Koo Tsai Kee
Singapore
“Sir, I will forward the suggestion from Dr Wan to JTC because the Chinese Garden and the Japanese Garden are currently managed by the Singapore Leisure Industries Pte Ltd, which is a subsidiary of JTC. The National Parks Board manages a wide variety of public parks to meet the recreational needs of all Singaporeans.”
“Over the years, BCD has made sure that planning approvals have been speeded up. On building defects, this is something that the management corporations must sort out with the developers. If we ask developers to deposit more money with the Government, then this cost will be passed on to the home buyers.”
“Anything that stands on HDB land belongs to HDB. You are not supposed to remove, paint or vandalise it. But it is a small incident. We have to enforce it legally. Otherwise, it will become a precedent. If he wants to put up any signboard, he can just write to HDB.”
“Unless I have not done so, he can seek clarification. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Koo Tsai Kee]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] Clause 1 -”
“Sir, if Mr Chiam has any suggestion, we will be happy to look at it. SENIOR CITIZENS' CONCESSIONARY TRAVEL ON PUBLIC TRANSPORT 13. Mr Yeo Guat Kwang asked the Minister for Communications if he will consider lengthening the period for senior citizens' concessionary travel on public transport which is 10 am to 4 pm in the day time to 9 am t…”
“Sir, I think we are going off tangent here. These are upgraders. Your sympathy should lie with the first-timers, should you not? If we encourage upgraders to upgrade all the time, then the first-timers will be left behind. So we are talking about people who have already taken the first bite of the subsidy cherry.”
The complete record
Every one of 314 lines we hold for Koo Tsai Kee, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 7.
“Why do we place so much faith in self-regulation by the Association of Banks in Singapore when their directive has blatantly been ignored in the last two years?”
“According to the laws governing Muslims in Algeria, Iran, Iraq, Morocco, Pakistan, Syria and the United Arab Republic, children are obliged, under law, to support their needy parents. In India, even children in straitened circumstances, must maintain their abandoned parents. And all these are ancient societies with established traditions of filial piety. In other words, I am saying the Asian voices have said yes to a modern law. Clearly, Sir, those unsure of the deleterious effects of this Bill can rest assured that no harm can be done, much good will flow in. But I agree with those who have shown some concern about various provisions in the Bill and, for these reasons, I recommend that this Bill be committed to a Select Committee so that it will receive wider representations from the public. There is one refinement which I hope the Select Committee will consider, and that is something which I share with Mdm Foo, that it would be convenient, sometimes necessary, to help abandoned parents to seek redress under this law. And I propose that some authority, perhaps by a Commissioner of the Maintenance of Parents, be appointed to bring charges against children. The Commissioner can act on his or her own or can act when he or she is alerted by MPs or community leaders, or act on behalf of institutions caring for abandoned parents. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“Taiwan is an Asian country - a Confucian society where the ways of the sage, the old, is honoured in both rituals and practice. They have a teachers' day, a Confucius day, where all the students pay homage to Confucius, and then they recite all the familiar teachings of Confucius. Yet Taiwan has already legislated an equivalent of the Maintenance of Parents Act. Israel has long had a law - the Family (Maintenance) Law - to make sure that children maintain parents under certain conditions. For Members' information, Israel is an Asian country, although situated in the turbulent Middle East. And I personally know of a few cultures which are more passionate about family values than the Jews. Because of the fresh memories of pogroms, the persecution in Europe, and around the world Jewish families are very close together, they cherish family values perhaps more than any other culture today. And yet they have an equivalent of this Maintenance of Parents Act. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, so if the argument from the heart is that the law will dilute family values and replace a filial relationship with a legal one, then the experiences of Israel and Taiwan will confirm this fear to be totally exaggerated and misplaced. There are, as Mr Chiam confirmed, very, very few cases of Israelis and Taiwanese being brought to court. So this Bill, if passed into law, is really non-intimidating. Their collective experiences in administering their laws also suggest that a litigious culture will not be nurtured. And most of all, the experiences of these two countries - Taiwan and Israel, both in Asia - dispel the fear that family values will not be sacrificed on the cross of legislation. And there are more precedents, Mr Deputy Speaker.”
“Because families would have become smaller, the financial burden of the few who help maintain parents would be great. The temptation to opt out must be very real. But some tell me that even then the problem of abandonment is not serious because in the year 2020, we will have lots of CPF. The Labour Minister has put in place various laws to ensure that we top up our CPF, we raise the Minimum Sum. I think these will still not be enough. In any case, the people we need to help most presently are not sufficiently covered by CPF. Many of these are lower-income self-employed who do not pay much into CPF anyway. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when I met a group of young feedback contributors last Thursday, 21st July, I asked them about this Bill and whether they would be keen to maintain their parents when their parents become old. By show of hands, 16 of the young working adults agreed that they will support the Bill, they like the Bill. In fact, they think that they will be the beneficiaries. In the meantime, they do not mind supporting their parents. Five were against and five were not sure, because they want to see some refinements before they make their verdict. And I am encouraged by the young working Singaporeans for their positive attitude. The problem does not lie with the young working adults. The problem right now, the concern, the worries, lie with a group of elderly Singaporeans. They echo the view and they say that we are an Asian society, so do not mimic the ways of the West, do not try to legislate filial piety, do not try to legislate love. But there are many precedents in Asia - Taiwan is an example quoted both by Mdm Foo and Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon.”
“These are the ones that need the protection of the law. Secondly, this argument that I pay taxes, you take care of me. When you pay taxes, you are receiving the benefits of the environment, receiving the benefits of the State. So you are actually using up your services. As you are paying taxes, you are using up services. By the time you retire, theoretically, the State should withhold its benefits. But, of course, no government should do that, and this is just to remind advocates of this argument that I pay taxes, you take care of me for life. I think it does not hold water. Sir, the second group of people, who are afraid to say yes at this point, say, "Well, there is no serious problem now. So what's the fuss? Why create a problem? Don't fix the problem when none exists." And this is particularly prevalent among older Singaporeans. My answer to that is that the Bill does not attempt to solve the problem now. The Bill hopes to address the problem which might not even arise in the future. And if it does, just bury bury the Act somewhere, if it is passed. But, Sir, going by the trends of the West and the East, we cannot take things for granted. And I share Mr Maidin's concern that the problem might become worse in the far future. Most aged parents in Singapore today are maintained by their children. In a way, these are lucky parents because even though they have small CPF savings, they have many children. All you need is one child or two children to support them, and they are okay. But, Sir, in 20 to 30 years' time, say, in the year 2020, a convenient number to choose, when a large percentage of our people would have become aged, then the problem of abandonment will become serious.”
