J. B. Jeyaretnam
Singapore
“And even if he did not know, as the Court of Appeal said, he was wilfully blind to that fact. This cannot be a defence because you cannot prove knowledge on the part of the accused. But what the court can do is to look at all the circumstances of the case and then conclude that it is beyond reasonable doubt that he had that knowledge.”
“Sir, as I now understand it, the payment to Mr Olds was compensation or gratuity, and not salary for the year 2000. If it was gratuity or compensation, may I ask whether there was any term in the contract of employment with him for the payment of gratuity, how long was he employed for, and why did he leave?”
“Maybe there are other areas in which we can think of similar useful schemes so that those who are unable to upgrade themselves sufficiently can still have good employment. It is a complex problem. And I think all Ministries and economic agencies would have to think harder how to address this problem.”
“May I make it clear that I shall talk about the aspects of the case which should have been considered by the court. So, in that way, it might reflect on the court's decision. But I do want the Cabinet, when it comes to advising the President on the clemency petition that had been sent to him, to take these points into consideration.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with respect, I do not quite understand your restriction because, as I understand it, all court proceedings are now over. So there are no pending proceedings in court. The court is now functus officio. Mr Deputy Speaker: You did not listen to me carefully.”
“Mr Noris Ong Chin Guan asked the Minister for Manpower, given the current economic climate, will his Ministry consider encouraging local employers to give priority to employing Singaporeans who can perform equivalent jobs, including our healthy elderly, rather than to resort to engaging foreign employees too readily.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,058 lines we hold for J. B. Jeyaretnam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 49 of 82.
“I would like to know who beats around the bush. An hon. Member: You.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on this amendment to the motion. As I thought, and expected, everything that I said was lost on this Minister of State and I expect it has been lost on the Government Ministers and other Members of the ruling Party. Sir, this amendment consists of four paragraphs, and the first one is: 'Conscious of the duty of Members as responsible representatives'. Great. It is a declaration that they are all conscious of the duty as responsible representatives. Great. Let the public of Singapore take note that the PAP Members of Parliament are conscious of their duty as responsible representatives. The second one is: 'Declaring that if it should become necessary for earnings to be reduced as a national measure to overcome the recession, Members of Parliament including Ministers and other office holders shall be the first to suffer such reduction;' This is trying to get out. They find that they have been put to the test and so they wriggle - [interruption] I will come to that. Do not worry about it. I will come to it. You leave me alone and I will come to answer your questions.”
“Sit down first. I am going to speak on this amendment.”
“He is not here. Mr Rajaratnam: On a point of clarification. Does it mean that his sense of sacrifice has diminished by 50%?”
“On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Member is not here to move the amendment. Unless he has got permission to move the amendment, the Minister of State should not refer to it.”
“He has gone to a rally, if you want to know.”
“Obviously, the Senior Minister cannot restrain himself. May I say that all this preaching is making a mockery. It is mocking at our workers, at our lowly-paid workers, if we do not ourselves set an example. The adage is: an ounce of example is worth a ton of preaching or sermonizing. So I hope that tonight we shall resolve, my dear Members, to set an example to our people of our determination to identify ourselves with them and not see ourselves as somebody set apart and separate, who have no part in this suffering that has been caused, not to everybody, but to some of them and quite a number of them, quite a proportion of our workers. Let us resolve and tell them that we are a part of them and not people set apart, just to lord it over them and to tell them, "You do this, you do that, we would not do this. It is for you to do it." 5.50 pm”
“Good. As I was saying, when there was the onset of an economic recession in Malaysia, the Prime Minister there, his Deputy Prime Minister, the other Ministers, all gave up part of their salaries. It is not that we should follow their example. It does not matter that others do it or do not do it. It is its own intrinsic value and merit, and I say that this motion does have its own intrinsic value and merit and I hope that the Ministers and the Members of Parliament of the ruling Party will agree that it is time that we not only preach to our people but we set an example to them. [Mr Raiaratnam left the Chamber]”
“If the Senior Minister wishes to know, I said, "I am sorry he has walked away. I hope he is coming back." And I am glad to see you back, Mr Senior Minister.”
“I see the Senior Minister has walked out. I hope he is coming back. I have suggested that he should second my motion, not that I needed anybody this time. Mr Speaker, Sir, we need not look very far for an example of this. Across the Causeway, when there was a - [Mr Rajaratnam entered the Chamber].”
