Ho See Beng
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State whether he is aware that each time re- settlement takes place, the business houses or firms suffer a terrible loss. Although the HDB could provide them with alternative shop premises, they have to rent them from the HDB.”
“Sir, I want to ask a supplementary question with vested interest. This concerns a teacher who upgraded himself or herself and got admitted into the University, but the teacher has got to forgo his or her salary. In the case of an SAF officer, if he is sent to the University, he does not have to sacrifice his salary.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask whether the Minister will consider giving incentives to consumers who read their own meters?. I ask this question because it will save PUB a substantial amount of money by way of salaries for meter readers, if the PUB succeeds in teaching consumers how to read their own meters.”
“But before I could explain the relevancy, I was interrupted by the Member for Anson, who stood up and denied that he had ever said anything about supplying me with such a list.”
“Sir, as I have said, I intend to appeal to the Minister for National Development whether he will consider giving priority allocation of flats to the Blair Plain residents who will be resettled by PSA soon.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when the House adjourned at 8.00 pm last night, I was reminding the Member for Anson that I have yet to receive his list of Blair Plain residents whom he claimed to have attended his meeting and approached him for assistance on the matter pertaining to resettlement.”
The complete record
Every one of 839 lines we hold for Ho See Beng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 17.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I fear that in the past few years, in our efforts to overcome external crises, we have tended to overlook some of the minor issues which affect the common man and his problems merely because they pale into insignificance in the face of more pressing external national problems. Mr Speaker, Sir, we, as a Government, must remember that it is our bounden duty to provide for the welfare of the ordinary citizens, not only the organs of Government and the giants of commerce and industry that turn the wheels of the economy of our Republic. We must remember the problems of those in the lower income group for whom several issues remain unresolved. Mr Speaker, Sir, one of man's primary requirements is housing and it is true that our Housing and Development Board has already managed to provide public housing for about 60% of our population. But even in this major area of success, there are many irritations as a result of the rigid and closed minds of the officialdom in the Housing and Development Board. I refer, for example, to the one-room flats of the Board, which in their time were a source of happiness for many a low-income family, who were then living in slums. Many, many years ago, in order to provide these persons with better living conditions only those families with incomes of less than $500 were eligible for these flats. They were gratefully taken up and at that point of time were adequate for the families with limited incomes that move in. Since then, the number of persons in many of these families has increased, the children have grown up and incomes have increased. So, quite logically they want better accommodation. Thus, from a one-room flat, they wish to move into a two-room flat.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to congratulate the Government for its careful forward planning and for the prompt measures it has taken from time to time to meet changing situations so as to ensure Singapore's continuing economic and social progress. During the past few years there have been many crises, some big, some small, some political and some economic, which have overwhelmed a few nations and have eroded the vitality of a number of others. Few nations have escaped the debilitating consequences of these crises, which have left on their national economies and political fabric, indelible scars, such as the dire consequences of extreme national self interest, territorial hegemony and man's inhumanity to man. Our island Republic, although buffeted by the tremors of international crises, has managed to keep afloat on the sea of international turbulence, because our Government has charted our course with hard-headed, forward-looking policies, self-discipline and pragmatism. I am sure that all Singaporeans will join me in congratulating the Government for the leadership it has provided since 1959. The projection of a 6 to 8% growth, barring massive world economic recession, is something we can be justifiably proud of, especially for a small country with no natural resources. Overall development thus, Mr Speaker, Sir, is most encouraging and gratifying, but in the ultimate analysis of the role of Government, it is the individual, the common man, the citizen, that the Government should be concerned with and not only the problems at national level alone.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am given to understand that the Government is building a second canal in Bras Basah area, which was my former constituency. May I ask the Minister whether this work has begun, if so, when will it be completed, and how much money is involved?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question of traffic offences, does the Minister think that it is fair for an offender to be informed of the traffic offence by the Traffic Police at the time when the offence was committed or after one month?”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn. Mr Teong Eng Siong( In Mandarin): Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of item 8101 of Subhead Code NA-01 of the Development Estimates. Sir, the amount allocated for the Urban and Rural Services this year is $3.25 million, almost the same as for last year. This shows that our Government is continuing to look after the people in the rural areas. In fact, the URSC has done a lot in the past 15 years for the rural people. This is praiseworthy. As a Member of Parliament for a rural constituency for the past 15 years I have noticed a lot of development there. Many roads in the rural areas have been metalled. All villages have been supplied with electricity, including all the roads where there are street lightings. As for water, 95% of the villages are supplied with piped water. There is only a small area where there is no water supply yet. In view of these achievements, I would like to congratulate the Minister on behalf of my constituents. I also want to ask the Minister if he could consider allocating some portion of the provision of $250,000 for this year for the benefit of Jalan Ulu Sembawang village, part of which is in Bukit Panjang, by providing water supply which is lacking there. I am sure the fund is sufficient and I hope the Minister will consider this request sympathetically.”
