period, from 1975 to 1984, annual wage increase of production and manual worker was 10.2%. The increase for clerical and sales worker as well as for the professional and executive was about 8.5%. Looking at these figures, we can see that the increase of income of our population, in percentage terms, is fairly uniform. There is therefore no ground for complaints that our lower educated, lower income group, is not getting a fair deal for their effort, and a fair share of the economic growth.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in his Budget statement, the Minister for Finance said that "the outlook for 1985 is not as rosy as for last year." But he went on to say that "the last five years have been years of exceptional prosperity for Singapore and for Singaporeans." Sir, when unveiling the 'Vision for Singapore by 1999', the First Deputy Prime Minister also boldly proclaimed that by 1999 Singapore will become a developed country, with a standard of living which is better than the Americans and the Japanese and equal to the Swiss today. Sir, such a vision and promises really sound exciting. Are they achievable? When the Minister for Finance and the First Deputy Prime Minister talked about matching the standard of living of the Japanese or the Swiss, they were referring to the per capita income. Yes, based on the projections of our economic growth, we can reach the targeted per capita income. But I must say that the figure of per capita income by itself is not an absolute measure of the well-being and comfort of our entire population. Labour share of national income, distribution of income and cost of living are important factors to consider. Our labour share of national income, in terms of wages, for instance, still falls below that of the Japanese and the Swiss. Per capita income only tells us half the story. To complete the picture, we must also set targets with respect to other social and economic indicators. Sir, I have examined the income figures of our workers over the last 10 years. In 1975, the average monthly income of all the salaried workers in Singapore was $480. In 1984, it has increased to $1,094. The annual average increase in wages over the 10-year period was around 10%.”
“The Consumers Association of Singapore can also help to disseminate the necessary information on the workings of this tribunal and how to have resort to it. Co-operation from all parties is necessary if the tribunal is to play an effective role in ensuring justice for consumers. Businessmen too must accept the tribunal with an open mind and with goodwill for they must not forget that they too are consumers when they acquire goods and services for their needs. Furthermore, the business community as a whole will profit from having such a tribunal for it will serve to weed out the black sheep in their community who make it a point to fleece, defraud or short-change their customers by providing them with shoddy goods or sub-standard service. With these comments, Sir, I support the Bill. 3.38 pm”
“However, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister on three points. First, does the Bill cover not only the sale and purchase of goods but also the rendering of all types of services as well? For instance, can a person institute claims on poor workmanship of, say, the tiling and painting work done by a contractor? Can an HDB flatowner, say, claim compensation from the HDB for his leaking toilet? All the small claims add up together would become a big claim for the HDB. Can the tribunal possibly handle and arbitrate on such complaints? My second question is: will the Bill cover the claiming of wages by an employee for the services provided for the employer? I do not believe the Bill should cover this because there are relevant labour legislation to cover payment of salaries. But would the Minister please confirm this point? My third question is: can a trader or seller of goods and services lodge a claim in an attempt to recover money from the buyer of goods if the buyer fails to make payment according to the agreed payment plan? If so, would the tribunal degenerate into a debt collection agency utilized by the traders and creditors for recovering money that consumers owe them? I understand that this was the experience of Canada and the United States when they first set up the Small Claims Court. Sir, in order that the general consumers are aware of the existence and the function of the Small Claims Tribunal, l suggest that adequate publicity be given to this Bill. It is essential that our consumers not only be aware of the existence of the proposed tribunal but also of the manner in which they can have access to it.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the introduction of the Small Claims Tribunals Bill marks a further milestone in consumer protection in Singapore. It will not only strengthen the Consumer Protection Act which was passed by this House in 1975 but also provide what it did not give, ie legal redress for consumers through a tribunal. The underlying principles of the proposed Small Claims Tribunals Bill are commendable. It aims to provide the consumer with a simple, informal and inexpensive way of having his complaint heard. This is underlined by the fact that advocates and solicitors have no right of appearance before the tribunal. Sir, traditional justice places the consumers at a legal disadvantage in view of the prohibitive cost of legal proceedings, the long delays involved before justice can be meted out and the formal procedures and legal jargon involved, all of which have often deterred the average consumer from seeking redress through the Courts. The Small Claims Tribunal would eliminate all this. By precluding lawyers, it will place the consumer on a more or less equal footing with the traders, businessmen or suppliers of services. Since both parties have to argue their cases out in the tribunal, both sides, especially the consumer, will save on legal fees. Of course, unethical traders and businessmen who resort to underhand sales tactics would now think twice before resorting to such unethical methods in their normal day-to-day business. The other virtues of the tribunal such as its air of informality, simplified court procedures and the exclusion of the rigid rules of evidence like in the normal courts make the tribunal a very desirable one to be established in Singapore for the benefit of consumers.”