“So the public are aware after March, and even before that, of the salaries that are being paid to their leaders out of their own taxed monies. Monies paid by them as tax. What do they see their leaders doing? They see their leaders addressing them and saying, "Tighten your belts. Wage restraint for you. Nothing for you. As for us, we are all right, Jack. Don't you worry." Is that the example we want to set for the people of this country? I ask you quite seriously: is that the example that you expect from a leader? This motion, let me tell you, will test the sincerity of the leaders of the Government and of the ruling Party. That is the motive behind this motion, nothing else. I want to put to the test once and for all the sincerity of the leaders of the Government and the PAP. Are they prepared to forgo some of their salaries? Not because it is going to bring about a miracle tomorrow. No. But because it is expected of them as leaders of the people to set an example. I am ready to forgo the proportion that I have suggested in this motion. What we want to know now and what the public of Singapore want to know is whether the Government leaders and the Government MPs are prepared to forgo. [Mr Rajaratnam left the Chamber.]”
“I would not go into the details. The value in this motion is this: that it is symbolic, and although it may not directly have a bearing on the economic recovery, nevertheless it does psychologically affect the economic recovery of this country, and that value must not be minimized. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has been preaching to our workers and to our people the value of pay restraint, of tightening their belts. Who are these people that we are asking to tighten their belts? Workers who are paid $600 a month, $750 a month, and workers who are earning less than $1,000, ie, the majority of our workers. It is to them that we are saying, "Look here, chaps, you know, our situation is not as good as it might be. So forgo any increases." Forgo that, forgo this. Tighten your belt, give up that, give up this. Have we no part in this as leaders of the people, elected into this House? Mr Speaker, I do not want to go all over again the salaries that are being paid, not only to Members of this House but also to the Ministers of this Government. We went through the salaries in March of this year and I pointed out that our Ministers are drawing far in excess of salaries paid to Ministers in other Commonwealth countries, and our Prime Minister was only drawing less than the President of the United States. I have asked a question for wrinen answer, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I was hoping that the answer would have been available when I spoke on this motion. The question that I tabled for a Written Answer was on the pensions and the gratuities that have been paid to the Ministers of this Government and also to the Members who have given up their office at the end of the last Parliament.”
“Where it is due, yes. May I assure the Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Office, and anybody else who thinks likewise, that I am not envious of either the Senior Minister or of anybody else in the Cabinet. May I assure them that I do not think there is anything for me to be envious about. I can tell them quite frankly - I do not like talking about myself very much - but there are times when it must be said. I consider myself far more blessed and that I have got far more joys that I need not be envious of somebody else. I may not have a big bank balance or huge assets or properties, as the Senior Minister or somebody else may have, but that is not what I consider the biggest joy or blessing in life. There are joys far more precious than that, and by God's grace I have got those joys. So may I assure him that it is not envy that prompts me to move this motion. I hope he will understand that and will drop all these allegations of politics of envy. He must know, if anybody else does not, that I have a lot more joy than he has. An hon. Member: What joys?”
“Office? All right, Office. In the Prime Minister's Office. That gives it an elevated status. Yes, all right. You have got to elevate all this.”
“They totally fail to understand the significance of the motion, and I am sorry to see that the Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Department falls into that category of persons who are for some reasons unable to comprehend at all. Having made it clear that this motion is not a cure for the economic crisis, let me move on to the second point, and that is, that this motion is not motivated by any politics of envy, which again the Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Department has suggested might be the motive behind this motion. May I assure the Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Department -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, l beg to move, That this House taking due note of the current economic recession and of the sufferings and hardship that have been caused to many of the citizens thereby and conscious of the duty of Members as representatives of the people to identify themselves with the people in any suffering and to set an example for others to follow resolves that every member forgoes one quarter of the total remuneration received by him whether for salary, pension or allowance of whatsoever kind until further resolution of this House. Mr Speaker, Sir, before I go on to speak in support of this motion, may I express the hope, I do not suppose this hope will be realized, that the whip has been withdrawn on Government MPs. I was going to ask the Government Whip whether that was so in fact, but I have not. But I do hope that the whip has been withdrawn so that Members may vote according to their own conscience on this question. This is not just a matter of jest. This is a serious matter and I hope the Government realizes this and allow Members to vote according to their own conscience on this motion. I must clear one or two things about this motion. First of all, l am not suggesting, as was said in a letter in the Straits Times and by the Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, that I was suggesting that this measure would somehow imme- diately bring about a cure for all our ills. No, I do not, for one minute, think that this measure is going to bring about that cure. I would not be so foolish as to think that. It must be those who suggest that it must have been in my mind who are unable to grasp the significance of this motion.”