“Sir, I am not satisfied with the answer given by the Minister con- cerned when he said that the HDB is not going to build shophouses as it might kill the private developers. On this point, I am afraid he is shedding crocodile tears. There is a Chinese saying mau ko lau su chia chi peh. On the one hand, he is saying that we should not kill the private developers by competing with them. We must let them have some business. On the other hand, he is saying that shops can be tendered. If the HDB allows shops to be tendered, what is the difference if we sell them to people who have been affected by urban redevelopment? I am not asking the HDB to build shops especially for these people. I am only asking the HDB to give those people who have been affected by redevelopment a chance to buy HDB shop- houses. I do not see the logic of the Minister's argument.”
“In the old days, the flats were smaller and the area was congested. But now the situation has changed, so we should adopt a different attitude and a more flexible approach to adapt and apply the rules to the new situation. Only then can we solve the problems of the HDB and the HUDC gradually. Otherwise, we will be faced with more and more of these problems and the Minister will get into more trouble.”
“This is the situation in my constituency and so we negotiated with the HDB for the rentals to be reduced, but have so far not been successful. Therefore, the Government, while encouraging these civic organisations to do charitable work at their own expense, does not grant concessionary rentals for such welfare services. The Government seems to have adopted the policy of "money in command": I hold the money, you do the job. We do not want just words from the Government but we want deeds. As it is, it amounts to just paying lip service to community welfare work. Sir, I now come to the next point. New housing estates are constructed differently from old housing estates. In the new housing estates, the ground floor area is void whereas in the old estates the ground floor consists of either shophouses or residential flats. In such cases, there are some problems. As there are no awnings over the ground floor flats, whenever it rains water will splash in, or whenever somebody on the upper floor throws something down, the people below can be hit and get into trouble. So they complain to the CCC. I personally had occasion to receive a complaint that a meat chopper was thrown out from a window from an upper floor, and the complainant almost had his head chopped off. This kind of problem was brought up with the Housing Board and permission was asked to put up awnings at the expense of the owners. After a lot of correspondence they have not given any favourable reply. So the matter was brought up with the CCC, and they wrote in but the reply came in just two lines with a terse negative answer. I think the whole situation should be reviewed. No doubt with more and more houses and flats being built, we ought to be very strict about building control but circumstances have changed.”
“[Mr Hwang Soo Jin in the Chair] But, in respect of implementation of policy, as the Member for Khe Bong has mentioned, there are certain problems involving shophouses. The business of shop-houses in the housing estates is so poor that some of them have closed down for a whole year through, without any subsequent takers. The reason is that the rentals and overhead expenses are too high. I would like to ask the Minister whether any thought has been given to the original planning of the estate with regard to the need for more shophouses. The purpose of the shophouses is to provide basic services for the residents, like barber shops, laundry, coffeeshops, Chinese medicine shops, bakeries, stationery shops, grocery stores, photo saloons, etc. But some of the shops have already closed down because of the high rentals. So if the Board will thinks that such shophouses are necessary so as to provide the basic services for the residents, then it should review the whole rental situation and to lower the rentals so as to attract occupants. But as it is, the shop-owners could not make ends meet and have to close down their business and approach the MPs to help them get hawker stall licences as they had not been able to get licences on their own. I would like to deal with another problem. Recently civic organisations have been encouraged by the Government to look after the old people. So some old folks homes have been set up in the Housing Board estates. These organisations have raised funds for this purpose but the rentals for such premises remain as high as for normal residential flats. So the little money that they have raised is used to pay for the rentals of the premises rented from the Housing Board.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of item 1100 of Subhead NA-01 of the Main Estimates. Sir, in moving this amendment, I would like to ask the Minister concerned whether small business proprietors, who have lost their shophouses owing to urban redevelopment, will be given the option to purchase shophouses from the Housing and Development Board. These affected persons are allowed to buy only flats for residence and not shops to do business. They can only rent shops from the HDB. Although they have been compensated by the HDB for acquiring their shophouses, the amount of compensation received was not enough to purchase shophouses from private developers. Since the HDB has a Home Ownership Scheme, I would like to know whether this Home Ownership Scheme could be extended to them. If it could, they would be better off in the long run and, if it could not be extended to them, these people would be very much worse off. Mr Lai Tha Chai (Henderson)( In Mandarin): Sir, I would also like to take this opportunity to mention some of the problems that have arisen in the Housing Board's estates. There is no doubt that the Housing Board and the URA, of which the Senior Minister of State is the Chairman, have done a good job in Singapore by building a lot of flats and shophouses for our people. But I also realise that in spite of the many problems that exist in such a large organisation, I can see that members of the staff in the Area Offices in my constituency have managed to improve their performance. So even if they cannot improve on it any more, I hope they will at least maintain their present standards of performance. 5.48 p.m.”
