Heng Chiang Meng
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst I agree with the approach taken by the Government, especially when I personally think that the economy may well recover in the second half of next year, I would like to ask the Minister whether he could take steps to rectify the situation on the ground, of which I am very deeply concerned.”
“Witness the prices of PCs when they first appeared and the prices of PCs now. Also, without an extensive infrastructure, motoring with a hybrid car will cause more inconvenience for the owner.”
“Sir, I did address you as Chairman. I only once, earlier on, addressed you as Deputy Speaker. Most of the comments I am going to say have been covered by the two earlier speakers. I just want to add that I understand that Newater is biologically very clean.”
“I dare say that Singapore is kept litter-free by the street cleaners, and not because there are no litter bugs. So the real long-term solution is to inculcate good environmental behaviour as part of our habits.”
“For example, one way could be to rank the distance of each household from the school, and the ranking to be used to allocate the available places based on the household nearest to the school having the pole position.”
“Sir, I find it difficult to understand why the Senior Minister of State should bring in other people's arguments, like people being sick, one parent looking after so many children. We are talking about distances away from the school. Let us not bring in other factors. But, in any case, her mind is already made up.”
The complete record
Every one of 723 lines we hold for Heng Chiang Meng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 15.
“Sir, I do not really wish to go into a debate with him.”
“Sir, I would appreciate it if the Member will let me finish my speech. It would not be a counter speech. Sir, I think of all the accusations ever made at the PAP Government, extravagance probably is very seldom heard. In fact, I would say it is the other way round, that this Government has a history of making sure that every cent spent is worth its expenditure. And I find it very difficult to believe that this book is simply extravagant and that this extravagance reflects the philosophy of the Government. On the first point, I would wish that the Member for Potong Pasir is involved in business activities like some of us here. Then he will realise that there are many obstacles and tremendous difficulties of trying to get into Malaysia to do business. Singapore is a free economy and has an open market. We will welcome any opportunity to set up various types of economic ties as well as any form of union with any country where we can get our goods and our business into their economies, provided of course it does not impede our basic objective of maintaining an open market and a free economy. So despite what he said - I am speaking from experience - I am very sure those of us here in this House who are businessmen have experienced such difficulties of going into Malaysia.”
“Sir, on the second point first. I think of all the accusations made -”
“Why do we not encourage their friends and relatives here to buy copies of "The Next Lap" to send to them with this message: 'You have made your choice! All this could be yours! But by giving up your citizenship, you have rejected this future. What about your children? Is it right of you to deprive them of this inheritance which is theirs by right, by birth? Have you done the right thing for them? Think again for their sake!' Sir, if as a result of this, even if one family is persuaded to stay back in Singapore to run the next lap with us, even if one family overseas decides to return, then I think "The Next Lap" is worth the effort and the dedication put in by all those who have contributed to its publication. And in this respect, I would like to appeal to the Government to reconsider its current stringent laws regarding the return of former Singaporeans, especially the children who may have little choice in their parents' earlier decision to emigrate. The Singapore International Foundation is obviously an idea whose time has come. It is a step in the right direction. We need friends all over the world. But like many speakers before me, I also think that it is not enough. We should not ignore former Singaporeans. We should not be too harsh on them if they want to return. If they are brave enough to admit their earlier mistake of emigrating and are now prepared to return, we should not make it almost impossible for them to do so. Our laws were originally framed at different times. The Next Lap calls for new thinking, a new outlook and different laws. I am optimistic these will come. That is why I support the motion standing in the name of the Member for Toa Payoh GRC. We, together with all Singaporeans, shall run the Next Lap together.”
“The best things in life may be free but, unfortunately, not the cost of realising the vision in the Next Lap. For such economic growth to be sustained, we need people and talent, both commodities in short supply. We therefore have to work harder and smarter, searching new niches and new ways to be more enterprising, more productive. How then can we have the time and the leisure to enjoy the sports, arts, culture and the gracious living promised in the Next Lap. The pressure cooker in Singapore is currently already set on high. How much higher would it be in the Next Lap? That surely must be the major concern of many young Singaporeans reading the book. It's a dilemma, isn't it? Take time to stand and stare, the Next Lap will not be run. Run the Next Lap with all your strength, you may have little time and energy left to enjoy its fruits. I do not think the answer can be discovered in this debate, but I do think that it is a problem which warrants deeper study by the Government. Perhaps this is one major reason why some of our best people emigrate despite all the goodies that Singapore has to offer to its citizens. While understanding such sentiments, nevertheless, I am saddened by such decisions. Worse is that their decision to go also denies their children of their birth rights. With many foreigners wanting to get in, surely to deny their children of their inheritance cannot be too right. Why make them strangers in a strange land when Singapore offers so much? Why not think again? Better still, these people should be urged to read "The Next Lap". They owe themselves and their children and their descendants this much. To take one step further, Sir, what about those who have already emigrated?”