“Sir, the amendment Bill confers upon the employers several management prerogatives, including flexibility in devising the work schedule and in paying salaries by cheque or through the bank account, etc. All these were proposed in the name of productivity, efficiency and optimum utilization of plant and machinery. We can convince and mobilize our workers to support measures to improve productivity and efficiency. This is good for our economy and our nation. But at the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves the question: Have the workers benefitted from the productivity improvement and have they been given a fair share of the fruits of success? I therefore hope that the employers in Singapore would view the amendments to the Employment Act in the right perspective. They should exercise their prerogative and discretion in the right spirit and in the right manner. Management should adopt a consultative rather than an autocratic approach before introducing any changes. And most important of all, the employers must have the interest of the workers at head and be prepared to share with the employees whatever gains or benefits derived from higher productivity and better utilization of capital, equipment and manpower resources. 7.00 pm”
“But this shift system is still a fairly new work arrangement and its validity in increasing productivity and work motivation has not yet been fully established. One common physiological effect arising from long hours of work is fatigue. Research has shown that a sudden increase in working hours could result either in a perceptible reduction in productivity or a significant increase in symptoms of fatigue. I would urge companies which intend to introduce the 12-hour shift to study their nature of operations and to obtain the views of the workers. If the work is strenuous and intensive and if working conditions are adverse, such as extreme hot or cold, high levels of noise, vibration and dust, the 12-hour rotating shift system can cause serious detriment to the health of the workers. On the other hand, the 12-hour shift system may be more suitable for light work or for tasks having numerous rest pauses and waiting time arising from the nature of the operations. I must stress that higher productivity must not be achieved at the expense of workers' health and safety. The proposed amendment relating to the progressive increase in the annual leave entitlement with the length of service is in line with the policy of encouraging the workers to stay with their employer. This is worthy of support. I also fully support the proposed amendment to section 76 which allows a female employee to take less than four weeks pre-confinement leave so she could have longer post-confinement leave. Apart from allowing the female to exercise their preference, the flexibility of a longer post-confinement leave will also give the female employees more time to work out their child-care arrangement.”
“Employees of any company are assigned different duties and responsibilities. For some, their jobs entail handling cash; for others, they may be entrusted with the delivery and transportation of goods. Such jobs incur some degree of risk. And the workers are liable for loss or damage. It is therefore not surprising that jobs of such nature which incur such risk are shunned by many. I would suggest that the employers should always explore ways and means of improving their systems and methods of handling goods and cash. There may not be foolproof methods in all instances. But it makes better sense to try to introduce control to prevent losses from occurring rather than to try to attribute the blame on the workers. The proposed amendments to section 38 and section 40 allow greater flexibility for employers in scheduling the working days and working hours. One would perhaps understand the flexibility afforded to employers, as set out in the proposed amendments, in the light of our drive towards a high-technology and high value-added economy characterized by extensive automation and mechanization. The proposed provisions will enable those employers who have automated to a high level to be in a position to better organize their manpower resources so as to derive optimal performance and returns. But I must stress that employers should not be allowed to abuse the provisions of the Act by changing the work pattern arbitrarily just to avoid paying overtime when the need for overtime work arises. The amendments to the Act allow employers to implement a 12-hour shift. The most common arguments put forward in support of a 12-hour shift system is the need to optimize and maximize the utilization of expensive plant and equipment.”