“It is because I love you more than they do!”
“They have had 30 years to work on this problem and I feel sure that the 300,000 captives of the Income Tax Department would be glad to learn whether they are paying a higher rate of income tax because there are 150,000 income tax evaders whom the Income Tax Department have so far been unable to reach and give parity of treatment in the matter of income tax. Mr Speaker, Sir, it may well be that this budget could be the proverbial straw to break the camel's back. 3.43 p.m.”
“But while on the one hand, we are seeking a more equitable distribution of wealth on a global scale, on the other hand, in our own Republic, new taxation scales are being introduced to make rich Singaporeans richer and poor Singaporeans poorer. There appears to be a contradiction in our approach. Finally, Sir, I would like to turn to another weak excuse given by the Minister for Finance to justify the increase in tax to meet the shortfalls created by reductions in income tax rates. I refer to the 150,000 people who, he says, should be paying tax on their income but do not do so because they are self-employed and keep no accounts. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Income Tax Department has been in existence for nearly 30 years and if at the end of 30 years they still say that they are unable to assess the income of 150,000 people, that is to say, another 50% of the existing number of 300,000 taxpayers, then something is radically wrong with the department. Or the Income Tax Department is content only to collect tax from law-abiding citizens while letting those who are clever enough to get away scot-free. This is a most inequitable situation. It is high time that those responsible bestirred themselves and made an effort to ensure that all Singaporeans are treated equally before the Income Tax law. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is an old Chinese saying that "a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first stop". Has the first step been taken by the Income Tax Department in this direction?”
“Surely all these perks have to be declared by those in the private sector to the Comptroller of Income Tax, and my understanding is that they are also taken into account in assessing the income tax payable. An entertainment allowance has to be justified as being necessary for the promotion of business. In any case comparable facilities are also available to senior officials in the public sector. My understanding of the situation is that if they have to entertain on official business, funds could be made available, provided the Minister for Finance is satisfied that such entertainment is necessary. Senior civil servants go abroad on official business at Government expense in the same way as their counterparts in the private sector proceed on company business. It is obvious, therefore, that the so-called perks are also available to the professionals in the public sector and if perchance the rules for these perks are a bit too rigid they could perhaps be liberalised by administrative action. Thus parity in treatment could be achieved without having to reduce the taxation rates in the upper income brackets and widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots. Mr Speaker, Sir, a few years ago at an UNCTAD meeting our Ministerial representative, in protesting against certain GATT regulations, pointed out that the end-result of certain regulations was that the rich countries were becoming richer and the poor countries poorer. He underscored the need for a revision in the existing regulations so as to close the gap between the rich nations and the poor nations. That was indeed necessary.”
“After a few years, having demonstrated the value of his services, he seeks a greater measure of stability by getting together with a few colleagues and incorporating themselves into a company, so that collectively not only do they have greater security, but are able to offer more expertise by pooling their talents and resources. A closer examination of the newer companies will probably show that it is the younger generation who are now incorporating themselves into companies. This is a logical development. But the Hon. Minister for Finance appears to have misconstrued the situation and having been unduly alarmed by his misconception, has been stampeded into making concessions for fears which are absolutely unfounded. I am also astounded by the argument that tax reductions at the upper levels of income are necessary because "professionals and executives working for the public sector on salaries are unable to take advantage of this loophole in the law" and that they do not enjoy the "perks of tax free expenses". Sir, in regard to salaries it should be remembered that Government salary scales and allowances especially for professionals have increased considerably in recent years with rapid promotions so as to bring them almost at par with their colleagues in the private sector. Therefore, there is no need for those in the public sector to seek any "loophole" because at present under the existing tax schedule, they are subject to the same levels of taxation as their colleagues in the private sector. In regard to the so-called "perks of tax free expenses", what exactly are they? Is the Minister referring to entertainment allowance or the use of the company car? Or the company house?”
