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 5 of 7.
“The simple message the union wants to tell employers is that if companies send more workers for training, then they will get back their share of the contribution. In fact, I am told that right now, because bigger companies are more active in training, they are already using up the lion share of the SDF. Bigger companies usually employ staff at the higher starting salaries in excess of the present SDF levy of $750 which means that they are using up the SDF, while not contributing as much to it. Smaller companies which are the main contributors to the SDF, unfortunately, are not very active in sending workers to the SDF-sponsored courses. I think this announcement by Dr Richard Hu will serve to balance the redress between what big companies use and what small companies pay in. Sir, I want to move on and talk about a strange phenomenon, about how Singaporeans, in general, have acquired the habit of remaining silent when policies are good for them, while they scream and moan when they are affected by single issues. Consumers and workers should be happy for the goodies they get from this year's Budget for precisely the same reasons that business people appear to be unhappy. Because it must be, is it not? If businessmen are unhappy, obviously the Budget, according to the business people, has been skewed to favour workers. But, Sir, as I scan the daily papers and letters to the press, there were few cheers for the Government. In contrast, the headlines and the sub-headlines appeared to have been hijacked by people who were unhappy about the Budget. The majority who have benefited from the Budget, the ordinary persons in HDB flats, the consumers, should come out and cheer the Government. I think the Government has done well.”
“In fact, over the last eight years when CPF was cut dramatically, radically and suddenly from 25% to 10%, there were only two bad years. And over the eight years we registered an average of 6-7 percentage point economic growth every year. Last year we hit 9.9%. If we still cannot restore the percentage cut in the employers' CPF, I do not know when we can do it. In fact, many workers still consider a 20% CPF contribution from the employer a retreat of 5% from the original 25%. But the union's position is that we will settle for 20%, we will leave the past behind us and we will move on towards the 21st century. In other words, unions are going to write off all their "losses" over the last eight years and work for the future. We are therefore disappointed that employers and businessman MPs are nit-picking over this 1.5%. Some businessman MPs have said that the employer's CPF restoration was totally unexpected. Sir, I just went to the Library and I picked up the Hansard. Dr Richard Hu gave advance notice that this year's CPF will probably be restored. And I read you what he said last year under the heading "Outlook for 1993". He said, and I quote him [Hansard, Vol. 60, col. 543]: 'If the world economic environment remains favourable in 1994 and our economy continues to grow satisfactorily, Government will further adjust the CPF contribution rates in 1994 by an additional 1.5 percentage points, bringing the contribution rates for the employer and employee to 20% each on 1st July 1994.' So it is inexplicable, Sir, that some MPs in this House claimed that the announcement came as a bomb shell. Sir, the third point is about raising the ceiling for the SDF levy.”
“Still, the old MD and I met in my union office and we reminisced about several things. And I asked him: is it true that Singapore is becoming an unprofitable place to do business? He said that over the years business costs have gone up but Singapore is still a very good place to do business. He said, "No! Singapore is the place that I would like to be posted to and when I go to Malaysia, I will ask my management to look south and learn how you manage the system here." And his parting sentence was, "I am very grateful for the help of Mr Anthony (Mr Anthony is the Branch Chairman at this company)." He is going to a bigger set-up in Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia. There are 16 companies there as opposed to nine here. I asked him, "Isn't it cheaper to do the manufacturing in Malaysia?" He said, "Yes. When it comes to manufacturing, it is. But in Singapore you have a whole system in place. Your IPOs are in place here and with the opening up of the world, with the ratification of GATT, Singapore for now is still the best place to do business." So it is not true that business costs have gone up so much that the bottom-lines are affected. And I think this point must be brought home to some of our businessman MPs in this House that business cost is only one factor. The final factor must be the bottom-line. Because if business cost is cheap and you do not make money, then you should not be in business. This brings me to the second point. Why are employers still groaning about the 1.5% increase in CPF contribution? Again, Mr Robert Chua and others echoed the same view that this will raise cost, erode profitability and diminish our importance as a business centre.”