“But this time, it is really the misfortune of being born too early; born too early to truly enjoy the life a young Singaporean would have in the Singapore of the Next Lap. I do not wish to take up too much time singling out any area of the President's Address and "The Next Lap" for special mention. Suffice to say, there is something for everybody; be it in young Singaporeans obtaining an education which would bring out their maximum potential; or working Singaporeans having fulfilling, rewarding and productive careers; or all Singaporeans enjoying the fruits of a gracious and culturally vibrant society. That the depth and breadth and scope of this vision is breathtaking is not surprising. After all, Sir, this vision is the result of the work and efforts put in by many Singaporeans over the years. That it is a manifestation of the consultative and participative consensus style of the Goh Chok Tong Government is also to be expected. After all, we have heard many times the Prime Minister's views on this. Sir, what is exciting is the genesis of the vision of The Next Lap. The manner in which it was conceived and the long period of gestation in order to accommodate wide participation means that The Next Lap is a vision of Singaporeans, by Singaporeans, for Singaporeans. It sets goals and a mission for all Singaporeans to strive for. It is ours, our dreams, our goals, our challenges. Because of this collective ownership, I have little doubt that we will rally to the call by the President to "be united and look after one another, work hard and invest, stay vigilant and seize opportunities." But then, Sir, paradise is not without its serpent, no matter how tiny. The Next Lap can become only a reality if we can maintain economic growth.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me this opportunity to add my comments to the debate on the President's Address. I shall try to make them brief. But first, Sir, I would like to comment on the views of the Member for Potong Pasir on the economic union with Malaysia. It is a good idea but I just could not believe my ears when he said that there may be many Singaporeans objecting to such a union. As a matter of fact, I have to check with the Member for Yio Chu Kang to confirm what I heard. Contrary to the Member for Potong Pasir's belief that many Singaporeans would object, I think that if Mr Chiam can help Singapore achieve some form of economic union with Malaysia, he would be widely applauded and acclaimed a hero. Sir, the President, besides covering the Government's plans for the immediate future, also covers the long-term direction of the Government for the next 25 years. This is mainly in the book "The Next Lap". And in this respect, Sir, it is not surprising that the Member for Potong Pasir objects to the form of the book, using the excuse of too many pictures. The book, Sir, should be read by all Singaporeans. This means that its presentation and its readability are extremely important factors to ensure maximum readership. I guess that he is not really objecting to the book itself, but really to the ability of the book to attract a wide readership. From his partisan viewpoint, I guess it is a legitimate concern but not necessarily of national concern. Sir, I must add that after reading "The Next Lap", I lamented that I was born too early. Normally, we lament about being born too late as a convenient excuse to cover a multitude of sins, misfortunes and failures.”
“Sir, I am speaking on the subject of Town Councils and the problems of the amendments and how they can or cannot help the Town Councils.”
“As you so decide, Sir. Sir, we have heard, during the Second Reading, the speakers going through the merits of individual items of the amendments. But here I would like to use this opportunity to take a very much closer look at the real issue behind the problems of Town Councils. Although the amendments will help the Town Councils to better manage the towns, these amendments, I believe, are only treating the symptoms and not the disease. Sir, the real issue is this. What are Town Councils for?”
“Sir, I am not going to speak on the merits of the Bill. Mr Speaker: Well, I will listen to you. But if you are out of order, I shall not hesitate to rule you out of order.”
“I wish to speak on the Third Reading, Sir.”
“No, Sir. I think I would like to have an answer to the question of revenue and not the overall problem about productivity and expenses. May I ask the Minister whether it is impossible for Telecom to come up with a system where they can monitor both the revenue for the next year based on the existing system and on the new system? Is it impossible to do that, Sir?”
“No. Mr Speaker: Could you ask your question? I think it has been asked a number of times, and answers have been given. If you have nothing new, I propose to move on.”
“Sir, may I ask whether the Minister has actually and truly answered my question? Because I have not mentioned ---”
“Yes Sir, but by putting some supplementary points in question form, the Minister may not understand me. Sir, I was a banker. But I am not a banker right now. But, Sir, what I am saying is that since Telecome has said that the system is revenue-neutral, surely Telecom has the means of monitoring whether the new system will generate more revenue or whether the existing system will generate more revenue. And if, based on usage, the new system generates more revenue, then I am asking that Telecom, to be truthful to its original intention, should reduce the rates so that it will be revenue-neutral. And it is not difficult, Sir, to put up such a system.”