“If the Bill is passed into law, the Maintenance of Parents Act will not in any way dissolve at the drop of a hat existing filial relationships. And, of course, here we are on safe territory. We are not entering virgin territory with this Bill. There are precedents in Asia, America, Europe, to assure us that we are entering safe territory. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the sanctity of filial piety will not be violated if this Bill becomes law. There are really two solutions to this very real problem of abandoned parents. The first solution is that the State picks up the maintenance cost. The second one is that the children pick up the maintenance cost. Not surprisingly, many Singaporeans want the Government to take the first option, which is the Government should pick up the welfare bill, maintain the abandoned parents, pay for them, send them to the old age homes, send them to the voluntary organisations. But what does it mean for us? It means that the negligent few are passing the buck to the responsible majority. So this Bill also serves as an educational exercise that we cannot allow a negligent few from hoisting the problem onto the majority of us who are responsible, who are loving children. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think individuals must take personal responsibility and the community cannot share in their negligence. Mr Ling How Doong is a strong advocate of using State funds to take care of abandoned parents. He said rhetorically, "These people pay taxes, Sir. Now they are old, take care of them." But Mr Ling will also be aware that the people we need to help most are the people who may not be paying taxes. With GST on, many of the poorer income people have dropped off the tax net. These are the people with little savings.”
“" But my response to this, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is that filial piety certainly cannot be legislated. But this Bill does not even attempt to do that. What it attempts to do is to solve a practical problem of maintenance for the very few abandoned parents. The Government, as I understand, aims to foster filial piety, not through legislation, but by a multi-pronged approach which includes conducting moral education in schools, hosting public seminars, especially during this International Year of the Family, promoting family values through good local SBC programmes in the media - I think SBC should step up its effort - giving tax incentives to support parents via the parents relief scheme, the CPF Top-up scheme, encouraging children to insure their parents under Medisave, and even recently, to re-prioritise the balloting of flats to allow children and parents to live together. So all these measures, taken as a whole, in toto, might help to foster filial piety. The Bill does not attempt to legislate filial piety. But we must recognise that even while these educational programmes, these public programmes, are on-going, there is a limit to what we can do. It cannot for a start create a utopian society, which some of my colleagues appear to want us to do. Whatever we do, whatever this Government does, however it does it, however much money it pours into it, there will be abandoned parents. Hence, I think we need a multi-pronged approach - education, tax reliefs, public seminars, and also legislation, because legislation can serve as a last line of defence. I think Walter Woon here is right. Children who are filial need not fear the Bill, nor parents who are the beneficiary of their children's love need fear the Bill.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since the Bill was first introduced in this House, there has been extensive debate, both in the media, and on the ground. I kept a running count of this afternoon's debate. Eight speakers spoke - three against, one reluctant yes, four yes, but wanted some refinements. This Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, has engaged the passion of Singaporeans, which is not a bad thing. The broad verdict, as I read about it, is that the majority of Singaporeans, especially young working adults, are in favour of the Bill, with a significant minority of older Singaporeans opposing the Bill because they fear that it would erode and demean existing family values and family ties. But one thing is sure, even for those who do not support the Bill, as it stands, they are not saying an outright no. As Mr Leong Horn Kee has put it, their hearts feel that this may not be the right time. Therefore, if we can somehow win over the hearts of those who demurred, this Bill has a chance of getting popular support. I think it deserves clarification. It deserves to be committed to a Select Committee and it deserves to get ultimately popular support, if not overwhelming majority support. But let us listen to why some of these people are saying no. First, these people are saying that filial piety cannot be legislated. This Bill is not a solution to a moral problem. If legislation is needed, then our education system has failed and it is better, they say, to go back to basics now instead of using the hammer of the law. Many Asian parents, Singaporean parents, are resigned to a traditional Asian way. They say, "If my children are unfilial, then what is the point of bringing them to court. I will live the shame. I will camp outside the Town Council office, maybe pressure my MP.”
“In ancient China, when an individual has committed a crime against society, the entire family feels ashamed. This collective guilt minimised individual wrongdoings and ensured the survival of civilisation throughout its millennia. Similar family values have also ensured the continuity of the Indian, the Arabic, Malay and other ancient Asian societies. When my expatriate friend asked me: what is the essential difference between he and I? I always tell him that he is born with individual rights; I am born with social obligations. But, Sir, the incessant penetration of contemporary western values has no doubt diluted our values in Asia. Singapore has also been infected by the individual virus. Individual values have been trumpeted as the sine qua non for living. Individuals, they say, are never at fault, only society is. When an individual has sinned, society is always asked to share the blame, not the individual, nor the family. The triumph of the individual, to my mind, is the root cause for the erosion of the family. In this "International Year of the Family", I would like to ask the Minister for Community Development what programmes he has lined up for fortifying family values against the tirade of individual values.”
“Sir, family value is the in-thing today. During the American primaries election, family values became an important electoral issue. The TV character Murphy Brown was savagely attacked by the then Vice-President, Mr Dan Quayle, for propagating values which erode family values. What did Murphy Brown do? Apparently, Murphy's decision to be a single parent incensed the Vice-President. But the attack on Murphy Brown backfired because many Americans thought the Vice-President was making a mountain out of a molehill, and the viewership of the TV programme, Murphy Brown, soared. The likes of Murphy Brown are worshipped like idols in America. Sir, in Britain, John Major tried to do the same family value thing by launching his "Back to Basics" movement. The alliteration sings, but the movement backfired when public pressure exposed the philandering ways of some of his Ministers. Conservatives forced Major to back away or else the party will truly go back to the basics, that is, back to the Benches. Sir, unlike Britain, the Singapore Government has not made family values into a national obsession. Family values cannot be ordained from up-top. It must be encouraged and promoted from within the family. Nonetheless, the tendency to stem the penetration of individualistic values into our communitarian value system is quite clear. The Government recently launched the Family Values seminar which I thought was rather timely. Sir, it is not apparent to the West that the family is the foundation of the nation. In Chinese, or in Confucian language, the very word "country" is split into two words. The two words are guo jia ( ), meaning the sum total of all the families makes up a nation.”
“For a worker, getting a family to go out for a taxi ride on a Sunday is a family treat and we should try and get the family together, especially in this International Year of the Family. Sir, I suggest the following solutions. There are already many family sedans which are designed to carry 6-7 passengers. These family sedans come in various names. Americans call them family wagons. The Europeans and some Japanese companies call them space wagons. I notice that two MPs in this House already drive space wagons with their family. To solve the problem of limited carrying capacity, the ROV should insist that taxi operators like NTUC Comfort perhaps should stock a certain percentage of family wagons to be used on call by these families. By getting more commuters to ride in family wagons also reduces the demand for cars. Hopefully, the price of COEs will float downwards. I think these family wagons are not extraordinarily big. They are smaller than some of the luxury cars. So in terms of space, they do not hog the road space. I would like the Ministry of Communications to seriously consider this proposal.”