“This perhaps explains why, even before the proposed amendment is mooted, many workers have not only been receptive to the idea of payment through bank accounts but have accepted it. In companies where the new mode of payment was introduced without much difficulties, this was usually achieved through proper and clear explanations to the workers of the advantages of such a scheme. Employers must also help to allay the fear of the workers in operating a bank account. I would suggest that employers contemplating convening to payment through bank accounts should learn from the experience of those who have implemented the scheme to the satisfaction of their employees. I believe if employers consult the union and adopt the encouragement and soft-sell approach rather than maintain an authoritative stand towards the whole matter, they would have the cooperation of their employees. I need not emphasize here again the importance of adequate banking facilities towards the successful operation of such a scheme. Employers should see to it that such banking facilities are available for the convenience of their workers. They may wish to consider staggered pay days or earlier pay days for their workers. This will greatly reduce the need for their workers to join the long queue which is a regular feature at most banks and teller machines during the end of the month. The proposed amendment to section 29 provides for deduction of the employee's salary for damages or loss of goods caused by negligence to a maximum of one-quarter of the worker's one month's salary. Presently, the maximum deduction is one-quarter of the wages or $50, whichever is the less. Sir, it is indeed unfortunate that even inflation has caught up with this particular provision of the Act.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed amendments to the Employment Act as encompassed in the Bill before the House have some rather significant features. Underlying some of these proposed changes are subtle but important implications for our workers. Sir, let me comment on some of the main amendments proposed in the Bill. To begin with, I would say that the proposed amendment to the definition of "employee" which will bring watchmen and security guards within the scope of the Act is a welcome move. It is a known fact that this category of workers sometimes work long and odd hours. It is only reasonable and equitable that they be afforded with adequate protection and be provided with the basic benefits of employment as governed by the Act. The proposed amendment to section 21 allows for overtime payment to be made not later than 14 days after the last day of the salary period. The original provision was that payment must be made within seven days. The reason for the amendment, I believe, is that employers have found it difficult to pay salary for overtime within seven days as the overtime payment cannot be computed in advance. But I would imagine that with computerization and improved payment systems, the employers should be able to compute overtime payments rather expeditiously. I hope the employer would not cite this new provision as an excuse to unduly delay overtime payment to workers. The proposed amendments to section 25 and section 63 seek to allow employers to pay their workers' salaries by cheque or into their bank account without their written consent. Sir, no one can refute the fact that manual cash payment is "unproductive and risky".”