“Sir, with your indulgence, may I clarify with the Minister on just one point?”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether he considers there are any differences between decreases in cost due to productivity gains and increases in revenue due to the difference in the system of charging? In any case, would the Minister not agree with me that if Telecom can come out with such a complicated system which is completely different from the present system, and pronounced to the world that it is revenue-neutral as far as Telecom is concerned, it should not be too difficult to come out with a monitoring system to show whether it has actually increased the revenue or not through the new system. I am not disputing his answer on the point about productivity gains.”
“Sir, I wish the Minister will answer the question directly. My question is: Would Telecom reduce the rates once he has found that the new system generates more revenue, since the new system is meant to be revenue-neutral? I think the words "revenue-neutral" were used by Telecom.”
“Sir, I do not think there is much quarrel with the principle of the new charges and the new system, but it's really the rates. May I ask the Minister, if the revenue of Telecom has increased after this new system, since he said that it is revenue-neutral, whether he would consider lowering the rates once he finds out that Telecom has actually made extra revenue from this new system?”
“Sir, I fully support the amendment Bill, but I would just like to ask one very small point. Given what the Senior Minister of State has said, which includes re-registration, publicity exercise, a new type of card and new machinery, I find it very difficult to believe what is said in page 6 of the Bill that "This Bill will not involve the Government in any extra financial expenditure." Perhaps the Senior Minister of State would like to comment on that statement.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister to give this House an assurance that his Ministry will also use the same rationale on pump prices, when posted prices or international prices drop. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, yes, indeed, we have been monitoring the situation, as I have said. Since December last year when we deregulated petrol prices, there have been quite a number of changes in the world oil markets and in the posted prices, and we have been tracking the retail prices. They have moved in step. PHASING OUT RENT CONTROL (Statement by the Minister for National Development)”
“Sir, I am answering the question . In this case, the Minister has asked me to be more specific, and I have provided the answer to that question.”
“Sir, the Minister has asked specifically for the type of laws. I have said that there is an anti-touting law on cinema tickets, and that is a law passed by the Government, and in this particular law it is an offence for people to buy too many tickets for resale purposes. And I see this as no different from the quota system.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my question will be related to the explanation that the Minister has given to the question asked by Dr Wang.”
“I would like to ask the Minister whether he will be the forefront in the Cabinet to remove all this type of laws which prevent free competition and free market operations.”
“Sir, after the stirring speech on free market and free competition, I would like to ask the Minister to look at other areas where the Government has really put a spoke in the operation of a free market. For example, there is a law to prevent anti-touting of cinema tickets, which means that somebody will buy all ---”
“If we look at the parts, we will find that everybody, any person involved in administration or in the planning of the part, will always have good reasons and good justification for this control of that regulation or that policy. Yet looking at the whole, with one regulation here and another control there, the result is what we have today - a society where we dread to make mistakes. Sir, lest I give the impression that Singapore is all sterile and nothing creative grows, let me dispel such thoughts. We do have our share of creativity. The arts and culture are beginning to flourish, entrepreneurs are beginning to come out of the woodwork, the consultative process has loosened the thoughts and tongues of many of our citizens, and so on. But is it enough? I believe we need more, and at a much faster pace than hitherto. There is yet another reason why I feel that we should take this step to be a more tolerant and less unforgiving society. Moving in this direction means bringing more into play the values of love, charity and compassion. Add these to the four values I mentioned earlier, I cannot help but see future Singapore a gracious, refined and caring society, enjoying in all its splendour the good life that affluence can help to bring about. Otherwise we may end up rich, boorish, crass and selfish - in short, the Ugly "kiasu" Singaporean!”
“I am a school leaver waiting for my results but I have not applied for permanent jobs because I know I will not be chosen because I was once caught shoplifting. It happened when I was 12 years old. I knew that with such a record I am never ever going to get far in our society. Who would employ a girl with a criminal record? I feel that I have already been condemned. Would anyone ever believe that I had regretted and repented for my folly a long time ago? My friends encourage me to start looking for a stable job but I could not disclose to them why I am reluctant to do so. Only two persons know about my record - my grandmother and a close friend. I have always wanted to be a teacher. How can I achieve my ambition with such a record? I can apply for jobs but I am afraid to face instant rejection because of this one mistake. Signed: Condemned.' Sir, how does such a young person reach such depths of despair? Obviously from the belief that our society does not tolerate mistakes or aberrations, even if one makes them in the folly of youth. Sir, please do not get me wrong. I am not equating criminal acts with the creative process. All I am suggesting is that the despair of those who had made mistakes, and the fear to be creative spring from the same source - our society's high degree of intolerance towards failure. Can we change this? And at the same time, give due recognition that Singapore needs a multiplicity of talents, that there is, after all, life outside academic brilliance. I really do not know. But I think we should try. I have deliberately refrained from coming out with any solution because, unfortunately, this issue needs to be looked, from a bird's eye view, at the whole and not in parts.”