“I quote: "Aggravating the problem of equity or fairness in sharing the tax burden is the ability of many self-employed professionals to incorporate themselves into companies in order to sell their personal services, and thereby quite legally avoid paying tax at more than 40%, the company rate. Professionals and executives working for the public sector on salaries are unable to take advantage of this loophole in the law. Nor do they enjoy the perks of tax free 'expenses'." Mr Speaker, Sir, I am appalled at this argument. This is tantamount to saying that because some of those in the professions are organising themselves into corporations and have thus been able to avoid paying a higher rate of income tax, the Government has to grant them income tax concessions although they are perfectly within their rights to band themselves into companies. In any case, it is not at all certain that they are forming themselves into companies to avoid a higher rate of income tax. They may well be organising themselves into companies because the boom is over and money is more tight, thus making it more prudent and profitable for them to work in groups. Mr Speaker, Sir, the tendency for many self-employed professionals to "incorporate themselves into companies in order to sell their personal services" is as old as the hills. A large number of the older professionals incorporated themselves into companies many, many years ago, after working independently for a few years. This is a natural process among professionals. The ambitious young professional prefers to operate alone for a few years in the open market to prove his worth.”
“The fact that a disproportionate amount of manpower is required to collect this minimal tax does not bother the Income Tax Department. It will be noted that on this rare occasion, in justifying the income tax concessions for those in the higher income brackets, the Minister for Finance has had at last conceded that he has taken into account the matter of inflation. I quote: "Fuelling this tendency was the effect of inflation, relatively mild in Singapore, which has pushed some income earners at all levels into higher taxation brackets." Mr Speaker, Sir, now that at last the Minister for Finance has conceded that there is inflation in the context of income tax, has he taken into account how this inflation has hit those in the lower income brackets and eroded the purchasing power of their hard-earned dollar? The 1% to 2% tax reduction for those in the lower income bracket is a mockery in the face of the rise in the cost of living and inflation during the last 30 years. One wonders at times whether the Minister for Finance is at all concerned with the views expressed in this House, or whether he is solely guided by the advice of his bureaucracy? I say this because on the one hand, although there have been frequent requests in this House for increasing the personal relief, the Minister for Finance has chosen to ignore the views of elected representatives. On the other hand, out of the blue, he has chosen to lower the rate of income tax for the benefit of those in the higher income brackets, although there was no representation in this House for such a change. One wonders what prompted the Minister to do this. Perhaps he has his own advisors. I am astounded at the rationale given for the concessions for those in the higher income bracket.”
“9%, there was apparently no need for tax increases in the 1977 budget. But now that the Consumer Price Index increased last year by 3.2% bringing with it attendant hardship to those in the lower income brackets, the Minister for Finance has chosen to add insult to injury by increasing the tax on telephones, televisions, cars, etc. - small amenities which bring happiness to workers when they are able to afford a little luxury here and there. It would appear then that the intention is to make the working class pay dearly for the small pleasures of life. They will feel acutely the additional tax burden, especially as the illusory tax concessions for them - the 1% to 2% - have already been wiped out by the rise in the Consumer Price Index. It is clear, therefore, that they were better off last year when there were no income tax reductions. Mr Speaker, Sir, during the last few years several voices have been raised in this House urging that the personal relief of $2,000 which was fixed in 1948 at the inception of income tax in Singapore, and has remained stagnant since then, be raised in view of the inflation that has taken place during the last three decades. All our representations, which reflect the sentiments, especially of those in the lower income brackets, have fallen on deaf ears, as far as the Ministry of Finance is concerned. Various excuses have been given to reject any increase in the personal relief. It would seem that this inflexible attitude is because wage earners are captives in the income tax net. The Income Tax Department finds them easy prey, although the revenue collected from those in the lower income brackets is minimal in terms of the $3,400 million collected by the Income Tax Department last year.”