“It is on this diesel tax. Is it the proposal then that they should pay an additional $1,100? I understand that at present what they are paying is $1,100 and you were proposing an additional $6,600. Now you have reduced $6,600 to $1,100. So there will be an additional $1,100. Thank you.”
“May I seek a clarification only, Mr Speaker, Sir.”
“Can you tell me what is wrong with that? Tell us. BG Lee Hsien Loong: What is wrong with it is that there is no need to touch them now.”
“What is wrong with using a bit of that? Tell us. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, not more than an hour ago, the Member for Anson explained to us that he has no intention to touch the reserves.”
“They don't grow apples in Malaysia. BG Lee Hsien Loong: They do not grow apples in Malaysia. That is why they have a problem. Do we want to do that? You buy a VCR, you pay a tax. You buy a shirt, you pay a tax. How does this help us with the rest of the world, with our trading partners, Japan, the United States, Europe? Are you suggesting that we should go for a customs union, or does the Member wish perhaps to modify his proposal? Mr Chiam See Tong: Are you against it? BG Lee Hsien Loong: I am against the customs union. Are you for it? I understand from the Member for Potong Pasir that he wishes that we impose import duties on clothes, on watches, on consumer goods, on food. That is what the customs union is. May I proceed to the next point of the Government's repayment of CPF? The question is: Will we have a problem in 25 years' time giving back the CPF money to depositors? Are we certain we can pay back? I would say that we are not certain. We cannot be certain because we do not know which future government may be tempted to raid the reserves and give the money away.”
“You got it wrong, didn't you? BG Lee Hsien Loong: The absurdity is beyond comprehension. It is the same logic which leads us to talk about customs union. What is a customs union? That means you find partners, you set up a wall around all of the partners, and you trade within the walls. If your partners - An hon. Member: This is not what he says. BG Lee Hsien Loong: In this case, I think we have to forgive not only the words but also the person. If you are going to set up a customs union, then you are going to set up a wall against the rest of the world within which you will trade. What is the wall? That means if you are going to import anything from the rest of the world, you must have a tariff, a tax. If you eat an apple in Malaysia, there is a tax. Why is there a tax? Because there are domestic growers, domestic producers who have to be protected. We have no domestic growers of apples or bananas.”
“Why don't you ask the economists about this? Ask the Member for Leng Kee. BG Lee Hsien Loong: The Member for Leng Kee offered me this advice on the last occasion I consulted him in March.”
“You say domestic demand has no part to play, is it? BG Lee Hsien Loong: We make pharmaceuticals to sell to all of the world. Local domestic demand is important, but it cannot make up for the loss of our external market, which is where our competitiveness matters. If we lose our external markets, if we cannot sell our computers in America, if we cannot sell our petrochemicals overseas, I do not see Singaporeans buying petrochemicals by the tens of thousands of tons, or computers by the tens of thousands of units, to make up for this. We need to earn our keep in the rest of the world, We import all our food. Who is going to pay for that?”
“You have not. All right, Sir. Mr Chiam See Tong rose -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. The Member for Toa Payoh -”
“I think it is too ridiculous a suggestion.”
“I have asked for a reduction in the income tax. Is that a pecuniary interest, Mr Speaker, Sir?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification because all these things get reported ad nauseam. I never suggested using the national reserves.”
“Even if they are able to get employment, it will often be at a reduction in the salary. They have got to accept lower wages, particularly those who are over 50 or 55 years now. It becomes increasingly difficult for them to find employment. What is our message to them? Are we going to say, 'Well, you look after yourselves. We are not really concerned about you."? Let us not forget that the economic success of this country that we were so proud of, and which we enjoyed until this economic downturn, was brought about largely by these people who are now out of employment, who are now worst hit. It is they who are hit more than anybody else. So what is our message to them? I have not seen any measures announced by the Government that speaks to these people. The measures so far announced speak to the businessmen. What about the workers? What measures have we got for them? I would ask the Government not to neglect the workers, As I said on Saturday, this Government's oft-repeated concern and care for the workers is mere lip service, It is an illusion, and I hope the Government will take this to heart and come up with some measures that will alleviate the hardship of our working class. Sir, I beg to move my amendment.”