“It this aspect that I want to bring to the attention of the House, to the attention of the Government - that creativity and failure are perhaps opposite sides of the same coin - that we call the successful non-conformist a creative person and the unsuccessful non-conformist a failure - that in not forgiving temporary lapses of failings and shortcomings, we may also be stifling creativity. For, Sir, if we recognise this linkage and still believe that creativity will be much needed in our future path for a better life, then I suggest that we need to be more tolerant of mistakes. We need to recognise that there is very often no such thing as total abject failure. Sometimes a person fails in one aspect, or even two, because it is simply not his cup of tea. A school drop-out could one day be a master craftsman, or even a personal computer inventor. A foolish action done in the heat of youthful bravado - should it condemn a person for life? Sir, I have brought up several times in this House the trials and tribulations people with minor criminal or drug-taking records face when they try to fit back into the mainstream of life. It therefore pains me to read only last week a letter in the newspaper from a girl on this same issue - a girl who has just recently completed her schooling and should be looking forward to her adult life with all the enthu- siasm, optimism and zest that only youth can muster. Sad to say, Sir, the letter projects hopelessness and resignation. With your permission, I would like to read this particular letter. It is a letter addressed to 'Dear Aggie' and the headlines put 'Condemned for past mistake'. [New Paper, 6th June 1990]. 'Dear Aggie, I am writing to you because I'm at my wit's end.”
“Simon, Nobel Prize winner in Economic Science in 1978. I believe some of his views will add some clarity. At this point, I must add that most of the Professor's evidence about the creative process was derived from research on scientific creativity, but there are no reasons why the foundations of creativity should differ in other fields of human endeavour. First, he gave a very simple definition of creativity. He said, and I quote: 'Acts are judged to be creative when they produce something that is novel and that is thought to be interesting or to have social value.' He further went on to postulate that, by its very nature, creativity almost always requires a calculated gamble. Novelty involves exploring previously unexplored territory. A creative person is thus looking for a situation where he pits his knowledge, beliefs and guesses against the knowledge, beliefs and guesses of the established order. As such, creative persons require a "contrarian" streak that gives them the confidence to pit their knowledge and judgment against the common wisdom of their colleagues. This means obviously a willingness to adventure, even with the risks of failure. What I have just said is a very simple precis on the role that "propensity for risk-taking" plays in the nature of creativity. There are, of course, other aspects, but for today, we just need to recognise that the opportunity to be creative can seldom be fully separated from the opportunity to fail.”
“And to travel the future path as successfully as we did in the past, we need to inject as quickly as possible into our environment that abstract quality called "creativity". As I have said earlier, the Government's programme, as embodied in the President's Address and the Addenda, gives much hope for the future. Nobody, including myself, should be unhappy; yet, should there be any disappointment, it is this - that little attention had been paid to the cultivation and the nurturing of this so essential, so crucial quality. Perhaps it is too abstract. It is not something which one can touch, see or smell. I mean, we can say we will build more roads, more schools, train more teachers, and do all the things that we want to do, but can one really put a finger to nurturing more creativity? Yet the issue is not new, and fortunately, our leaders recognise the need to have this quality in our society. The Economic Committee of 1985 recognised its importance when it raised the issue of how to bring about a more creative and less conformist society, a crucial element if Singapore is to achieve the growth in entrepreneurship needed in the future. Earlier this year, the First Deputy Prime Minister and also the Minister of State for Education and Community Development also spoke on the need to have a more creative society and to have more creative people. The question, of course, is this: Can creativity be cultivated, nurtured and sustained in our society? Perhaps so, but given our relatively intolerant society with controls to ensure that we conform in almost all aspects of our lives coupled with the resultant "kiasu" attitude of our people, I am not too sure. Why do I say this? Perhaps I would like to add some comments from Professor Herbert A.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity to thank the President for his Address. The President has given us much hope and optimism for the next phase of inde- pendent Singapore's development. As he has said, the circumstances for the leadership transition and the beginning of the development of the next phase are as auspicious as we could have hoped for. I congratulate and thank our leaders and the people of Singapore for bringing us thus far. Sir, recently, I watched the movie "Dead Poets Society". While watching this movie, it struck me that the four pillars of the school in the story in the movie, the four pillars of "Tradition, Honour, Discipline and Excellence" were, in many aspects, similar values which had brought Singapore from a country least likely to succeed to where we are today. Yet, as we stand on the threshold of joining the ranks of the developed nations of the world, we surely must realise that what had sustained us in the past may no longer be as effective in the future. No longer can we use cheap labour nor financial incentives nor strategic location as trump cards to draw international capital and industries to our shores. For cheap labour, there is cheaper labour in our neighbouring countries. For financial incentives, too many countries and states nowadays are giving away financial incentives - some much more generous than ours. As for strategic location, I believe that locating one's plants in the countries where the consumers are makes much more sense than locating them in Singapore. Sir, I bring this up not to say that the past factors of success are no longer important, but as a grim reminder that the road of the next 25 years will not be easy. In fact, I believe that it will be more difficult than before.”