“Sir, Singaporeans have responded enthusiastically to the Government's call to have more than two children. Many of my friends and colleagues now have three, four and some have five children. I think the Government should be happy that the scheme has succeeded to a large extent. With more children, life is becoming more wholesome, but there are also some minor irritations. And one of these, I think, can be fixed by the Minister for Communications. Sir, I refer to the seating capacity of taxis. Presently, the ROV prescribes that taxis can carry only four passengers and there are good reasons, because almost all the taxis plying our roads today are family sedans with a safe carrying capacity of four passengers. This means that for a family of six, there is no way they can travel together in one taxi without running foul of the law. And no taxi driver in his right mind will pick up a family of six. Of course, the family can call two taxis. But here, it is not just a question of additional cost, but it is at the agony of trying to call a second taxi. This little thing adds to life's accumulated stresses. Sir, as I was writing this small speech for this cut, a friend of my PA was relating her family's problem to my PA on the E-mail. She said and I quote: `Last Sunday, I encountered a taxi driver who did not want to fetch me and my family for the reason ROV says three adults, two parents and one maid, and two children violate the law.' And she went on in the E-mail: `So how are we to travel together? We can't afford a car. We don't want to buy a car.' Sir, the problem of this office worker is not an isolated one. In fact, I have been asked to raise this problem by several workers.”
“My question is: how much exactly can they draw monthly if they reach 60 and do not have the minimum $40,000?”
“The other 20% is the employer's contribution and this amount is made possible because Government has legislated the employer's contribution towards their share. Since Government has decreed that employers pay this amount to employees, I think it is only right that the Government has some say over how and when the other half should be disbursed. In short, Government has somehow created the other half of the CPF, and it is the Government's job to safeguard it for us. I have looked at the CPF Minimum Sum in detail because my workers are rather concerned. When I meet them in my union meetings I have to explain how it will benefit them or how it will adversely affect them. My earlier concern was whether the scheme will kill dreams and dash hopes when a person reaches 55. The Minister has made it quite clear in his statement that a person can take out at least half the cash or $5,000 when he reaches the age of 55. I am satisfied that my earlier concern was unfounded. In other words, nobody would have his or her dream of doing something at 55 destroyed. I think this is an important principle because keeping half the cash is also consistent with the fact I said earlier on that half of the CPF actually belongs to the employee while the other half is kept in custody by the Government for us. Also with high interest rates, higher than the commercial bank rates anyhow, it makes sense to keep some money in the Retirement Account. But I have one question for the Minister. In his statement he has said that how much each member would be able to draw out depends on how much he has in the Minimum Sum when he or she reaches the age of 60. Details are yet unknown. I fear that a small percentage of my workers might not be able to meet the $40,000 Minimum Sum when they reach 60 years old.”
“Sir, our CPF scheme has many strengths but its Achilles' heel is that the present CPF scheme allows the retiree to take out almost all his nest-egg in one lump sum a full five years before his retirement and almost 20 years before he dies. No country does that. Most countries operate a pension scheme which allows a pensioner to withdraw his pension on a monthly basis from age 55. Sir, many of us think that we are our own best fund managers. We feel safe with our money. If that were so, why is there a proliferation of so many private bankers whose jobs are to look after our retirement nest-egg over the last decade? The fact is that many of us over-estimate our ability to manage funds. Often greed, temptations and boundless optimism make us victims of our own misfortune. Sir, the CPF Minimum Sum Scheme is one remedy towards healing our Achilles' heel in the CPF scheme. The scheme works in the interest of the worker by balancing short-term needs of fulfilling a retirement dream and providing long-term needs for peace of mind. The scheme does not affect professionals and managers who will not be adversely affected by the $80,000 Minimum Sum. So the champions of the professionals and the managers appear to be barking up the wrong tree. Critics of the Minimum Sum Scheme point to the fact that CPF is their money. So they have a right to claim it at 55 years, if not earlier. These critics think that they hold the moral high ground with this argument. In fact, this argument puts them in a corner. Yes, half the CPF, that means the 20% contribution from the employee certainly belongs to them. It comes from their salary. But these critics appear to have forgotten how the other half, that means the other 20%, has come about.”
“But unlike these three accounts, ie, Ordinary, Special and Medisave accounts, which are actually components of employer and employee contributions, the training fund is a Government contribution. The fund serves as an incentive for training, but the money in the training fund is not a hand-out, so there is no welfare. The money can only be used for co-payment of approved training courses. At the same time, the working adult is encouraged to use this fund within, say, five years. If the fund is not utilised, the money in the training fund goes back to the Government. In other words, Sir, there is urgency as well as purpose in the matter. I would like the Government to consider this proposal.”
“Sir, education and training are continuous life-long processes. It has to be because the shelf life of knowledge is becoming shorter and shorter. Some people have suggested that the half-life of knowledge is now less than five years. In other words, within five years, half of what we have learnt will become obsolete. Sir, so far, Government's effort at training is commendable. The SDF has helped to train many workers who would otherwise have languished in ignorance and joblessness. So far, SDF training is largely employer-based. This means that employers will decide which courses are relevant and which courses are not so relevant. By and large, this policy is sound because many of our workers are still very much under-educated compared to our NIE competitors. But in time, Sir, as the literacy rate of our workers improves, there will be less need for basic literacy, numeracy and even software courses. Instead, more courses will be required for updating the knowledge of skilled and professional workers. The problem in time will shift from one of training basic skills to one of providing continuing education. The objective of continuing education is of course to maintain the currency of skills and knowledge. Sir, my personal philosophy is that as our literacy rate improves, we will have to look at the concept of training anew. Slowly, over time, more individual-based training schemes should be devised to work in conjunction with the SDF which can continue to be employer-based. I would like to propose that a separate account be created in the CPF scheme for all working adults. This scheme, perhaps, could be known as the training fund. This training fund is in addition to the Ordinary, Special and Medisave accounts.”
“That is why I am asking you to come for a case! Sir, the individuals can probably get some redress, but it might cost them quite a bit of time and perhaps a lot of money. I am not sure whether I have been advised rightly or wrongly. CASE wanted to publicise the names of some traders who have attracted persistent complaints from the public, but I was cautioned that publicising these names without a legal basis might attract unnecessary legal suits. I can understand one reason why the Government does not want to enact legislation for consumers, something like the Fair Trading Act, because it might encourage a litigious culture where every other consumer begins to sue every other trader for breach of sales contract, for misrepresentation, so on and so forth. But I have been told that legislation can be drafted such that these unnecessary consequences can be minimised or circumvented. CASE does not want to cultivate a litigious Singapore. We think that in the long run, a litigious society adds to the cost of consumption which runs counter to the aims of CASE. But an equivalent of the Fair Trading Act which covers advertising and selling and which prohibits (1) misleading and deceptive conduct; (2) false representations; and (3) unfair practices, will give CASE some bite and consumers some protection. My question to the Minister is: will the Government look into possible legislation for CASE?”