“But I think there is room and it is timely now for the Government to give greater personal reliefs. I have spoken on this at every Budget sitting since 1982. I have pointed out that the personal reliefs which we are now giving to our citizens are lower than what they were in 1947. Here is an opportunity to do something for them and at the same time stimulate the economy. I call this Government to immediately increase the personal reliefs. What are we giving now? $1,000 for the wife if she is not working and $750 for the first child and $1,000 for any age-old dependants. They are hopelessly inadequate and a measure now to increase these benefits will not only help them but help the economy. I would ask the Government to consider that. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, the hardship that has resulted to the working class. The Acting Minister for Labour yesterday, when I briefly touched on this, said I could make the appeal to the Minister for Finance. Well,[ make the appeal now. It is not good enough to say, "Let them be unemployed for two years, three years, before we make available some of the CPF savings to them." That is after all their own money. I do not see why they should not have it now, if it is necessary. But I am not thinking of the CPF savings. Is it not possible for the Government - we have after all a surplus - to institute some form of relief for those who are thrown out of employment and who remain unemployed for months at a time? I asked yesterday for figures from the Acting Minister for Labour, of workers who have been unemployed for six months or more. He said he was unable to produce those figures. I know of workers who have been unemployed for that period of time. On paper, of course, we have got full employment. But that does not happen in practice.”
“He sees this in the lack of adequate University graduates in this country, and he talks about people who leave, the brain drain. He says Taiwan has got this pool of trained specialists and he thinks Singapore will lose out to Taiwan in this race for higher technology. Is it necessary in our move to higher technology that we should snuff out all the other low technology industries or businesses? Is there not room for some of them still in this country? I hope the Government will give more thought to this. The Prime Minister made this point, which is very valid and has been noted by others as well, that the recession affects our local businessmen far more than the big multi-national companies or the foreign companies. We have got to do something to help our businessmen, our entrepreneurs, our capitalists in Singapore, and particularly the small businessmen. So in our eagerness to move into the higher technology, and I am not saying it is wrong, it is a good thing, let us not snuff out everything else, because if we do not make the grade to the higher technology, then we would not have anything left. It is important that we should keep both going. The other measure that I would seriously commend to this Government is greater tax benefits for individuals, and again I am talking about the lower income group, the wage earners. I am not in favour of corporate tax cuts. I do not think they are that high, and I see somebody else said that they did not think corporate tax cuts would do the trick. But if you can increase the benefits for the working class by giving them tax cuts, you would again stimulate demand. I am not asking for a reduction in the personal rates of income tax that are paid.”
“So I would commend to this Government that it should seriously consider the advice that has been given, not just by myself, but by the economists, by the business sector, and see whether it will be possible to reduce the CPF contribution rate, albeit temporarily, not as a permanent measure and, let me add hastily, find ways to alleviate the problems of the working class who will be put to some considerable difficulty in making the instalment payments if the interest rate is not reduced. That is one measure. There are other measures, Mr Speaker, Sir, and if I may go through them quickly. Mention was made about the policies of neighbouring countries which have affected our economy. What is the Government doing about that, apart from playing golf across the Causeway? Is any attempt being made to come to some arrangement or economic agreement with our neighbours that we would not take measures against one another that would adversely affect our economy? I would like to hear from the First Deputy Prime Minister whether he did anything on his last visit two days ago. There is again the policy of the Government to move to higher technology. I have no quarrel with that, but may I refer the House, Mr Speaker, Sir, to an article in the Technology Review written by an American Professor of Economics at Wel- lesley College in the United States. Do not ask me where Wellesley College is. It is in the United States. His point would appear to be that there are the "Gang of Four" countries, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea, which are moving to higher technology. And he argues that Singapore will lose out to Taiwan because we lack the specialists that are necessary for the higher technology.”