“Sir, if I may beg your indulgence, I think there is a lot of difference between a Constitution like, let us say, the United States, that has one, and England, that has an unwritten set of rules which they take it as a convention through history and customs. Another point that I would also like to make is that in the struggle of powers between the King of England and the people, if you remember, it was not between the King and the people. The people were never involved at all. It was always between the King and the noblemen which led in 1215 to the signing of the Magna Cartar that started the erosion of power of the King.”
“A point of clarification, Sir. The Member for Potong Pasir just said about the constitution of England. If I remember my history correctly, I believe that England does not have a constitution. Perhaps he can show us one.”
“There are right now, I believe, overall shortfalls in Government hospitals, excluding the restructured hospitals, Singapore General Hospital and the National University Hospital, as at the end of last year. In the category of nurses, there is roughly about 20% shortage; physiotherapists, 50% shortage; occupational therapists, about 40% shortage. Sir, again last year, I understand that the rate of resignation exceeded the rate of recruitment for all these grades of staff. My questions to the Minister are: How is the Ministry going to address these acute shortfalls? Are there any measures that have been taken to reduce the high rates of resignation and, of course, his honest opinion whether these high rates of resignations are due purely to salary levels and not to some other reasons?”
“Sir, while average Singaporeans by their income and their ages may be comfortable with the Government's current philosophy on health care policies in that they want higher standards of medical expertise, care and service and can afford the higher fees, we must remember that, unfortunately, in our midst there are the older and the poorer who may be adversely affected. When costs are high and they spread to the family and the community, unfortunately, the sick and the old become more burdensome. And ageing gracefully and with dignity then becomes more difficult. True, the Minister has repeatedly stressed that no one will be deprived of medical services because of lack of affordability. However, there is an issue of stigmatisation. Means test may prove to be demeaning and demoralising, especially so within the context of our Asian cultures. The result may be unintended deprivation. Hence, I would like to suggest that if the health care share of the budget is increased, or even if it is not, that more should be allocated to the aged, to the chronic sick and to the poor. Sir, my other two cuts on sports and recreation and preventive health care and health enhancement have already, I believe, been covered somewhat under the Ministry of Community Development and I will not go into them, except to ask for more emphasis to be given to the specialisation of sports medicine. Unfortunately, when we encourage the whole population to take up sports and recreation, we also increase their chances of sports injury and perhaps specialisation in this area with due recognition given by the Ministry of Health will be something that we can look forward to. On other cut on manpower shortages in medical support services, I have just a few points to make.”
“Sir, last year, I brought up figures to show that while we are allocating much of our resources to defence, we are giving insufficient amounts to health care. This point has once again been brought up in this Chamber during this sitting and so I would not belabour the point. However, I do want to say that the Government's policy on this issue appears to be pushing health care expenditure more and more to the direct consumers, that means, those who use it rather than as a general service to the population. In doing so, the Minister has been at great pains to stress that such a policy would be done within the people's affordability to pay. It is well and good, but I believe health care should and must be a key priority of any government, including this Government. And that the level of subsidy in this area must also depend not only on the people's ability to pay but also on the State's ability to subsidise. Sir, given our healthy financial position, surely we can afford to increase our subsidy to ensure a more healthy population, regardless of wealth and age. The issue, as I see it, is really political. Is it not worth our while to increase our health care budget from about the present current rate of 1% of the GDP to perhaps 1 1/2% of the GDP? Sir, the expenditure on education has already taken a great leap forward in the programmes that are being planned and put forward by the Minister for Education. I suggest that the Acting Minister for Health perhaps see him for some advice in this area.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State this question. First, I must thank him for his reply. It is very heartening to hear that his Ministry has a great doze of humanity in its policies and that it is very liberal on the criteria, especially for those with roots in Singapore and for those who are capable of supporting their family. In that case, I can safely assume that he will consider it when I send him this case of a person who has been here for 30 years. His wife and three children are here and they are all studying in our singapore schools. This person is a permanent resident. Unfortunately, his wife and children are not permanent residents and therefore he is denied of even buying a HDB flat in the open market. The place where they are staying in now is being acquired for redevelopment purposes by the Government. So the only accommodation available to them will be the very expensive private housing. This person certainly can afford to maintain his family. I would like to declare my interest in this case because he happens to be one of my staff. I will assume that when I send him this case to get permanent residence for his wife so as to fulfil the minimum requirement of two PRs to qualify for public housing he will say "Yes". Or else hopefully under his other hat as Senior Minister of State for National Development he will perhaps liberalise the rules to allow a family with only one PR to buy public housing.”