“Situation number three, Sir. You bought a video recorder and the company promised you a 3-year warranty on the product and island-wide home service. In other words, when your video breaks down, the trader will come to your house and service your video recorder. Six months later, the video breaks down and you call the company. The company asks you to bring the video recorder in for repair. Why? Because you are staying very far away, maybe in Tuas. This is false representation. My staff showed me this advertisement this morning. If you look at this advertisement, it says, "GST on us". GST has not even started yet. It says, "GST paid". Who paid for the GST? I think this type of advertisement is something that we should disallow. But the Straits Times is accepting it. I am looking into what we can do. I have made informal checks with several lawyers and they tell me that there is not much CASE can do in the cases I have just elaborated. An hon. Member: Gone case!”
“Sir, I understand that "Talking Point" of SBC has gone to New Zealand to look at New Zealand's Fair Trading Act, which was put in place at exactly the same time as New Zealand's Goods and Services Act. Sir, Singapore looked at various GST models around the world before deciding on the New Zealand model. Although Singapore adopted the New Zealand GST and modified it, of course, Singapore decided to drop its other twin half, the Fair Trading Act. Sir, what can the Fair Trading Act do for consumers that the existing legislation in Singapore cannot do? I am not a lawyer, so I am unsure whether there are any remedies to the following situations which I will elaborate later on. I have been told that there are no cheap and quick remedies to these situations which adversely affect consumers. Let me give you situation number one, Sir. Suppose we hear on the radio or read in the papers about a special offer on chairs. You immediately take a taxi and go to the shop. To your disappointment, there are only two such chairs in the shop and by the time you arrive, they have been sold. The trader offers you a similar chair at the normal price, meaning more expensive price. This is called bait advertising in Singapore. It is not uncommon and I am told that CASE has no quick immediate remedy. What about situation number two, Sir? Suppose you read in the papers that a shopping centre is having a clearance sale. Everything is marked down from 10% up to 70%. You rush down in a taxi to buy everything you can afford. Next month, you find that the same store is again advertising for clearance sale. Every month later, you find clearance sales. This is misleading advertisement. It is not uncommon. I am also told that CASE is quite powerless to take action without incurring expensive legal costs.”
“Just to reassure Dr Ow, the unions will never ask for wage increase on account of GST. The unions will only ask for wage increase on the ground of productivity increase and the overall level of profitability of the company.”
“But in any case, in a situation like this, where local monopoly exists, please give the CASE hotline a call and we will go down and investigate. The Government has suggested a joint price monitoring exercise. CASE welcomes the gesture. In order for the joint monitoring to be meaningful, CASE would like the Government to publish the CPI on a more frequent basis, if possible, monthly. This way, perceptions on the ground can be squared with reality. Sir, in view of this concern about profiteering, I would like to report briefly what CASE is doing. CASE has set up a hotline and during the critical period, CASE will man the hotline until midnight. CASE has mounted the wet and dry markets survey and CASE has observed that prices of the watched items have been floating downwards. Soon CASE will add to the existing list and this means that consumers will get more items at even cheaper prices. CASE has also encouraged grassroots leaders to form consumer clubs to serve as listening posts for CASE. Consumer clubs on the ground can decide for themselves which hawker has profiteered, and which has not. It is at that level that boycotting becomes more meaningful. CASE is also pleased to announce that several MPs have also urged their market committees to absorb the GST cost as far as possible. I have two questions for the Minister. One, can the Government publish more up-to-date CPI on a periodic basis? I have just said, perhaps month to month. And second, can the CPI be broken down into perhaps smaller baskets, let us say, a cooked food basket, a dried food basket? And I am very pleased to say that NTUC Fairprice has come out with their own basket. So perhaps NTUC Fairprice can also release their monthly Fairprice basket.”
“The price of his HDB flat, the cost of his children's education and the rates he pays the PUB are all determined by the overall productivity of the nation. So in order for them to keep up, not surpass it, mind you, the hawker has to raise his price. Thus, raising of prices per se is not profiteering. Then what is profiteering? The media and the public are obsessed with profiteering. Let me set out some simple examples where profiteering can exist in Singapore because CASE receives a lot of calls asking us to take action against profiteers. But when we look at the cases, these are not profiteers. First, a profiteer must have the opportunity, and opportunity comes in the form of being a monopolist. This means that the monopolist must be able to set prices without losing customers and that what he sells or offers has no substitutes. Do hawkers fall under this category? I think the answer must be no. There are about 23,000 hawkers in Singapore and one can choose from any one of these 23,000 hawkers. Second, there must be effective barriers of entry of competitors. In Singapore, anybody can rent a stall from a coffeeshop owner and become a hawker. So there are no barriers of entry to becoming a hawker. But CASE recognises that in some very, very rare circumstances, local monopolies can exist. For example, maybe the canteen of a very far-flung factory, say, in Tuas, may be charging exorbitant prices for food which is sold cheaply in HDB heartland. So workers who work on night shift in that particular factory in Tuas, for example, have no choice but to patronise that canteen. But from my union experience, managements are also very concerned. So it is unlikely that management will allow the canteen operator to charge these monopolistic prices.”
“Sir, with less than one month to go before GST day, fears that profiteering will raise its ugly head are real. Dr Ow and Mr Chew have together expressed some ground sentiments. I would like to take this opportunity to reassure Singaporeans that CASE will expose any profiteer who uses GST as an excuse to cheat customers. For this reason, we are keeping our CASE GST hotline open for feedback. CASE will not hesitate to blacklist profiteers. But at the same time, consumers should also not work themselves into hysteria every time their favourite hawker, or their shopkeeper, raises prices. One must understand that the rising cost of services is a consequence of the rising standard of living that comes about through the increase in productivity in manufacturing. Not many people realise this but it is a truism that productivity in the service industry, like hawking, for example, always lags behind those in manufacturing. How is it so? In manufacturing, one can always optimise, design and automate the production lines. With the economies of scale and flexible manufacturing systems, it is possible to use less to produce more, so productivity goes up. But how can a hawker or a barber, for example, raise his productivity beyond a certain threshold? It is a simple observation that it takes a barber today about just as long to cut a head today than it was 30 years ago. Similarly, Sir, a char kuay teow man takes about just as long today to fry a plate of good kuay teow than it was about 20 years ago. And the number of plates a waiter or waitress can serve in a restaurant or hawker centre has not changed much over the last 20 years. But the cost of living of the char kuay teow man and his hawker attendant is determined by the economy in general.”
“And second, whether the Ministry intends to have an accredited list of universities for some of these approved programmes.”
“It is interesting to look at the reaction of how the Malaysian politicians respond to the invasion of these Australian universities in Malaysia and Singapore. Malaysia clearly welcomes the invasion of these programmes. The Malaysian government explicitly encourages twinning of the overseas programmes with local agencies. They believe that twinning serves two functions. One, it helps to expand the pool of trained manpower for their Wawasan 2020 (Vision 2020) without incurring cost from the Government. Two, the Malaysian government believes that these private programmes do not drain their financial coffers too much. The philosophy there is that not all Malaysians can get admission into their local universities, and also because their local universities cannot train enough manpower for the 21st Century. Since it cannot do both these functions, it might as well ask overseas universities for a helping hand. At the same time, the Malaysian government recognises that, in any case, not all Malaysians want to study in the Malaysian universities. So if these Malaysians do not want to study in Malaysia, they will naturally go overseas. Going overseas will be a drain on the country's financial reserves. So the Malaysians have decided to ask these foreign universities to twin with their local agencies so that the time spent by Malaysians overseas will be halved. Typically, a Malaysian who wants to get an overseas degree will probably spend two years in Malaysia doing the correspondence course and probably spend the remaining one to two years in the host university overseas. I would like to ask the Ministry of Education two questions. One, what is our philosophy with regard to the proliferation of overseas correspondence degree programmes in Singapore?”