“And the third point appears to be that the ceiling for SDF levy was raised from $750 to $1,000. The 1994 Budget is certainly a pro-worker, a pro-consumer budget. But that does not mean it is also anti-business. The market has selectively forgotten that there was already a 3% corporate tax cut in the 1993 budget. That was given even before GST was implemented. The implementation of GST, therefore, is no reason for a further tax cut. In fact, with the economy going at 9.9% last year, there could be serious problems of overheating if further tax cuts were given this year. Sir, apart from the implementation cost of GST, which of course companies will pick up some cost, most companies have decided to pass on the 3% tax burden to consumers. So the GST does not really affect them that much, except for this initial transition period where they must change their accounting systems to capture the cost. Sir, it is true that business costs over the last few years have gone up. But relative to our neighbours, Singapore is still a very profitable place to make money. One proof was the productivity increase last year which for the first time in many years exceeded wage increase. And the returns on investment in capital by MNCs are still very healthy. Only last week, a Japanese MD of a major MNC company was posted from Singapore to Malaysia. I had met this MD once or twice in my union visits to his company. He asked to see me in my capacity as Executive Secretary of the United Workers of the Electronics and Electrical Industries. He wanted to say goodbye in my union office somewhere in Katong. He wanted to introduce the new MD to me before he leaves for Malaysia. Unfortunately, the new MD did not arrive in time.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before the Budget for 1994 was announced, the mood in the stock market was expectant. The day before the Budget speech, the stock market rallied. But after the Budget was announced, the mood turned sour. And the Budget was unfairly blamed for the downturn. Sir, I don't play shares, but the ups and downs in the stock market do affect me because my friends and colleagues are affected by it. Their laughter and their sorrow rub off on me too. Shares, I am told in my Economics 101 course, is the economic bellwether of the nation. If the share market goes up, the economy is supposed to be doing well. If it comes down, the economy might be heading for a bad patch. But my economics tutor apparently was living in a closed world (the world was about the 70s) where people make decisions partly based on sound economic principles, and where markets do not attract huge inflows and outflows of foreign funds in anticipation of interest rate movements, and other real or imaginary political developments. Sir, the Singapore economy was on solid ground in 1993. It will continue to perform well in 1994. It was simplistic, therefore, to lay the blame for the fall of the market on the 1994 Budget which did nothing to rock the fundamentals of the Singapore economy. The sympathetic downturn of the major foreign markets over the same period suggests that the pessimistic mood is global in nature. But, nonetheless, as Mr Robert Chua has pointed out only just before I took up this stand, the Singapore market appears to be unhappy over three local issues. The first issue is that the Budget did not allow for an anticipated cut in corporate tax. The second issue, which keeps coming up in this House, is that the employers' share of the CPF was raised by 1.5%.”
“Sir, is the Minister aware that one-cent coins are not readily available in the market? When GST is implemented from 1st April onwards, there may be some problems in rounding down or rounding up to the nearest one-cent. My question to the Minister is: when and where will these one-cent coins be distributed around the island?”
“Even within the same ethnic groups, many of us have different loyalties. Sir, Japan did not become a developed nation because of the plurality of individualism and a diversity of opinions, and neither will Singapore. But can Singapore follow Japan's footstep to become the second country to leap-frog from the ranks of the very poor into the ranks of the very rich? I think we are very close to there, but we are not quite there yet. I think we are 10 to 15 years behind the very rich. In order to reach that position, the club of the very rich, the G7, or the G8 eventually, we need a goal, we need a mission, we need a purpose, we need an objective, to work as a team. But right now, what is that mission? We have "Vision 1999", and we have several other missions. We have this national ideology being toyed around. To me, Sir, our mission must be to fulfil our forefathers' dream of making it big in Singapore. When our forefathers came to Singapore from afar and braved the unknown seas, they came with visions of hope, they came with dreams of finding that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. We are almost there, we are very close to it, but we are not quite there yet. We can do it all together if we heed the President's call for more cohesion.”