“For all intents and purposes, these people with their children in our schools, in our society, are Singaporeans in outlook because they have lived here for a long time. But because they are not citizens, because they are not permanent residents, they are denied many of the facilities. The biggest one of them all, I must say, is their inability to get public housing. We all know that if you cannot go into public housing, private housing in Singapore is very expensive, especially so when it is a declared policy of the Government to clear all the private housing slums. Sir, there are a lot of other such cases where all of them have their own individual merits and if the Government were to introduce a touch of humanity, I am sure these cases could have been given serious consideration for permanent residence. The question I like to ask is: do we need to be so harsh and unforgiving now, given the fact that we have gone a long way since independence? Surely the Government could consider the applications for permanent residence not purely on economic contribution but, as I said earlier, also on grounds of humanity.”
“Overall, again I do not say that I disagree with the policy because I suppose, to be realistic, if we want them to come to Singapore, we need to woo them. But in doing so, Sir, I would urge the Ministry not to forget the many who are already in Singapore who have been victims of our past strict regulations. Specifically, I would like to ask the Government to add a touch of humanity into its policies in addition to purely economic considerations. I am sure many of my parliamentary colleagues here during their meet-the-people sessions have had their share of the following cases: (1) People who are barred from entering into Singapore simply because their crime is that of falling in love with a Singaporean and not getting permission to marry. They marry outside the country. Sir, many of these people already have children and so in effect what we are doing is that we are breaking up families. And ironically one of our main philosophies or the pillar of our nation building, as enunciated by the President, is that the basic building block is the family unit. We all know that with a simple story of Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare produced a masterpiece. I wonder what he can produce if he is alive today in Singapore, with the wealth of material available. (2) People who have been here in Singapore for many years, 20 or even 30 years, and many of them even before independence, are not only not citizens but they are also not even permanent residents. And they do have families here, all of them non-permanent residents. These people, because of their low economic contributions in terms of their jobs or lack of their academic qualification or other forms of qualification, are denied permanent residence although, as I said earlier, they have been here for 20 or 30 years.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by $10 in respect of Code QH 1500 of the Main Estimates. Sir, since independence, Singapore has had harsh policies on immigration and these were strictly enforced. They were put in for very good reasons and I do not think I have the time to go into these reasons, except to say that I do not disagree with such policies. They have served us well and we were able in a way to attract the best to our country. Looking at the policies over the years, it appears that the basis of entry or giving permanent residence and eventually citizenship to foreigners was based on the main factor of economic contribution to Singapore. Sir, over the years we have also added extra baggage to these policies in response to one need or another. For example, the work permit holder marriage policy. We use immigration measures to enforce this policy and so for those foreigners who violate or break this restriction on their ability to marry Singaporeans, at first they were banned for three years. Subsequently, this regulation was changed to a permanent ban which means that they are permanently prohibited to enter Singapore. Sir, now due to declining population or rather the fear of declining population, we are liberalising some of these qualifications to admit not only the best but also the appropriate, whatever that means. In this, we are going out of our way to help these new immigrants feel welcome. Again, here I do not wish to go into the details except to say that these new immigrants never had it so good. Perhaps here I would like the Minister to clarify this point. I even hear that they are given settling-in expenses to help them to settle in Singapore.”
“I would therefore like to ask the Minister to consider some flexibility so as to allow such flats to be used as office spaces. Of course, the need to have some form of control will still be necessary, such as those to ensure that the residents who are still using the flats, say, nearby or next door, are not unduly disturbed by the usage of their neighbours' places as offices, if this is permitted. Sir, this is only one example where I believe a certain amount of mixed zoning will help the owners as well as those who demand for such spaces. And I am very sure that there are many others. I hope that if the Minister reviews this policy, he will take all of them into consideration.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, good land management at national level, understandably, requires segmentation of land use, such as those classified for commercial, residential, industrial, green belt, etc. Sir, it is in such management that a country such as land-scarce Singapore can utilise this limited resource to its maximum potential. Further, it has allowed Singaporeans, by and large, to live in peace and harmony with each other, despite our high population density. In this respect, I must say that the relevant various departments in the Ministry of National Development have done a jolly good job, and I must congratulate them on the job that they are still doing. However, like many good policies, when taken too far and implemented without flexibility and understanding of the changing needs of our citizens, this good policy of zoning sometimes results in decisions, I am sure, not envisaged by its framers. One example I would like to bring up relates to the older two-storey shophouses along main roads. Usually the upper storeys of these shophouses are classified as residential as perhaps they were originally built to house the families of the shopkeepers. However, over the years, many families do not want to live in such flats. These flats are noisy, dusty and really not conducive to bringing up families. So they move into proper residential areas and more congenial environment, such as the HDB and private residential estates. In the meanwhile, these places, that is, the upper storeys of the shophouses, become nothing more than stores for the shops. At the same time, there is now demand for these places for use as office space, given the high rentals of office space right now. But under current regulations, Sir, this is not permitted.”