“Sir, everyday, the newspaper pages are splashed with advertisements of overseas correspondence programmes. Some of these offer bachelor programme, others offer masters and even doctorate programmes. Many Singaporeans are taking these courses for a variety of reasons. Some of them do so for enrichment purposes, but most, I think, do them for career advancement purposes. With the proliferation of these overseas correspondence programmes, there come hope and disappointment. I say hope because many students are given a second chance to earn something they have lost the opportunity to do. But hope can also turn into despair and anguish when graduates from these programmes are unable to advance their career as planned. I think we should put the work of these overseas programmes into perspective. It is one thing to get a degree but it is quite another, especially in this day and age, to expect the degree to open doors to an accelerated professional career. So long as Singaporeans who embark on these overseas programmes are realistic about the future, I think we should encourage these correspondence programmes to flourish in Singapore. I know that some of these overseas programmes offer good value for money. But I must confess that I have no knowledge of all the programmes. But one thing I am sure is that many of these programmes do not come cheap. Many of these courses cost an arm and a leg to complete the programme. For the host countries, they no doubt see these programmes as an easy way of making money. Australia calls these programmes an export service in education and it has particularly targeted university courses for Malaysians and Singaporeans.”
“Even if they do not stay or work here, hopefully, they will make friends, they will make contacts and they will remain well disposed to Singapore when they go back to their own countries. Think of it as a long-term investment in goodwill. A small country like Singapore needs as many friends as it can get.”
“Sir, the Minister of State for Education had earlier in the week replied that the use of the abacus in Singapore is on a pilot basis and that only a few schools will be involved. I am encouraged by the move. My only hope is that the Ministry of Education can promote the use of the abacus with the same enthusiasm as Malaysia. I think our promotion effort is still conservative. We should quickly popularise its use. And I think if we tell Singapore parents that there are distinct advantages in the use of the abacus, they will accept it. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon (Nominated Member): Sir, I declare my interest as a university lecturer. For many countries, education is an export commodity. We, in Singapore, have an excellent educational system. But up to now, it has been concerned exclusively with the domestic market. I would like to ask the Minister whether he has any strategy for attracting foreign students to study in Singapore. The primary benefit of this is not pecuniary. Many hon. Members have spent time abroad studying and no doubt they still have fond memories of those times. They have made friends, they have made contacts and I think many of them still retain links with their alumni associations. The alumni networks of prestigious universities like Oxbridge and Harvard are vastly influential all over the world. We, in Singapore, can replicate this in a small way by encouraging promising students from ASEAN and from the region to study here. Because of our economic and social success, other countries look to us and we can capitalise on this goodwill in many ways, one of them by getting promising students to study in Singapore, not just at tertiary level but at all levels. If necessary, give them scholarships and bursaries if that is possible.”
“If we assume a ratio of one teacher to 30 students, we are talking about close to a quarter million Malaysian students being able to use the abacus in one year. Sir, I think Dr Mahathir is a very progressive man. He understands that in order for the nation to progress, its people must be good in science and mathematics and the English language. But Mathematics lies at the heart of science and technology and he has no qualms that Malaysians should learn the Asian art of using the abacus from the East Asians for a very modern purpose. The empirical correlation between analytical skills and the mastery of the abacus is very strong. Because the abacus forces the mind to work, to remember patterns and to analyze, mathematical relationships are formed at a very early age. Conversely, the use of the calculator at an early age when the concepts between numbers are still unclear fosters laziness and blind faith. A study in America suggests that young children trained on the use of calculators do not seem to understand the relationship between numbers. Calculators programmed to give wrong answers were given to students who happily accepted the results when some of the solutions were clearly exaggerated and grossly wrong. When people ask me why I am promoting the cause of abacus when there are calculators in the market as cheap as maybe a bowl of laksa, I always tell them to look at the Japanese. Japan is one country which has made calculators so cheap that it is becoming a disposable item, the low-end ones. Yet, the Japanese have not forsaken the humble abacus. In fact, they have priced it even higher. It is because the abacus has made the Japanese smart.”
“Sir, the modern abacus was invented in China some 1,800 years ago. I say "modern" because the earliest form of the first abacus was discovered some five millennia. The use of the abacus dates back for centuries in Asia, Arabia and Europe. Today, the use of the abacus is restricted only in some East Asian countries, mainly Japan, Korea and China. The primitive abacus is actually an analog computer. It has survived to this present day because basic concepts in mathematics are still best elucidated by the abacus. Its use and functions have not diminished to the present day. Sir, in Japan, learning of abacus is encouraged at an early age. Almost every Japanese child has some expertise on it. Many students master the abacus very quickly. It was reported some years back in the Economist magazine that many educationists think that the typical high-school Japanese graduate has the same analytical skills as that of a university graduate in America. Many people attribute this to the analytical skills mastered through the use of the abacus. A study completed some years back pitched the mathematical skills of first graders in the American state of Missouri with their counterparts in Hangchow in China. The study found that the Chinese students were far superior in their mathematics and the suspected secret weapon was the use of the abacus which forces memory and analysis. Sir, on a recent trip to Malaysia, I was astounded to learn that Malaysia will be training 7,000 teachers, not 70, not 700, but 7,000 teachers in the use of the abacus. The primary purpose of this exercise is to get 7,000 teachers to teach primary students in all schools in Malaysia.”
“I hope IRAS will consider these very natural human reactions and allow a grace period for GST defaulters, especially small businesses. I would like to ask the IRAS for a status report on the preparations for the GST thus far and what kind of help IRAS is offering to small business people to get their system ready for GST day.”
“Sir, GST will be introduced on 1st April. I understand that preparations are well in hand and that there should be no major problems on 1st April. For consumers, CASE is monitoring the movement of prices of essential groceries in wet markets before and after GST. We are confident that with the price watch, these key essential items will be well stocked and their prices will be kept low. For your information, Sir, all the items on CASE price watch basket are listed on SBC INTV 8. I am also pleased to report from my price watch team that many establishments are absorbing the 3% GST. This means effectively that these companies are squeezing their profit margin by 3%. They are doing it partly because of goodwill to their customers and some MPs, but mostly they are doing it for themselves. Inevitably, as Dr Ow and Mr Chew have pointed out, some businesses are having problems implementing GST. Some, I understand, have not registered. Some do not know how to register. I also understand that small businesses are serviced last by the tax consultants because they are unable to pay the kind of fees that major accounting firms are asking. Sir, I hope that Singapore and Singapore-based companies will support the GST. CASE supports the GST because our calculations show that post-GST consumers will have more disposable income in their pockets. In 10-15 years' time, hopefully, GST could graduate into a full expenditure tax, GST being an indirect form of taxation. By then, I should think that more countries would have tried out the system. GST is perhaps a necessary step from direct taxation to the expenditure tax. Sir, like any taxation system, Singaporeans are naturally confused and still worried.”