“It will be appreciated that the Consumer Price Index variations are of greater concern to those in the lower income brackets - any increase in the Consumer Price Index will affect them more than those in the higher income brackets. But the tax reduction for those in the lower income group - those who really need concessions - is only around 1% to 2%. It will be evident, therefore, that the so-called "tax reduction" for those with small incomes has been more than eroded by the increase in the Consumer Price Index. This means that the larger section of the society - those at the bottom of the economic scale - will be worse off this year than last year. Mr Speaker, Sir, 1977 was a difficult year and we were asked to work harder and to be more prudent in our spending habits, and to accept certain other constraints, in the interests of national survival. This we all did cheerfully and collectively. The end-result was that, as a consequence of the cooperation and co-ordination of the efforts of the Government, Labour and Management, our economy grew by 7.8%. It is a credit to all concerned. But it would seem from the Hon. Finance Minister's budget that he seeks to reward only management and those in the higher income brackets through tax concessions. What about the poor working class? Do they not also merit some consideration? But no. Their pittance is 1% to 2% which has already been wiped out by the rise in the Consumer Price Index of 3.2%; whereas the more affluent and the rich get tax reductions of up to 18%. Where then is the equality in treatment? Are we not still dedicated to a more just and equal society? Mr Speaker, Sir, I find the budget even more puzzling because in 1976, when the Consumer Price Index dropped by 1.”
“And the people of Singapore, having confidence in our Government which has led us through difficult times and given us a higher living and continued economic and social development despite the many problems that have beset us from time to time, have accepted the new strategies of the Government as being the inevitable concomitance of development and economic progress for their continued welfare. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, the budget of the Minister for Finance represents a major departure from the fundamental principle of the People's Action Party for a more just and equal society. It is obvious that this budget is a capitalistic budget, for the benefit of the rich and the affluent. It is a budget aimed at making the rich richer and the poor poorer, negating the fundamental principle of socialism. It is evident from a glance at the proposed tax schedules that the so called "tax concessions" are calculated to mainly benefit those in the upper income brackets. The new tax rates clearly indicate that it is only those who draw above $35,000 a year are the real beneficiaries of the reductions in the income tax rates. Those in the lower income brackets get practically nothing except what may be termed a "token concession". It would appear that the token concessions for those in the lower income brackets are merely to justify the substantial concession for those in the higher income brackets. It is difficult to understand the rationale of the Hon. Minister for Finance for this unprecedented budget. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance has informed us that the Consumer Price Index has increased by 3.2% since last year.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1954 the People's Action Party, in enunciating its determination to strive for a more just and equal society for all citizens, spelt out this fundamental principle in its Constitution in the following terms, and I quote: - 'To abolish the unjust inequalities of wealth and opportunity inherent in the present system; to establish an economic order which will give to all citizens the right to work and full economic returns for their labour and skill; to ensure a decent living, and social security to all those who through sickness, infirmity or old age can no longer work.' This basic objective was steadfastly adhered to when our Party first came to power to form the Government and the financial policies of the Government were directed towards this end. There were inevitably some minor modifications in procedures from time to time, to meet changing situations, but we did not swerve from our declared principles of democratic socialism - for a more just and equal society. It is understandable since ours is an open economy that we should take into account international situations and take the necessary precautions to cushion our Republic and our people from the adverse effects of conditions that arise from time to time in our region and on the international scene. We have rightly developed an economy which can be described as a capitalist-socialist mix, Such an economy is required for our survival. During the last few years, however, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have observed a disturbing trend towards rank capitalistic practices, with no corresponding countervailing action to maintain our socialistic objectives. These changes in policy have been rationalised as being necessary for our continued economic growth in the face of changing world situations.”
“Is it not the same? The school board has the right to hire and fire. When it comes to the question of payment of retrenchment benefits, they say that this is not the responsibility of the Government.”
“I am sorry, Sir. The question is addressed to the Minister.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, are you denying that they are on the payroll of the Government?”
“Sir, is the Minister aware that if the Government had not taken over these aided Chinese schools, in the event of retrenchment these clerks would have been paid retrenchment benefits?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Minister said that in 1976 two clerical employees had their services prematurely terminated because jobs could not be found for them.”
“Sir, the Minister has not answered the most important part of my question. Can the Minister give an assurance whether similar employees of schools which are still functioning will not suffer the same fate if their schools are closed down? I insist upon an assurance from the Minister because employees of Chinese-aided schools are between 45 and 50 years old and the employment market for this age-group is very thin.”