“The Government can determine what is the minimum amount which must be kept in the CPF account. And this minimum amount can be revised from time to time to take into consideration the inflation and the cost of living. So if a person accumulates a sum of, say, $200,000 in the CPF account on reaching 55 and if at that point of time the Government thinks that a person must keep $50,000 in the account to cover old age, then let him withdraw the balance of $150,000. Another point we must note is that if the CPF withdrawal age is deferred till 60 or 65, quite a number of our people will not live long enough to collect their CPF savings. As a matter of fact, one in three Singaporeans will not live long enough to withdraw the CPF savings at the age of 65. So a person may struggle throughout his whole life just to end up dying rich. Mr Speaker, Sir, in recommending the raising of the CPF withdrawal age, the Committee makes the assumption that people will squander away all their money if they are allowed to withdraw their savings at 55. But this assumption is applicable perhaps only to a very small minority of people. The majority of our people do know how to manage their funds. It would be wrong, indeed very very wrong for the Government to introduce a policy which, in an attempt to protect the minority, ends up penalizing the majority. 3.44 pm”
“But for a saving scheme like CPF when the contributions come from the members themselves, I strongly believe that the contributors must be allowed to withdraw the savings at 55, at least a substantial portion, if not full. There has been a proposal to distinguish or separate contributions into two portions, one that is contributed to the CPF account before the plan for raising of withdrawal age is introduced, and the other portion is those contributions made after the change is implemented - the so-called old-money and new-money. It is proposed that the CPF members be allowed to withdraw all the old-money, fully, at the age of 55. But the new-money can be withdrawn only after the members have reached the age of 60 or 65. Sir, I do not support this proposal. To me, whether it is old-money or new-money, they are the same. It is their money. If we agree to allow the CPF members to withdraw their CPF either fully or partially at 55, they should be allowed to do so with respect to their full CPF savings, irrespective of when the contributions were made. A more practical and acceptable arrangement which I would suggest is to allow the CPF members to withdraw all their CPF savings on reaching the age of 55, except for a minimum sum of money which must be retained in the CPF account. This remaining sum can only be withdrawn at a later stage or be used to purchase an annuity. This would be similar to the Medisave Scheme where only a minimum sum of money need to be kept in the Medisave Account. In the case of Medisave, members must keep a minimum of $10,000 in the Medisave Account. The rest can be withdrawn on reaching the age of 55. The same principle can be applied to the CPF savings in the Ordinary Account.”
“I would suggest either this Committee or another special committee should look into this important matter of creating jobs for the aged, promoting the employment of older workers and retraining of older workers. Finally, let me join in the debate on the issue of CPF. The CPF is a saving scheme. The Committee has suggested the raising of CPF withdrawal age from 55 to 60 and then to 65. 1 agree totally with the views expressed by my PAP colleagues in this House that this proposal to raise CPF withdrawal age to 60 or 65 is unreasonable and is totally unacceptable. Today, the normal retirement age in Singapore is still 55 years. There is no law to compel the employer to employ workers up to 65 years old. Even in the future, I do not think it is feasible or practical to legislate retirement age. Under this situation, a worker will lose his means of livelihood if he is forced to retire at 55 and yet is denied the right to withdraw his CPF. This is apart from the fact that he may have other plans to fulfil his life dreams by utilizing the CPF. The other important consideration is that an older worker who is not able to or willing to work full-time should be persuaded either to accept part-ti me employment or to accept a job which is less demanding and hence with lower pay. If he does that, he must be allowed to withdraw at least part of his CPF at the age of 55 to supplement his income. I must stress that the CPF savings belong to the contributors. The savings are theirs. They are not welfare handouts. If CPF is an old-age pension scheme or welfare handout provided by the Government, then the Government perhaps has the right to defer payment until a person has reached an age when he can hardly work or hardly walk.”
“Sweden has adopted a law aimed at helping older workers with reduced ability to retain their jobs or find other employment. In Japan, as the Member for Kebun Baru has said, the Government has introduced a subsidy plan for employment of older workers. Under this plan, an enterprise will be provided by the Government with a special subsidy if it employs a worker aged 60 and over. It has also introduced a scheme to encourage companies to provide older workers approaching retirement with vocational training so that they may acquire the necessary knowledge or skills for subsequent re-employment. The Government bears the cost of such training. Sir, the Government may not see the necessity to offer any incentives today. But I am sure when we reach the stage when the senior citizens become a large section of our total population, as the Committee has projected in the Report, then we will find the real need for such measures. The Government will find that it is cheaper to subsidize wages of the older workers than to bear the cost of maintaining the unemployed elderly and to lose the productive contributions of the older workers to the economy. Sir, if the Government finds it desirable to pay $10,000 to our young citizens to undergo sterilization to stop producing, in time to come it should find it worthwhile to pay the older workers to continue producing .I do not mean producing children. I mean goods and services. Or put it in another way, the Government should find it worthwhile to provide incentives to employers to engage and to train older workers in productive activities. In the Report, the Committee has suggested that a Central Coordinating Department be set up in the Prime Minister's Office to be charged with implementing the National Policy on senior citizens.”