“What are these tests I am talking about? I am talking about very simple tests. These can be oral or can be written. They need not be difficult. The essence of these tests is to imbue our citizens with a sense of history, a sense of knowledge of how we have come from the past to the present. I think every citizen should be tested on the following: (1) The most important thing, what is the meaning of our National Anthem "Majullah Singapura"? Sir, I do not know whether you are aware, many new citizens do not know the meaning of Majullah Singapura. Some of them still think that our National Anthem is called "Mari Kita". It is an embarrassment if a new citizen does not understand what the National Anthem is all about. The second topic I would like the Ministry to consider is that new citizens should also understand the meaning of our Pledge, "We, the citizens of Singapore ..... " so that they understand why the Pledge was made into a pledge. Third, I think a short history of Singapore is not out of place. I think the history could be in two parts. The first part could be a bit longer. Perhaps it could be titled, "From Raffles, 1819, to Lee Kuan Yew, 1990". And the second part, maybe contemporary history from Goh Chok Tong and beyond. Sir, I suggest that applicants for citizenship be given these tests. Before they are tested, maybe give them some short lessons in these topics. My question is: will the Ministry of Home Affairs consider administering these simple tests for people who want to become Singaporeans?”
“Sir, I understand that Mexico will soon be joining the 24-nation OECD, the first since 1973 when New Zealand was last admitted. Singapore is not an OECD country but our GDP per capita is already higher than some OECD countries including Britain. Even Singapore's absolute GDP is higher than New Zealand. Sir, the other day on a visit to a MNC factory manufacturing wafer, I met a Greek American expatriate who has just been posted from Dallas to Singapore. We discussed various things and he told me that Singapore is a very developed country, although I was a bit embarrassed in his presence to say that we are a developed country. He told me how impressed he was with Singapore and he added that he had been around the world and he knew what he was talking about. Sir, developed or not developed, the fact is that Singapore is becoming a very attractive place for would-be immigrants. Singapore needs these people to expand our economy abroad. At the same time, Sir, every citizen now has a theoretical charge on our huge reserves. And with the Government's Edusave Scheme, CPF Top-Up Scheme and the preferential share allocation scheme, the theory that every citizen has a charge on our reserves has now been transformed into reality. In other words, they get real money instead of saying that they have got so much money per head. In other words, citizenship now comes with financial prizes. There is money for the taking in becoming Singaporean. For a long time, many of my colleagues in the university cry that permanent residents (PRs) and citizens are no different. Sometimes they insist that PR is better than Singapore citizenship. Sir, my point is that right now our citizenship is very valuable. Should we not administer some simple citizenship tests for immigrants?”
“I think they might have misunderstood the spirit of copyrights and patents. The purpose of any patent or copyright is to protect the interest of inventors, authors, composers, designers, people who created the products. Patents and copyrights are necessary because these inventors and creators deserve their royalty. Patents and copyrights were never intended to protect traders and agents who were out to establish monopolistic situations so that they can set prices above what it would be if there were a perfect competition. For these reasons, Sir, CASE welcomes the recent announcement in Parliament by Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee that the report would be out some time in April. CASE has also commissioned a report to look into the legality as well as the economic impact of liberalising the law on parallel importation of goods. Sir, CASE wishes to commend the Government for acting swiftly on this matter.”
“Sir, the recent ruling by the Chief Justice on the legality of parallel importation of intellectual property has made it difficult for a parallel importer to import genuine goods without running foul of the law. While the Chief Justice's ruling has removed an ambiguity at law, it has also raised concern that the ruling works against the interest of consumers. There has been a widespread misconception that parallel imports hurt consumers because some local agents have been propagating the myth that parallel importers are fly-by-night operators out to sell a cheap good or a service without staying behind to service the customers. I have recently been told that while there are many small time importers, not all parallel importers are small timers, some are big timers here to stay. CASE believes that these operators do not necessarily work against the interest of consumers. Conversely, if a local agent has the sole right to sell genuine products, it could create a monopolistic situation which works against the interest of consumers. During a recent CASE exercise, CASE discovered that there were substantial differences between prices of groceries. I am told that some family grocers might have imported their goods from Malaysia, hence they were able to sell their goods at below the recommended price. CASE's position is simple. So long as the goods are genuine and within the expiry dates, we welcome parallel imports. Therefore, CASE welcomes the recent announcement by the Government to review the Copyright Act with a view to changing the law for legalising parallel imports. Some local agents of products have applauded the Chief Justice's ruling and held it as being one step closer towards the protection of intellectual property rights.”
“He should not insinuate. Mr Peh Chin Hua( In Mandarin): Sir, if he has not done anything wrong, then he need not be guilty conscious. Mr Low Thia Khiang( In Mandarin): Sir, Mr Peh is saying that I am guilty conscious. Can he give specific examples to say why I should be guilty conscious? He is not conducting himself like a gentleman. Mr Peh Chin Hua( In Mandarin): I said that if he was not guilty, then he should not be guilty conscious. Why should he be? Mr Low Thia Khiang( In Mandarin): Since the Member does not want to substantiate his claim, then he is making an innuendo. Mr Peh Chin Hua( In Mandarin): Sir, he should understand the practice in the other Opposition town councils before he makes any remark. 5.30 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope that the Government would be able to raise the standard of mother tongue in Singapore so that our students will be able to learn more, not only in reading and writing, but also in the ability to communicate and understand the culture and the various aspects of doing business in this region. We know that the economic progress in this region is going much too fast. So we have to speed up in this respect so that we can meet the demand. When the future generations of Singaporeans go for overseas ventures, they must master the languages in this region. Therefore, we must strengthen our study of the history, geography, culture and customs of this region, particularly in China, India, Malaysia and Indonesia. We should encourage our younger people to study more on the Asian and South East Asian cultures, economy, geography and history. And we should also encourage them to step up their studies in this respect and to train them so that they would be able to work in multinational companies and to contribute to our future economy. Sir, the 1994 Budget is the ordinary citizens' Budget which is full of compassion. I support this statement. Mr Low Thia Khiang( In Mandarin): Sir, the Member made some allegation against me. He alleged that I used town council's fund for political activities. I want him to tell me what activities he was referring to. Mr Peh Chin Hua( In Mandarin): Sir, I did not say that it was Hougang Town Council which had been using its funds for political purpose. I only said that some Opposition town councils had been doing that. Well, if he has not done so, then he should not be guilty conscious. Mr Low Thia Khiang( In Mandarin): Sir, Mr Peh's allegation is not fair. He should not be insinuating in Parliament. He should be specific.”