“To ask the Minister for Home Affairs and Education (a) how many clerical employees of some aided Chinese schools in the rural area have become unemployed following the closure of the schools recently; (b) why the Ministry of Education cannot employ them in some of the schools which have newly been opened; and (c) whether an assurance can be given to similar employees of schools which are still functioning that they will not suffer the same fate if their schools are closed, as they have been feeling insecure and demoralised since the retrenchments. 24.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I still do not agree with the Minister. The Minister said that pre-war houses are subject to rent control. Since the rent is low, the Minister should allow the developer to increase the rent a little. For the post-war houses which are not subject to rent control, he is saying that the developer could increase the rent as much as he likes. So how does the Minister reconcile his statements?”
“If that is the case, Sir, why does the Senior Minister of State not lift the control of rent on the pre-war houses?”
“Sir, why does the Senior Minister of State not raise any objection when the shopkeeper notifies in the newspapers that intoxicating drinks will be sold on the premises? Why does the Senior Minister of State allow emporiums and supermarkets to sell articles ranging from a drawing pin to an aeroplane, but does not allow a provision shop to sell intoxicating drinks although it is licensed by the Liquors Licensing Board to sell intoxicating drinks?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Minister be able to inform this House whether this measure to increase hawker licence fees is being introduced just because the hawkers have not been paying income tax? Or whether the Government has plans to introduce measures to make the hawkers pay income tax.”
“Sir, is the Minister aware that possibly as a result of pedestrians taking their own sweet time to cross that traffic congestion is caused by motorists wanting to turn left or right?”
“Sir, I would like to know whether the Minister will consider holding an exhibition in this Chamber for Members of Parliament to learn the conversion before they go out and teach the housewives?”
“This substantial financial contribution is not only to get the foundation going but also to demonstrate the goodwill and sincerity of the promoters to the cause for which the foundation was set up. In this case, since it is the Government which is setting up the Labour Foundation, one would expect that the Government would manifest its support for the Labour Foundation by giving it a substantial contribution to start it off. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are several foundations in Singapore, the Lee Foundation, and the Shaw Foundation, to name two. Both these Foundations were created by philanthropists for worthy causes and they contributed substantial sums of money to start off the foundations, so that they could become viable concerns. I am therefore astonished by the statement that the Labour Foundation will not involve the Government in any financial commitment. This prompts me to question the degree of support the Government proposes to give to the Labour Foundation. Do the objectives and rationale for the setting up of the Labour Foundation enjoy the full support and cooperation of the Government or is the Government merely establishing an edifice as a cosmetic, to provide lip service to a worthy cause?”
“I am extremely happy that this Bill is being introduced by the Government; it also demonstrates that the contributions and sacrifices made by labour in their development and progress of Singapore have been taken into account. Therefore, as a former trade unionist, I support the Bill in principle. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to enquire whether this Foundation will also cater for the families of the trade unionists who belonged to the small band which pioneered the trade union movement in Singapore in the early fifties - in an era when trade unionism was an ugly word and trade unionists were regarded as trouble-makers. Some of these trade unionists, at great personal sacrifice, made solid and invaluable contributions in the struggle against the colonial government for economic and political freedom. Some of them are here today and some of them are no longer active because of their age and other reasons, but we should not forget the roles they played and the sacrifices they made, which in many cases resulted in their having to neglect their families. As a result, some of the families concerned are badly off and are suffering today. I feel that we should not disregard our responsibilities to these members of the old guard in the trade union field in our concern for the welfare of the trade unionists of today and tomorrow. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would also like to refer to the statement in the Bill which states that the establishment of this Foundation will not involve the Government in any financial commitment. It is the general practice when a foundation is set up for the promoters of the foundation to make a large financial contribution to the foundation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to congratulate the Minister for Labour for introducing this Bill for the creation of the Labour Foundation, which is designed to aid our trade union movement and assist the families of union members. I feel sure that this Bill would not have been considered if the persons concerned in promoting the Bill had not been closely associated with the trade union movement and if the Minister for Labour had not had links with the trade union movement. We are fortunate in having a Minister for Labour who is familiar with the history of the trade union movement in Singapore and with the objectives and aspirations of labour - he is a member of the old guard, the small group of persons who, in the early 5O's took up the fight for our independence against seemingly overwhelming odds. The passage of this Bill and the establishment of the Labour Foundation will not only benefit the-workers of Singapore but also enhance the dignity of labour. It will also dispel the allegations of certain politicians, who have been unsuccessful at recent elections, that workers are being exploited under the rule of the People's Action Party. These politicians, who inevitably appear on the public stage once every four or five years at election time, are prone to make wild and unsubstantiated statements so as to make headlines to attract public attention, even though they know that their claims are untrue. The philosophy behind the Labour Foundation and the fact that it is being set up by our Government clearly nails the lies of the opposition as misrepresentation of the fact.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if these people are not to be repatriated, who is going to be responsible for their livelihood? I ask this question because no employer will employ these people since they do not have identity cards. Under the circumstances who is going to be responsible for their livelihood in Singapore?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, since the Government is not going to give these Special Pass holders permanent stay status, is the Government going to repatriate them to their country of origin?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, apart from retracting that portion of his statement, did G. Raman also retract any other part of his statement?”