“If it is possible to employ a younger worker at a lower cost to do the same job for the same output, then the tendency will be to retire the older worker and to employ a younger one. Well, we can try to convince a worker that his wages should be related to his productivity and that he should not insist on the last drawn salary if he is assigned duty which is less demanding or if his productivity deteriorates because of age. But if cost-effectiveness is the only consideration, then we cannot escape from the conclusion that many employers will, in the final analysis, find it more worthwhile to employ younger workers. In the service sector and in the employment of technical and professional personnel, the employers may find justification in employing older workers whose knowledge and experience are assets to the company. But in the manufacturing sector and the employment of blue-collar workers where physical fitness and dexterity are important determinants of performance and productivity, it would not be easy to justify employment of older workers based on the consideration of cost and output. Hence, to leave it to the employers to make their own decision in hiring and firing would not do justice to our older workers. Some form of incentives would be necessary to encourage the companies to employ the older workers. Sir, the problem of the aged is not only peculiar to Singapore. Many developed countries have introduced schemes to tackle the problems of the employment of the elderly. For instance, in Germany, the Government facilitates job placement and further vocational training of older workers by granting wage subsidies or loans to enterprises hiring unemployed over 45 years of age.”
“The thousands of jobs offered by the electronic companies are not suitable and could not be taken up by the retrenched older workers in the other industries. The question we have to answer is: Are suitable jobs available for the older workers? Who should create sufficient number of jobs for our older workers? The Government or the private sector, or both? What are the types of jobs which must be created for our senior citizens in this technological age? Can we just leave it to the natural growth of our economy to create sufficient number of jobs for all our citizens, the young and the old? In my view, to suggest to leave the creation of jobs for older workers to market forces and economic growth is a simplistic answer to a complex problem. Some deliberate intervention by the Government and long-term planning to bring about creation of jobs for the elderly is necessary. I agree with the suggestion put forward by the Committee on the Problems of the Aged that the Government should set the pace by liberally re-employing its employees beyond the age of 65 at wages related to productivity. But the employers in the private sector must also be encouraged to employ workers beyond the customary retirement age of 55. As a matter of fact, one of the most difficult hurdles to overcome is the reluctance of employers to employ older workers. There are prejudices against older workers. The older workers are deemed to be overpaid, less productive, less adaptable and are more prone to accidents and absenteeism. In deciding whether to retain the older workers in the employment, employers take into consideration the worker's salaries and his productivity.”
“In view of the size of our population, it is questionable whether we do possess the critical mass required to make Singapore fully viable in all sectors of our economy, including manufacturing, financial services, trade and commerce, construction and communications. There would be fluctuation in the demand for labour which is subject to the economic conditions in Singapore and the world. But in the long run, we have no other alternative but to try to maximize the utilization of our scarce human resources by keeping our citizens in the workforce for as long as possible. Retiring workers in their 5Os is rather unwise and wasteful. However, it cannot be assumed that because new jobs are created every year and there are plenty of employment opportunities, the older workers should find it easy to secure jobs of their choice. There are a number of obstacles to overcome. First, there will be a mis-match between the jobs which are available and the jobs which can be adequately performed by the older workers. There will be unemployment among the older workers, even if new jobs are created which can only be adequately performed by the younger workers. For instance, today we have many job vacancies in the electronic industry. At the same time, there are retrenchments in the woodworking industry where older workers are employed. If we just look at the statistics on the number of jobs available in the market, we may conclude that it should be easy for older workers who are retrenched to find alternative employment. But, in reality, this is not so. We do not expect an old male worker to sit and work alongside an 18-year old girl looking through the microscope in the production line of an electronic company.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Committee on the Pro- blems of the Aged has made a comprehensive study covering various aspects of the problems of the greying population. This ranges from employment, financial security, health and recreational needs, institutional care, to a national policy for the elderly. Sir, let me focus my comments on this issue concerning the employment of the aged and the raising of the retirement age. The Committee has suggested that in order to keep the able-bodied elderly persons in gainful employment, the customary retirement age should be deferred as far as possible. At present, retirement age is not legislated in Singapore. It is negotiated between employers and unions. Most collective agreements now provide for retirement at the age of 55. The retirement age of 55 was set years ago at a time when life expectancy was low. In the present context of longer life expectancy, retiring workers at 55 when they are still fit and healthy does not make sense and is rather absurd. There are two compelling reasons why retirement age must be raised. (1) The elderly must be given the opportunity to work for as long as their physical and mental conditions permit. Keeping the elderly in employment is the best way to enable them to retain their normal living style and be active members of the community. Financial independence of the elderly would also reduce the burden which would otherwise fall on the shoulders of the rest of the working population. There is a shortage of manpower in Singapore. The tight labour market which we are facing today is, in my view, not a temporary phenomenon. This is going to be a long-term problem.”