“Sir, with the economic recovery in the United States, Europe and Japan, and also with the economies of the East Asian and South East Asian countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, China, India and Vietnam, getting more and more prosperous and having a good prospect in the future, I think we would have a very good future and we are now encouraging our people to venture overseas and to develop our external economy. However, from a businessman's point of view, our overseas business faces very strong competition from others. We must be able to understand the situation overseas so that we will have an advantage over others in getting the deals. As it was said by Sun Tzu, "Know our enemies as we know ourselves, and we can win all the battles." So with regionalisation, we should set up more funds. For example, the Edusave Fund, which has been increased, is a very wise move. More importantly, we should also adjust our curriculum so that we will be able to cope with the demand in our overseas ventures. In this respect, I hope that the Government could consider a few proposals: First, we all know that English is the common language in our multi-racial society. It is also the nucleus for our multi-racial unity and it is also the key to the opening up of the western markets - the United States and European markets. Many people benefited because they know English and they are able to venture overseas. However, with South East Asia's economies picking up, I think we should also encourage and improve the teaching of our mother tongue so that we will be able to cope with the need to converse and communicate with our counterparts in this region. To improve the teaching of the mother tongue would be of great help to our future development.”
“I will ask Mr Low: Why is it that more and more developing countries like Vietnam and China are always praising the Singapore Government and envious of the lives of the workers in Singapore? Sir, another point that I would like to raise is that the small and medium enterprises in Singapore should be allowed to use their overseas assets as collateral for bank loans. I support the proposals by Dr Ow Chin Hock and Mr Leong Horn Kee that the Government set up an overseas development bank to provide loans to local enterprises and to allow CPF to be used for designated overseas investment plans. Sir, I feel that the Finance Minister, although he said that the Government encourages people to venture overseas, has failed to relax the restrictions imposed by the banks. I feel that our banks are really too conservative. They have indirectly restricted our capability to venture overseas. I hope that the Monetary Authority of Singapore would consider relaxing all these limitations so that the SMEs would be able to use their overseas assets as collateral, at least part collateral for their loans, so that they would have more funds to invest overseas. Particularly when they are purchasing overseas properties which are reliable, they should be allowed to use these properties as collateral for bank loans. Since overseas banks are able to accept these properties as collateral for loans, I do not understand why our local banks cannot do the same. I think when the Government encourages people to venture overseas, they should also consider relaxing these rules.”
“Moreover, some Opposition town councils have been using the service and conservancy charges collected from the people to carry out political activities for their own political purpose. This afternoon, Mr Low Thia Khiang, raised objection to the withdrawal of Government subsidies to the town councils. I must tell him that this subsidy is not a subscription of the political parties. It is the people's money. You should not use people's money for your political purpose. So long as the service and conservancy charges are properly maintained and used, I think this should not be a problem of the town councils. Sir, Mr Low Thia Khiang also created an unnecessary fear among us. He said the Government is giving incentives to induce the people and then exert pressure on them. We all know that many governments have to increase taxes to provide for expenditure. There is no other country in the world which acts like the Singapore Government where all sorts of rebates and reliefs are given to the people to prepare them for GST. Therefore, the Government has given rebates on service and conservancy charges and rentals and other reliefs to the people so that the lower income group would be able to cope with GST, and that they will not be so adversely affected by the implementation of GST. I believe that in the long run, the people, particularly the lower income group, will understand that the PAP Government is more caring for the people than the Workers' Party. The unnecessary fear that he had created, I think, will not be really the workers' fear. He felt that the workers in Singapore have more and more burdens to bear.”
“He felt that the Government's rebates for S&C charges for 1- to 5-room flats are not good enough and a few more months' rebates should be given. The Potong Pasir Town Council under Mr Chiam See Tong's management has operating surpluses too. Why does he not give another one or two months' rebates to his residents so that the Potong Pasir residents could be more happy? Let them share the success of his management of the town council. Mr Speaker, Sir, when we are implementing this budget, apart from reading from the newspapers the reaction of the ordinary citizens on whether they are happy or unhappy, I feel the Government should also consider what Mr Chiam See Tong said in Parliament yesterday. He said any government which has accumulated massive amounts of funds shall one day be tempted to use them for its own political ends. I think we should follow his suggestion so that we can test the ordinary citizens' reaction to our budget. What will be the reaction of the residents in the wards of the ruling party and the Opposition parties on the tough and unpopular Government policies which have long-term benefit to them? Would they not agree that we should have a good and experienced government before we could have good economic results? Are they going to just continue to share the fruits of success irrespective of whether the Government is good or bad? Have they not thought that if we do not have a good government, we would have no such fruits of success to share? Mr Speaker, Sir, this reaction would have a great effect on the future politics of Singapore. Therefore, I feel that the Government may consider what Mr Chiam See Tong said yesterday. Otherwise, the Opposition parties will be laughing at the Government for being so stupid.”
“If we are to make it into the First League, there has to be a genuine partnership between the Government and the people, not the partnership of the rider and the horse, with the Government as the rider and the rest of us as the horse, but a partnership based on mutual trust and respect. The Government says, "People trust us. Use your vote responsibly." I ask the Government, "Please, trust the people. Trust us and have some faith in our good sense, in our common sense." People should be given as much choice over as wide a field as possible. Let people take responsibility for their own lives. Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar GRC)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Budget Statement by the Finance Minister, Dr Richard Hu, has provided various tax reliefs and rebates to the people. For example, the rebates on rental and service and conservancy charges for HDB flats and the second CPF Share Ownership Top-Up Scheme, which would be of great benefit to the ordinary citizens. This can be said to be the first time since independence that the Government has been giving out such generous reliefs to the ordinary citizens. This is indeed the ordinary citizens' Budget. However, the business circle is quite disappointed. But they should know that so long as we have budget surpluses and the Government does not have to increase taxes or impose new taxes, then they should be thankful to have this painless and unexciting budget. The Opposition Member, Mr Chiam See Tong, said in the Budget debate yesterday that this year's Budget does not benefit the business, nor does it benefit the lower-income people. He is, as usual, trying to deceive others as well as deceiving himself and he is speaking against his political conscience.”
“The CEOs of multi-national corporations, successful professionals, the businessmen, the senior employees holding positions of high responsibility, the parents who have brought up and nurtured their own families to adulthood, are these people incapable of seeing the problems of old age and adequately responding to them? Do they need the Government to think for them and decide how to employ the CPF funds? People will be put off by the Government's well meaning efforts. They will be cynical and grumbling and, ironically, do not expect thanks from those who do need Government's help to plan for their future. They will equally resent what they see as Government's patronising attitude. Paradoxically, I think the best thing for Government to do is to do nothing. Hand people's money back to them at age 55, and say, "Here, this is your money. We have done our bit, we have kept it safe for you. We have got your employers to give 20% on top of your salary. Now it is yours, invest it as you like." Make it clear that there will be no handouts to the prodigal son who blows the whole lot in one hedonistic binge. Then step back and let the people take over responsibility for their lives. We can understand Government's concern for welfare but lack of initiative and enterprise will sink us in a competitive world. The best thing the Government can do to foster initiative and enterprise is do less for people and let them learn from their own mistakes. I only cite old age provision as one area where Government can get people thinking for themselves. There are myriad others. Back off, and let people breathe. Singaporeans cannot be driven like sheep into the First League of Nations.”