“Sir, all things being equal, will the Senior Minister of State agree that priority of allocation should be given to the local residents of the housing estate?”
“Sir, I am not satisfied with the answer. The Minister said. "it will take a longer time." I want to know how long is "longer time."”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Minister's experience, if a complaint of assault is made to him, how long will he take to reply?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if the alteration does not mar the aesthetic appearance of the building, will the Housing Board agree or disagree to it?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to know the meaning of the word "assignment." Does it mean a change of tenant in the tenancy agreement, or does it mean that a private limited company is not allowed to use its business name? What does it mean? I would like to know, because the word "assignment" is very vague.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to know whether or not this assignment constitutes an infringement. Dr Tan Eng Liang: Mr Speaker, Sir, I really do not know whether or not it is legal. But where there is a tenancy agreement, it must be an agreement made between the parties concerned and, in this case, the HDB and the tenant in question, whoever it may be. But there is also provision in the agreement to say that should there be a change in the tenancy, the Board has the right to review the rental that is being charged. So if the Member wants a definite answer whether or not this is legal, I can check the document and find out. But this is the Board's practice and I am sure this is made known to most of the people who rent HDB shops.”
“Sir, I think he has misunderstood me. What I meant was that we have only about two million people, yet we are making use of so much manpower. If we had a population equal to the United States or China, how are we going to tackle our educational problems? So comparatively our results are poor. This is a comparison with other countries.”
“In his reply to me just now, the Minister of State said that I had exaggerated in what I had said. I can tell the House that I did not exaggerate. However. I feel that he has exaggerated in his reply, because he admitted that the school term had started quite late this year compared to last year. The date for admission had been delayed. Therefore, what I had criticised has not been an exaggeration.”
“However, the efficiency and the performance of the Education departments in these countries are not difficult to see. Educating the young is a long term process and an arduous task. It is the mainstay of State policy, with politics, national defence, social and economic development and communications as its ramifications. In the early 1960s Western sociologists discovered, after much study and research, that education is the motivating force of national progress. The long delay by our Ministry of Education in handling the admission of Pre-U I students not only runs counter to the guiding principle of education but it also makes the Ministry guilty of dereliction. I hope that all Members of the House will take note of this. I also hope that the Education Ministry will pay attention to the work of students by exercising greater supervision over its staff, tightening its administration and raising efficiency.”
“The processing is said to be done by computers and as such, in our mind, it must be time-saving, highly efficient and fast, and the newly admitted Pre-U I students should have been able to begin classes seven or ten days later. But, alas, they have to wait until two days before the end of the first term to start their first lesson. Just how much, may I ask, can they learn in the circumstances? What kind of education are we promoting? The questions I wish to ask are firstly, the results of the Government Secondary IV examination for the Chinese stream were released on 5th February and completed application forms (for admission to Pre-U I) were all submitted to the Ministry for computerised processing on 9th February. But the Ministry of Education had to drag on until 9th March to release the lists of the newly admitted Pre-U I students to the various schools. What is the cause for such a long delay? Secondly, does the Education Ministry know that much precious time of the students had been wasted? Or was there anything wrong with the Ministry's administration in dealing with this matter? Thirdly, is it not a fact that the way the matter was handled had caused much precious time of the students to be wasted? Pre-U I teachers in many schools had no classes to teach. Is this not a waste of the taxpayers' hard-earned money? Singapore's population is just over two million people, and with so many people being employed by the Education Ministry yet the Ministry is so inefficient in its work. If the Education departments in countries like China and the United States, with large populations, were to follow our Education Ministry, then it would not be difficult to imagine how many people would have to be employed.”