“No. I am saying it can be absorbed, that is all. I am not suggesting, as the last speaker thought I was suggesting, that there should be a reduction in the CPF interest rate. I am certainly not suggesting that because of a reduction in the HDB rate. My suggestion is that this reduction in the HDB interest rate, particularly for the small section of workers, can and should be absorbed by the HDB without any cut in the CPF interest rates. We know that CPF interest rates are already lower than what prevails in the market and I am not, for one minute, suggesting that the CPF interest rate be cut. If the HDB is unable to absorb the reduction, what about the Government? That is a practical measure of help to our workers. I shall be talking about this a little bit further before I sit down, but I have said about the more than $1 billion that the Government has collected in payroll tax. Incidentally, I see that the Act which brought the payroll tax into force has still not been repealed. I pointed out that it was illegal to suspend payment and that the Act had to be repealed, and we were told that it would be. I have not seen any Act yet. But leaving that aside, is it not possible for the Government to absorb this as a practical measure to help our workers? Not just helping them, to help the economy at the moment, If you can do this, then there is no longer any problem for these workers to make their monthly payments. That is, I recognize, the real obstacle to reducing CPF contributions because it will impose a great strain on them. But if we can find a way out, then there will be no burden on our workers.”
“He says, "He is talking a lot of nonsense." Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not want to reopen the question of whether the HDB is making profits or not. It is not something that has just been raised. I have been saying this ever since I came into this House in 1981, because the accounts of the HDB did not show the true position. We have been saying it from 1981 that the HDB has been making profits. I say it again in this House. If the Minister says no, I suggest we hold a public inquiry outside to determine this question once and for all. But quite apart, because I do not want this debate to be side-tracked into this question of HDB making profits, let us keep on the rails of the economy at the moment. But even if it is not making profits from its house building operations, even if it is not (i say "even"), can the HDB not absorb this? I have mentioned about the millions - it is now perhaps over a hundred million dollars - that the HDB has got stashed away as profits in the MND Holdings. I have asked several times as to why this has not been brought over to the HDB, because I said that if it had been brought over and invested, there could have been further earnings for the HDB.”
“" The Minister for National Development (Mr Teh Cheang Wan): He is talking a lot of nonsense.”
“50 with $200 from his account in the CPF. He can use the entire sum in his Ordinary Account every month, $200, leaving a balance of $22.50 that has to be met from his pocket, This is what he is doing now. And if the contribution is reduced from 50% to 40%, 5% on each side, the employer and the employee, then the amount available to him from his CPF savings will only be $160. $200 would be the contribution from the employer and the employee every month, and he can use 80%, which would be $160. So that would mean he has to pay, not just $22.50, he will have to pay $62.50 to meet his housing instalment, for a loan of $30,000. That is a lot, and I of course see that. Is there no way out to help workers with this problem? I am again, may I repeat, concerned only with people who are earning $1,000 and below. We are not concerned with people who are earning $2,000 or $3,000 a month. It is this sector - those who are earning $1,000 and below and who have got these housing loans. I suggested that the HDB could reduce its interest on these loans to 4%, particularly to these workers earning $1,000 and below. Because if it did that, then the instalment drops from $222.50 to $183.95. So if he can pay from the CPF $160 of this $183.95, all that he has got to pay out of his own pocket would be $23.95, which is $1.45 more than what he is currently paying out of his own pocket towards the instalment. But against that, he takes home an extra $25 every month. He has that amount of money to spend if the rate is reduced by 10% , 5% for him and 5% for the employer. So in the end he is better off, if the interest rate is reduced for him. I see the Minister for National Development is studying me very closely, and I am going to be told, "Nonsense, the HDB cannot do this.”
“But what are the positive reasons for reducing the CPF rates? One, of course, is that it will reduce the cost of the wage packet for the employers and the businessmen. I do not want to repeat what has already been said outside many many times. They see this as one of the major factors in keeping up the cost. And I see in the papers that some of the economists in the National University of Singapore also favour a reduction in the CPF rates. So it is not just the businessmen. It is also some economists who see the value of reducing the CPF rate. So there is this positive side of its effect on the productivity in reducing the wage packet for the employers and the businessmen. The other effect is on the demand side and this, I think, has not been stressed enough. As has been said, demand is failing. And if you put a little bit more money into the pockets of the workers, then it will help in picking up the demand again. That is too obvious a statement and needs no clarification. So we should look at its effect on the demand. And that would be a good reason even if the reason of its effect on the costs is not accepted. A good reason would be that it would stimulate demand in the market. It would help the producers of goods and services to sell their goods and services. The main objection is, and we recognize this, is the problem it will create for workers and, particularly, I am concerned with those earning $1,000 and below in meeting their housing instalment payments. I gave out these figures on Saturday. But for the benefit of Members, if we take the case of a worker earning $500 a month and who has a loan of $30,000 from the HDB, spread over 20 years for a 3-room house or a 4-room house, or whatever it is, his payments come up to $222.50 pm. But he can pay this $222.”