“Sometimes it is better to let go and let people make their own decisions and live with their own mistakes. More has to be done to foster an attitude of independence and self-reliance. A case in point is provision for old age. This is the problem that will be with us for a long time. It exercises the best brains in Government. We have heard senior members of the Cabinet mention the possibility that the CPF withdrawal age will be raised. We can understand Cabinet's concern. People are living longer, they should set aside more for old age. But should they be compelled to do so by Government? That is the question. Or should they be left to make their own provision? The temptation is for Government to work out in fine detail, how each and every one of us is to husband his CPF so as to last his lifetime. I think that would be a bad mistake. When you stop a person taking out his CPF savings at 55, or 60, or at whatever age, you are saying to him, "You can't be trusted to manage your own money. So we will manage it for you." This sort of thing does not go down well with intelligent people; and make no mistake about it: Singaporeans are more intelligent than the Government seems to think they are. What rankles, I think, is this implicit assumption that the Government is better able than the average Singaporean to decide what to do with his own money. If a person wants to use his CPF savings to start a new business, or to educate his children, or to go on a pilgrimage, or even to see the world, is the Government right to stop him? It is not the raising of the withdrawal age per se that irritates the people. It is the fact that the Government is patronising them, treating them like children.”
“The Government has gone from being a stern parent - with a whole list of "Thou shall nots" - to a concerned parent, but a parent nevertheless. The result, over the last two generations, is an erosion of the feeling that people are responsible for their own well-being and that it is not Government's job to take care of everyone and pander to their needs. When medical benefits were changed for civil servants, there were a lot of grumbles and rumbles from affected persons. Some of this unhappiness, I think, was because all of a sudden people had to think for themselves. From a Government pays-all scheme which is very easy for most people, you suddenly have a choice, you have a choice about which ward to be admitted to, you have a choice about which scheme to take, you have a choice about insurance, what plan to take, how much insurance to take. And for some people, I think, the effort of planning was painful. This kind of attitude is insidious and if it becomes widespread, it is a danger to Singapore in the long run. In the long term, it can sink us. But a well meaning, caring Government can still unwittingly foster a dependency syndrome by trying to do too much for people. If we are not careful, one day we will wake up in a society where people have lost the habit of thinking and deciding for themselves. Woe betide us if people ever reach the stage where they expect Government to spoon-feed them, cosset them and think for them, and then they will complain vociferously like they do in some other countries when things go to the dogs. It has happened in countries which were economically phenomenal, 50 years ago. I do not think that we are necessarily immune from this if we are not careful.”
“In the past, we have been told how many children to have, when to have them, when to marry, who to marry, how long to keep our hair, and even for those with long memories, to eat more wheat. Then people complained that Singaporeans lack initiative. Even the Government Ministers complained that Singaporeans expect the Government to do everything for them. I find this strange, if not, a little ironic. Before 1963, no one ever accused Singaporeans of lacking initiative and depending on the colonial government. If there was a need for a university, people went out and found the funds. They formed self-help groups themselves without Government prodding. They did not need Government to tell them where to invest and how to do business. Between independence and today, something seems to have happened to this natural initiative. If there is a lesson to be learned from the woes of the welfare states of the West it is that governments which create a dependency syndrome in their people are courting disaster eventually. And the dependency syndrome is not created only by welfare. It can also be created where the state takes over basic decision-making and refuses to let the people exercise their minds. If you never let your children choose their own clothes, you should not complain that they do not have any taste. If you do not let them make their own decisions, do not moan that they lack initiative. Parental control is often well meant, but over-control leads to over-dependent, maladjusted children. The analogy holds true for society. We have a very controlled society. No doubt the Government intervenes for our own good, or for what they think is our own good. But the effect is to stultify initiative and enterprise.”
“But even for this good news, in my Meet-the-People Session for the last few weeks, nobody has come to say that the Government has done well. In fact, they have remained embarrassingly silent. So I assume that is good news. But my businessman friends have lambasted me and they told me that the Budget has caused the share market to go down and it was totally unnecessary. They said the Government should have given the businessmen a 1% token corporate tax cut, if nothing else. But Dr Ow said it well yesterday. He said that the more you give, the more people want. Perhaps, on hindsight, the 3% corporate tax cut should have been withheld until this year, or 1.5% last year and 1.5% this year. Good things should be spread out over a long distance. Sir, taken together, the 1993/94 Budget lays the foundation for a bright future ahead and one that allows us to move confidently into the next century. I support the Budget. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I think I should thank the Finance Minister for a very generous Budget. I do not think any individual taxpayer can justly claim to be short-changed. In his Budget speech, the Hon. Minister for Finance outlined the role of Government in economic management. He said that the Government's role is to provide a conducive environment for private initiative while intervening directly only in areas where there is market failure. This philosophy is to be welcomed since it places the responsibility for economic growth where it should belong, with the private sector. I hope that the same philosophy will be employed in non-economic matters as well. The problem is that the Government is always tempted to intervene in people's lives, not just in the economic sphere but also in other matters.”
“I think we should cheer them otherwise they might also lose heart. Sir, between 1993 and 1994 Budgets, between the last two Budgets, everybody has gained: business people, workers and consumers. About two weeks ago, I attended the Tanjong Pagar Town Council meeting. It was the last Council meeting before the new Council comes in. And I was listening to the briefing by my General Manager on the new rates which the Tanjong Pagar Town Council will impose on its residents because of the 1993/94 Budget. If I may ask that the Table be distributed. [Copies of Table distributed to hon. Members.] You will see the dramatic reduction in the S&C rate. This is only correct for Tanjong Pagar because every Town Council sets their own rates. Sir, you will note that for 1-roomers, they used to pay $15.50 per month for their S&C charges before the 1993/94 Budget. But after the 1994 Budget, they will be paying $3.50 per month, ie, from $15.50 to $3.50. And for this year, they will get rebates in April, August and December. The yearly saving for the 1-roomer comes to $154.50, representing a whopping 83% savings. If you go down the last column, 2-roomers will save $167 this year, representing 62%; 3-roomers save $142 this year, in percentage terms, 38%; and even 4-roomers save 8% this year. Sir, here we assume that 4-roomers are taxpayers. So they also have the tax rebate of $700 plus 5 percentage points this year. So, virtually, even the 4-roomers and 5-roomers will not be paying any taxes. If we factor in the CPF Top-Up Scheme, the Edusave Scheme, there will be negative income tax. In other words, the Government is paying them instead of they paying the Government.”