“Sir, since the Par, liamentary Secretary has said that a review will be made and that he will look into the matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, when a worker is temporarily incapacitated, he lost his income but he still has to support the family. My question to the Minister is: does he expect the worker to support his whole family with a miserable income of $390 or less a month? The Minister for Finance and Trade and Industry has proudly told the House during the debate on the Budget Statement that the average income of Singapore workers has increased to $925. But here we have a Workmen's Compensation which is still maintained at the 1971 level. Sir, I cannot understand why the Ministry chose not to revise the figure for temporary incapacity when adjustments were made to the compensation for fatal accident and permanent incapacity. Has the Ministry over-looked the matter or does the Minister seriously think that the compensation level of 1971 is still applicable and sufficient to cover the cost of living in 1984? Sir, the revision for such compensation is long overdue and I urge the Minister to take immediate steps to correct the anomaly and, to a certain extent, injustice.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head A be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead RD-02 of the Main Estimates. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, compensation is payable to a workman if he suffers personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The quantum of compensation is stipulated in the Act and this varies according to the nature and extent of injury. Different amounts of compensation are provided for death, for permanent incapacity and for temporary incapacity. Since 1971, the Government has gradually increased the quantum of compensation to take into consideration the rise in the cost of living. For instance, the maximum compensation payable for fatal accidents was raised from $21,600 in 1971 to $35,000 in 1975 and to $45,000 in 1980. In the case of permanent total incapacity, the maximum compensation was raised from $28,800 in 1971 to $45,000 in 1975 and to $60,000 in 1980. In other words, within 10 years, the maximum amount of compensation payable for death and permanent total incapacity has more than doubled. Whilst adjustment has been made for compensation for such injuries, the same cannot be said of the case of temporary incapacity. In accordance with the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1971, workers who suffer temporary incapacity is entitled to full wages for a period of 60 days if he is hospitalized and 14 days if he is not hospitalized, and thereafter to a half-monthly payment during the period of incapacity of $195 or an amount equal to one-third of his monthly earnings, whichever is the less. Sir, this provision of half-monthly payment of a maximum of $195 or an equivalent monthly payment of $390 during the period of temporary incapacity has remained unchanged since 1971.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for all the answers he has given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before the Minister replies, I must say that the Member for Anson has completely distorted the facts in the case of SATU. I wonder whether the Member knows that it is the executive council of SATU, members of the executive committee of SATU themselves who passed a resolution to invite NTUC to come in to help them to assess the possibility of forming house unions within SATU. I think that must be made clear.”