“The other object and purpose was to build up foreign reserves. The need for substantial foreign reserves is admitted for an economy like ours, dependent on world trade. There is no questioning of the value in having substantial foreign reserves. But the question is: having built up our reserves to the amount of $22.7 billion, is it necessary that we should continue at the same pace? In fact, Mr Speaker, Sir, as I see it, some economists would argue that a cut in CPF rates would help the economy presently, particularly in the field of exports and thereby generating faster increases in reserves in the longer term. So I do not see that there will be any detriment to or detracting from the objectives and purposes of the CPF when it was first introduced, if a reduction is now made temporarily. The Acting Minister for Labour speaking again, I think, at a National Day dinner in his constituency outlined four reasons: CPF, a pillar of Singapore's economy, part of workers' wages, servicing housing loans, and hard cash in a crisis. I do not want to go through the first and the third one regarding housing loans. I shall deal with them quite shortly. But the CPF savings as "hard cash in a crisis" struck me. This will be achieved if there is a reduction because it will result in more take-home pay for the workers. So I hope the Acting Minister realizes what he was saying when he spoke against this. Because you will, by reducing it by 5% for the employees, put more money into their pockets. An hon. Member: That is their saving.”
“What is asked is not a permanent reduction in the CPF rate but a temporary one, a year or two until we are able to go back to the old rates. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government, as I said on Saturday, would appear to be emotional over the CPF. Instead of regarding the CPF as an instrument of economic policy to which modifications have to be made if necessary, it regards it as an immutable pillar, a monument to the PAP's economic policy and that it cannot be touched or tinkered with. That would be a wrong approach and it is contrary to the oft-repeated PAP's pragmatic policies. So let us not get emotional over CPF. We have never suggested that the CPF contributions are not the workers' wages. We know that it is the workers' monies. Funnily enough, this factor about it being the workers' monies and the people's monies was not fully recognized when we were debating the proposal last year that the Government should not pay out to the workers when they reach the age of 55 all their monies, that it should withhold the workers' monies. But now that there is the suggestion that perhaps there should be a reduction, there is all this cry about it being the workers' monies. Of course, it is. No one denies that. The objects and purposes of the CPF, when it was first introduced way back, were three-fold. One, provision for old age. But I think this, Mr Speaker, Sir, has already been achieved and there is no danger in a temporary reduction in the rates. Then the financing of the Government expenditures. The Prime Minister himself in his two-hour speech at the National Day Rally said that the major projects of the Government had been completed and there was a slowing down, that there was perhaps not so much need now for projects. The Government is not in severe need of monies.”
“That is also responsible for our present state. Mr Speaker, Sir, private consumption expenditure fell from 8% or so in 1980 to under 5% in 1984, and private consumption expenditure makes up for 80% of the total expenditure. That is a startling fall - from over 8% in 1980 to below 5% in 1984. As was pointed out in two articles in the Singapore Business for June and July 1984, the fall in the demand, and has been mentioned by the Member yesterday, is responsible for our economic downturn. And what is needed is a stimulus for the demand side that will make it pick up again. So these problems must be addressed jointly. There is the productivity, the cost to those who are producing the goods and services and, secondly, the demand, people who are consuming these goods and services. There must be a two-prong attack on these illnesses. One of the measures that has been proposed outside is a cut now in the CPF contributions that are made by the employer and the employee. I see that the Prime Minister speaking on Sunday at the National Day Rally ruled out completely, "No cut in the CPF contributions." Well, the oracle has spoken. So I suppose there will be no cut. But he says, "Not until we are faced with a crisis." Obviously he does not think there is a crisis at the moment and therefore it is not necessary. He suggests that workers should be unemployed for two or three years before anything is done to help them with their CPF contributions. I see that the leaders of the various Chambers of Commerce are very guarded in their comments, but one can see quite plainly their dissatisfaction with the refusal by the Government to cut the CPF contributions.”