“Here I must add that the expenditure tax is not an alternate source of tax revenue. It is in fact a tax reform, ie, it seeks to replace the income tax system. I am aware that while the theory is simple, to replace the current income tax system in one fell swoop would be complicated. And being the cautious man that he is, the Minister obviously would not wish to be adventurous in this area. May I thus suggest that the Minister look at the benefits of this system and how superior it is to the income tax system. Hopefully, he can be convinced. If so, then it should not be beyond the capabilities of his income tax experts to come out with an experimental project using a selected control group to file two types of tax returns - one based on the current system of income and the other based on a hypothetical system of expenditure. In this way, over a period of years the implications, the effects and other problems of the expenditure tax system could be studied in detail before a final decision is made. Of course, one would have to compensate the taxpayers in the project and perhaps some suitable compensation could be given for the trouble they would have to take to fill in the two sets of returns. Sir, I believe that this system is worth a try. 3.42 pm”
“Sir, this group is often too rich to enjoy the relative benefits of the exemptions but too poor to afford the higher prices of unexempted items caused by such taxes. Sir, my stand on this is not unknown, having said so in this Chamber in 1986. Hence, if the Minister wishes to prepare for a broad-based system of consumption tax, may I remind him to seriously consider the concept of an "expenditure tax". Like VAT and sales tax, Sir, the expenditure tax is also a tax on consumption. But, unlike them, it can lend itself to a progressive structure, similar to the progressive nature of income tax. Simply put, this means that the more a taxpayer spends, the higher would be his marginal tax rate. Sir, using this system, the bias and the inequity against the poor is removed. So too, the hindrance against the tourist industry as it is not a tax on individual items or individual goods but rather on the total expenditure of the taxpayer over a period of time. Moreover, it will also help to resolve one thorny issue, that of individual Singaporean's interest income earned abroad. Right now, we have a tax system which encourages foreigners to invest their savings in Singapore. Ironically, the same system also encourages Singaporeans to invest their savings abroad. A very ridiculous situation, you may say, Sir, but one which I believe could easily be resolved by a system of expenditure tax. Sir, this is not a forum for a detailed tax debate, so I will not go into the details of how the expenditure tax can work and how we can resolve the issue of interest earned abroad but not remitted to Singapore. Suffice to say, Sir, if we can encourage these savings to flow back to Singapore, much good will accrue to Singapore's financial centre as well as its economy.”
“We do pick and choose; and (b) Most importantly, they have VAT for very good reasons. They needed VAT because of perpetual budget deficits and bankrupt treasuries. Sir, that surely is not the case with us, and never would be the case if we can believe what the Minister's own Budget document says; and I would like to quote from page 11 of the Budget document: 'The aim will be to ensure that operating revenue (defined as revenue less investment income) is sufficient to finance all operating expenditure (defined as recurrent expenditure less debt servicing), and that annual recurrent and development expenditures do not exceed revenue collection.' In other words, Sir, what this means is that if we collect less, we will spend less. With this philosophy of a balanced budget in the implementation of public finance (something I must add that I agree and I subscribe to), I cannot really see the day when we need to increase our revenue through consumption tax. However, in case the Minister thinks that I am totally against a broad-based system of consumption tax, I would hasten to add that I, too, favour an indirect method of taxing consumption rather than the direct method of taxing income. After all, Sir, paying tax on consumption is voluntary in that if one spends less, one pays less, whereas paying tax on income is not, unless of course one takes a salary cut or stops working altogether. But what I am against is a simplistic system of consumption tax, such as the VAT or a sales tax, even with exemptions. Unfortunately, such exemptions usually hurt the largest group of citizens in our society, the lower middle income group.”