“Under the collective agreement signed between the union and the employer, usually the employer undertakes to pay for all medical expenses including hospitalization, ward charges, operation fees, etc. The benefit is extended to cover all illnesses or accidents. But in most of these collective agreements, the employer insists that the provision for medical benefits should not cover medical expenses arising from pregnancy and child delivery. In other words, not only does the employer refuse to grant paid leave or time-off to female employees when they go for pre-natal check-up, but the company further refuses to pay for accouchement fees, ward charges and any other related expenses. Some companies even go to the extent of not recognizing medical certificates issued by Government hospitals for miscarriage, abortion or any illnesses arising out of pregnancy. Of course, there are some more enlightened employers who make payments to defray part of the expenses incurred in childbirth, but many are quite insistent that they are not obliged to do so under the Employment Act. I would appreciate if the Minister for Labour would look into this matter and see how the employers could be persuaded to be more caring and sympathetic towards their female employees. In my view, treating medical treatment arising out of pregnancy different from other types of illnesses is a discrimination against female employees and work against the policy to encourage married women to stay in their jobs.”
“Sir, I really hope the Minister for Labour would, in the name of productivity, seriously consider the request to extend the validity of the authorization for check-off to a period of more than a year, preferably two or three years. The second point I wish to raise, Sir, is something which concerns the employee's eligibility for paid sick leave. Under section 43(1) of the Employment Act, only employees who have served an employer for a period of not less than 12 months shall be entitled to paid sick leave. An employee who has served less than one year is not entitled to any paid sick leave, even if he is confirmed in his employment. There have been suggestions raised in Parliament that the provision be relaxed to allow all employees who are confirmed in their employment to be entitled to paid sick leave, but the suggestions seem to have fallen on deaf ears. With our present emphasis on company welfarism and the call to employers to take care of the wellbeing and welfare of the workers, I hope the Minister would review the matter again to allow all workers who are confirmed in their employment to be covered by the relevant provisions of the Act in respect of the granting of paid sick leave. What is even more disturbing is the attitude of many employers towards their female employees when it comes to taking time-off or leave to consult the doctor during pregnancy. The Employment Act stipulates that the employer shall grant a total of eight weeks' paid maternity leave to female employees. For many of the female employees in the private sector, this is about the only benefit that they are entitled to for childbirth. Let me explain.”
“The union has to make arrangement with the employers to release the workers to sign the check-off forms, and generally the employers would not like the union officials to walk round the production lines to explain to the workers and to ask the workers to sign the forms. At a time when we place so much emphasis on productivity and the cutting down of unproductive practices, I believe the present requirement of annual authorization by members for check-off is most unproductive. I believe the main reason that the Ministry of Labour has insisted on annual authorization is that a union member must be given a chance to indicate whether he wishes to continue as a union member, hence his explicit permission for deduction of union subscription must be obtained at periodic intervals. My question is, why does the Ministry insist on written authorization on an annual basis? Why can't the Ministry require authorization only once every two or three years? Many licences and permits issued by the Government are valid for more than one year. For instance, we do not renew our marriage certificate once a year. Can we argue that for the interest of the husband and wife, the wish of the couple to remain as husband and wife must be ascertained once a year? Talking about protecting the rights of the workers, I am sure the Minister is aware that under the constitution of the unions, a worker can resign from membership of the union by giving three to six months' notice. A worker can exercise his right to resign from the union any time irrespective of whether the written authorization for check-off is in force or not. Furthermore, the Minister also reserves the right to revoke the check-off scheme if there are abuses by the union.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead RC-01 of the Main Estimates. Sir, in moving this amendment, I wish to comment on two issues which concern trade unions and industrial relations. The first issue is the subject of yearly authorization for check-off of union sub- scriptions. Under section 27 (1)K of the Employment Act, the Minister for Labour is empowered to approve deduction from the salary of an employee under the check-off scheme in respect of the payment of union subscriptions and contributions. The check-off scheme has enabled the union to collect the union subscriptions through the deduction of the fees from the salary of its members. However, the approval for check-off granted by the Minister is, so far, subject to the condition that written authorization from the union members for such deductions must be obtained yearly. In other words, every year the union officials have to go around asking the union members to sign authorization forms. While the check-off scheme has facilitated the collection of union subscriptions by the trade unions, the requirement of annual authorization by union members has imposed a tremendous administrative burden on the unions. At the moment the total number of workers represented by the NTUC's affiliated unions is around 200,000. One can imagine the administrative work and the time involved in getting 200,000 members signing the authorization form each year. As a matter of fact, the exercise is highly unproductive and time-consuming; and very often it disrupts production at the work place.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister of State said that legislation will be introduced shortly. May I know how short is "shortly"? Does it mean that the legislation will be introduced in a few weeks' time? My second question is: Can the Minister of State give us some idea of how the system of small claims court works? Would the procedure for instituting claims in the court be kept very simple?”