“And not only that, there has been the over-regulation of businesses, particularly in the finance sector, which has curtailed expansion of our financial services. There was the report in the Far Eastern Economic Review in December last year about Tokyo, perhaps, overtaking Singapore as the financial centre for this region, although they said that Singapore had a distinct advantage over Tokyo, and the reason given was the over-regulation by the Government. So it is quite evident to most people that one of the primary causes is the high cost of doing business in Singapore. But what are the Government's measures to reduce costs? Very little in the measures so far announced. Mr Speaker, Sir, I was at Kandang Kerbau Market last Saturday and one or two stallholders said, "Mr Jeya, why don't you ask the Government when are they going to reduce the PUB charges, because we know that the cost of fuel has fallen tremendously everywhere? But the PUB still goes on charging us at the old rates." There, you have not an economist but a stallholder who can see what is wrong with Singapore's present state and what has brought it about. We have got to make real cuts in the cost of services provided by the public sector to the private sector. We cannot be niggardly in our cuts and hope that the economy will somehow pull itself out of this depression into which it is sinking. The Prime Minister talks about the recession lasting for two or three years. It seems to me that it may well last another two or three years. But is it not possible that perhaps if we did something about it, did something worthwhile, effective, we might be able to cut short the period of the recession? May I mention the other cause - the fall in demand which was mentioned by the mover of the motion.”
“It is quite apparent that it is the workers again, as I have said several times, who are somehow made to feel as though they are responsible for our present state; that no one else has any share in our present state but the workers somehow, because they have been given far too much in the way of wages. And who was responsible for that? In 1979, the Government embarked upon its policy of forcing up wages because they said they wanted to move on to higher technology, higher value-added goods to be produced in Singapore. And now that is seen to have been wrong. But the workers are blamed for it. Why should they get the blame? It would appear that the intention of the Government is that they should bear the full brunt of the economic crisis, our working class, not anybody else. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have seen the calls for wage restraint and the resolutions by unions. I have already said once before that I hope wage restraints would not be forced upon our workers, regardless of whether the employers are able to pay NWC awards or not; because that would be entirely wrong. Only yesterday, I see in the papers that the Singapore Bus Services (SBS) is reaping a big harvest. But they have also forgone, or are not going to pay, the NWC awards. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is quite clear to most people now, I think, that the reasons for this downturn are that largely our costs are making it too prohibitive for business to be done in Singapore. You see that day in and day out in the statements made from the private sector: the statutory boards and the Government between themselves have pushed costs to such a level that it is no longer profitable to do business in Singapore.”
“Help, if it were to be given, must be made available now. It should not come at a time when the company was about to fold up.' Mr Ong also called upon the Government to cut back on its own expenditure and increase the productivity of the public sector accordingly. So you have a call there from a Member of the ruling Party. And not only him, we had calls from other Members of the ruling Party - that help has to be given now, if it is to be given and to be of any use at all. That is the second part of.my complaint about the delay - that Government is dragging its feet over the measures that should be taken to help us over the crisis. Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said a little while ago, the Government does not seem to be ready to accept its share in this downturn. The Prime Minister, speaking at the National Day Rally, made a two-hour analysis of the economic situation in Singapore and came up simply with this analysis - that our wages were outstripping productivity and that our wages were higher than in Hong Kong and Taiwan. It is curious that he always refers to wages in the private sector, He does not refer to wages in the public sector. Our wages in the public sector here are also much higher than in Hong Kong and Taiwan, but the reference is always made to wages in the private sector. And his advice simply was that workers must practise wage restraint; they should tighten their belts and we should wait until productivity catches up with the wage rates. That seems to be all he has to offer this country in the solutions that this Government has, or would appear to have, for the curing of our present illness.”