“Yet the estimated additional revenue to be collected from the car quota premia, if we take $5,000 to be the average price bid for the year, could be $250 million or more. This additional revenue is not even reflected in the Budget document. And this will be on top of the $2 billion to be collected in financial year 1990 on import duties, registration fees, additional registration fees, PARF, diesel tax, road tax, etc. This does not even include the revenue from petroleum import duties, which is another $0.5 billion more. Perhaps the Ministry of Communications and Information should be redesignated as the Ministry of Communications, Information and Finance. Notwithstanding his comment that prudence should not be equated with miserliness, the Minister should perhaps take note that there is a thin line between prudence and stinginess. Sir, what is also disturbing is the warning that lies behind the sweets and candies given by the Minister. Here I refer specifically to the spectre of consumption tax raised by the Minister. I am against this consumption tax for the same reasons given by Dr Lee. Here I must say that, in this instance, I do fully agree with him because such a tax, a VAT tax, for example, is inherently inequitable. It taxes the poor relatively more than the rich. It retards the growth of one of our major industries, tourism, especially so in our case when we are trying to promote Singapore as a shopping paradise. The oblique reference to developed countries and the value-added tax as an integral component of the system of revenue, in my opinion, is laughable if not for the fact that this is no laughing matter. Surely the Minister must be aware that: (a) Singapore does not follow the systems of developed countries just because they have such systems.”
“The real issue is that with such sterling performances of the economy over the past two years, and again probably this year, the Minister could perhaps be more generous, especially with the healthy surpluses of past years and the increased revenue from various measures. Sir, one disturbing aspect is that the Minister, I feel, has left himself with the role of being a Santa Claus and, as I said earlier, not a very generous one at that. His function in revenue collection appears to have been usurped by other Ministers, especially the Minister for Communications and Information. Of course, the other Ministers always proclaimed that revenue generated was only incidental and the real purpose was not the revenue but the need to control one thing or another; or so they said. But, when all is said and done, somehow or rather, money always increases in the Government's coffers. Sir, I hope that such off-budget increases in tax, in fees, in commission, or call it whatever you will, are not a trend for future budgets. In this respect, I do very much agree with my colleague, Mr Das, that it poses very difficult conditions and situations for businessmen and businesses to do their planning. Sir, in any event, with such increases it is no wonder that at Budget time, the Minister gives away candies, like a mother giving sweets to pacify a crying boy after he has been caned by his father, even though he has done no wrong but was only just trying to get his father to agree that he has grown up, is a bit more responsible and would appreciate having a little more freedom and money to decide what is good for himself. Yes, I did say sweets, because, for example, the tax concessions announced amounted to revenue forgone of about only $168 million.”
“Does this mean that his suggestion is also unfair? Sir, another point relates to his comments on public debt servicing and Government bonds and Treasury bills. Being in the banking sector myself, I must first state that I have a vested interest. I do object personally to the system here, but for diametrically opposite reasons as the NCMP. Under our system, the Government has created statutory requirements for many financial institutions to buy a certain required number of bonds and Treasury bills. It is because of this demand created by statute that these financial institutions are forced to buy them. And in so doing, they therefore compete for a very limited supply, just like the quota system, of bonds and bills available. The rates they therefore earn on these instruments are in fact very low. The Government in turn takes this money on which they pay low rates and reinvest it into much higher yielding instruments. In so doing, it in fact makes quite a substantial sum of money for the Government. Perhaps I would just like to bring his attention to page 7 of the Budget. If we look at the Budget in Overview, you will find that the investment income under Consolidated Revenue Account is $1.1 billion, Development Fund Account is $2.8 billion and Sinking Fund Account is $397 million, whereas Debt Servicing is only $1.8 billion. Sir, although I said earlier that I supported the motion, I must add that I do find it somewhat disturbing. Sir, that it is pro-big company, it is painless, it is a celebrations budget, and various other favourable descriptions of the budget is not the issue.”
“Thank you, Sir, for giving me this opportunity to speak. Sir, I support the motion in the name of the Minister for Finance. Before I go into it, I know that the Non-Constituency MP, Dr Lee Siew-Choh, brought up a number of points and I am sure the Minister for Finance is capable of replying to all these points one by one. But, as one with more than a passing interest in financial matters, I would just like to touch on three points. One, he objected very much to the channelling of $1 billion to businesses since 1980. I do not really find anything wrong with that because these concessions have helped to create better business conditions, have created more jobs and, in fact, resulted in higher salaries for the workers. As a result, this has generated more revenue for the Government and is, in fact, one main reason for our happy state of affairs. Perhaps if he can read the theory behind supply-side economics, he will find that this particular branch of economics does have positive effect on Singapore. Another point he brought up is his objection to the across-the-board rebate because he thinks that it is unfair. He gave the example of the person paying $100 in income tax. Such a person would get $5 rebate, whereas the person paying $10,000 in income tax would get $500 rebate. Sir, this is simply the marginal rate at work. I find it difficult to understand his objections when in the next breath he asked for more personal and other types of tax reliefs. Does he not know that, for example, if you were to implement his suggestion of increasing the personal tax relief by $2,000 to $5,000, then a taxpayer at the marginal rate of 30% tax bracket will in fact pay $600 less in taxes. Another person at the marginal rate of 5% will only get $100 in lesser tax paid.”