“This shows that there are still many hidden talents among our non-graduate female population. To achieve the objective of producing more intelligent or gifted children, the Minister should seriously consider extending the priority registration or other incentive schemes for graduate mothers to all the other women of proven talents, including those with good 'O' and 'A' level results. Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, before I begin, since I have another amendment, I propose to speak on this amendment first and take the other amendment later so that I have 20 minutes for both, taking them one at a time. The other amendment deals with the admission to primary schools.”
“The differences in the enrolment figures simply show that in Japan, the opportunity for university education is significantly greater than in Singapore. We can, of course, console ourselves by saying that in Singapore we set a very high standard for entrance into a university. But I think this is beside the point. Sir, if we wish to introduce a priority or incentive scheme wisely and fairly at the present stage, we should perhaps treat women who have obtained good 'O' level and 'A' level passes equally with those with university degrees. The fact that a person has scored good 'O' and 'A' level results should for the time being be sufficient proof of their talent and ability. I think the Minister for Finance and Trade and Industry has done the right thing in this year's Budget by treating those with GCE 'O' level and 'A' level passes the same as those with university degrees. My only criticism is that he should have implemented it right from the beginning when the scheme was introduced. As for the Hon. First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education, he may not be convinced that a five 'O' level pass is good enough. Well, as an added safeguard, we can always specify the aggregate points to qualify for priority. Sir, if we wish to achieve quantitative progress in producing more talented children, the present encouragement which is given only to the university graduate is rather restrictive, and the consequential result and impact would be minimal. As a matter of fact, the scheme would presently benefit only 200 children out of a total enrolment of 40,000. The Member for Whampoa is right and this has been confirmed by the Minister of State that in terms of absolute numbers, more gifted children are produced by non-graduate mothers because they are in the majority.”
“And for women, many of them had to start working after completing their secondary school education because of financial constraints in the family. Oriental traditions favour the males and usually it is the girls who have to stop pursuing further study in order to allow their brothers to proceed to the university. For this group of women, they did not get a university degree not because they are intellectually inferior, but because they were denied the opportunity of university education. They have made sacrifices. Now, after denying them the opportunity of tertiary education, we turn round and tell them, "Very sorry, you do not have a university degree and therefore your children would have to be treated differently." I think this is most unfair. Let me support my argument by quoting some comparative figures between Japan, Taiwan and Singapore. In Japan, the percentage of pupils that made it to the university is unquestionably much higher than the corresponding figure for Singapore. In Japan, more than one in three, or 40% of pupils who enter the schools, made it to the university or college. In Singapore, the figure is much lower. I believe it is about 10%. Even in Taiwan, the figure is higher than that of Singapore. May I ask the Hon. Minister of State whether he would conclude from these statistics - I know that the Ministry is very fond of quoting statistics and interpreting the statistics to suit the policy -would the Minister conclude from these statistics that since we have less people who can make it to the university, we Singaporeans are of an inferior stock compared to the Japanese and the Taiwanese? The answer is, of course, no. Sir, we Singaporeans are, of course, not inferior to the Japanese or Taiwanese.”