“And, at the same Budget sinings, the Prime Minister seemed quite oblivious that the country was perhaps heading into a recession and economic crisis, and he was gaily advocating increases in salaries for his Ministers. He seemed quite oblivious of what was happening around him. That is my first complaint. Why has this Government, which prides itself on its pragmatism, on its ability to spot the troubles, taken so long to spot this downturn which was coming for a long time? What did we get in the Budget sittings? We had little, small, concessions but the economy was dealt a severe blow by this Government itself when it slapped on the petrol tax. Mention has already been made about the effect of this petrol tax on the businesses, particularly the small businesses, and I do not want to repeat what has been said. But that was the reaction of this Government in the face of a crisis that was staring at them in the face. Not only that, there was the diesel tax for the taxi drivers announced which threw the taxi drivers into untold hardship. Apart from the delay in recognizing the situation, this Government has been dragging its feet in announcing measures to deal with the situation. That has been taken note of by almost everybody outside the Government. We have seen comments from the business sector, the private sector, and the usual comment was, "all that has been announced is too late and too little." That would sum up the general comment from outside. Mr Speaker, Sir, I see that the Member for Telok Ayer (he is not here this morning), speaking at a National Day Dinner at the Havelock Community Centre, had this to say. It was reported in the Straits Times on 26 August 1985. He said: 'For immediate effect, the Government should reduce its charges.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, only last night while I was going home, somebody said to me, "Mr Jeyaretnam, nobody will blame the Government for the recession if it is honest with its people, if it admits that some of its policies in the past have brought about the recession. We will accept that. We know that everybody, any human being, can make mistakes; governments can make mistakes." But he said, "What I can't accept is this Government's inability to accept that some of its policies in the past have contributed to the state of the economy that we are at the moment faced with." Mr Speaker, Sir, my complaint falls into roughly two heads. First of all, the delay by the Government in recognizing the crisis or the downturn (if you do not like the word "crisis", all right, 'the economic downturn") that has happened in this country. I am not suggesting that we have reached panic stations. But do we have to wait till we reach panic stations before we take any measures? Does a patient wait till he is on the verge of death before he goes to see the doctor in the hospital? Or does he go at the first sign of the symptoms? As I said last Saturday in our rally at Bedok, the indications were already there in 1983, and they came on increasingly towards the end of 1984. That was quite evident to everybody - that we were taking a downturn in the economic progress of our country. That seems to have escaped the Government and its leaders and, in the Budget sining in March this year, the then Minister for Finance referred to this downturn as a mere temporary slackness. I had to tell him that he had perhaps caught the British disease of understatement.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "To leave out 'and supports the measures so far taken by the Government' appearing in lines 3 and 4 and insert - 'but regrets the delay and the inadequacies of measures so far taken by the government'." Mr Speaker, Sir, recessions are not something new. They have been with us ever since mankind formed themselves into societies, particularly as trading societies or business societies. The question is whether we are doing enough to correct or to cure the recession that is perhaps sometimes forced on us by means or by forces beyond our control. I have no quarrel with the first two lines of this motion which notes the problems and commends the trade unions and particularly the workers for their responsible attitude towards wages. It again demonstrates that our workers are always ready to do their part for this country. We in the Workers' Party acknowledge this time and time again, and our complaint is that their contribution has not been recognized by this Government and adequately rewarded. So I have no complaint with that part of the motion, and I certainly echo the praise given to the workers, the labour movement, which I have done several times in this House - to praise the workers. But what I wish to complain, and this is my complaint against the motion, is its failure to try and apportion the blame where it falls and to condemn the inadequacies of the measures taken by this Government in dealing with the recession. This motion by the two hon. Members lamentably fails in that respect.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have an amendment to this motion and I propose to move it now and speak on the motion and the amendment.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, l have nothing against paying Mr Devan Nair a pension or any sum that will help him. But listening to the Minister's statement this morning, I am left in doubt as to what this pension is intended for. Mr Devan Nair served as our President for less than four years, and it is proposed to pay him $5,000 a month. Is this intended as a pension for his services as President for that short period of time? Or is it intended for his services, as the Minister has put it, to the trade union movement? Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday I had occasion to remark about the contribution made by the Straits Times - whether they were serving Singapore or whether they were serving the Government. May I say it is also a very moot point whether Mr Devan Nair has served the workers of Singapore. So I would like some clarification as to whether this pension is intended as a compensation for his office as President, for the services he gave as President, or for his services as a trade union leader. If it is intended as a compensation or payment for his services as a trade union leader, I am sure the NTUC is not lacking in funds to see that its leader is adequately cared for. I thought there was some report about that in the papers a little while ago. Secondly, there is the question about his medical treatment. Are we to understand that all the medical treatment so far has been borne out of public funds? And are we to understand that all future medical treatment will also be borne out of public funds?”
“But I see that the amendment, clause 2, subclause (4), still talks about "a provisional licence to drive a motor cycle" being granted to those who have "completed a prescribed course of training to enable him to obtain a provisional licence." I suppose there must be an explanation for this. Is it still the intention to continue to issue provisional licences for motor cyclists? Finally, may I ask whether, in relation to their numbers as compared to motor cars and other vehicles on the roads, the motor cyclists are responsible for a greater share of the accidents? One has to look at it in proportion to their numbers compared with the numbers of other motor vehicles.”