“We would have succeeded, Sir, so long as our poor is richer than the rich elsewhere. I think that is the key - so long as our poor is richer than the rich elsewhere. The Japanese have shown us what cohesiveness is and what it can do for the society. Japan always has income inequality. The rich eat gold-plated leaves, the poor sleep in the subways. Sir, you and I do not see the destitutes in Japan so easily because they move into the subways after the last train has rolled off and they clear up quickly before the first train rolls in. It is wrong to conclude that cohesion in Japan is weak in spite of this income gap. The Japanese are a cohesive lot and with it they have leap-frogged from a poor, underdeveloped country into the ranks of the G7 - the club for the richest in the world. But luckily for the Japanese, cohesiveness comes easy because Japan is a very homogenous society. I learn recently that new Japanese expatriates in America were astounded by the fact that Americans greeted each other on the streets, even among strangers, "Good morning, Sir", "Good afternoon" and "Good day". Sir, the need to appear polite and reassuring, I am told, is not of paramount importance in Japan. Why? Because apparently in Japan they are so homogenous that they know their feelings every morning, every afternoon, every evening. I think this must be an exaggeration. But it says something about the Japanese culture and their cohesiveness. If nothing else, they think they are alike. That is important. Unfortunately, Sir, Singapore is not a homogenous society and it will never be. We are a land of immigrants consisting of Chinese, Malays, Indians and others. Instead of this inherent natural cohesiveness, the possibilities of friction and conflict are enormous.”
“The real reason why income gap will grow in the future is because the world is becoming more global, more porous and, sooner or later, borderless. The mercantilist days where labour was only mobile within national boundaries are over. So are the unskilled who will have to compete with the unskilled in China, in India and in Mexico, to manufacture the same product. It is also naive to assume that a lesser income gap will make a nation more cohesive. If it were so, the experience in China and elsewhere is instructive. With a porous world economy, a widening income gap is, as I have said, inevitable. Robert Reich devoted a major portion of his book, The Work of Nations, to explaining why nobody can stop this phenomenon. The alternative is, of course, equality of income where everybody is equally poor. Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Robert Reich is a Democrat whose whole life has been devoted to narrowing the income gap. He has told the Americans in no uncertain terms that the income gap will widen and he cannot stop it. Before China opened up her closed economy, there was equality of income. Everybody was equally poor, but were they happy? I do not think so. Now, in China, the income gap has really widened. The rich and the poor are quite obvious. I can tell you, Sir, that not all are happy. I think most are happier. In fact, Jiang Zemin, at the 14th National Congress, told the Chinese that they must widen the income gap so that everybody will become more prosperous. So the challenge is really to accept this inevitable outcome and build social cohesion around the growing income gap. One way is to structure policies and programmes so that everybody, including the lower income group, is better off with the new policies than with the old policies.”
“D in Electrical Engineering or in Mathematics - I cannot remember - who resigned from his job as a lecturer to become an ordinary real estate broker. I do not know about his IQ, but if you equate degrees with IQ, I think his IQ cannot be so low. Sir, the President's call to reaffirm our future in a free market is correct. It is an unbiased system, not the fairest, but the best available so far. It is therefore refreshing to hear the President play new music and sing familiar old songs. It is this constant fine-tuning of old policies and steadfast adherence to the basics that will secure our future in the 21st century. Sir, we should never need to go back to the basics, something which John Major is urging the British to do so, because we should never leave the basics. Sir, for all the things the President has said, to my mind, the most important message is the one embedded in the last paragraph. If I may quote from the Address, the President said: "So long as we are prepared to learn and to work our best, we can continue to be ahead. But we need the cohesion and determination to excel. Then we will thrive and prosper." Sir, the key word in this paragraph is "cohesion". How do we tackle the issue of cohesiveness? Indeed, what is cohesiveness and whether it is at all necessary. Dr Wang Kai Yuen is concerned that with the growing income gap there will be less cohesion, all things being equal among Singaporeans. Over the last 10 years, the income gap in Singapore has naturally narrowed, but in the future there is indeed a danger that the gap will widen. But this is not because the Government is skewing the salary structure to reward the rich.”
“But the President is also telling us that some things should not change and must not change, things like family values, using the free market to drive the economy or tempering the system with a compassionate hand and avoiding the welfare trap that has impoverished once proud and rich nations. Sir, the apparent collapse of the Russian free market system has renewed protectionist voices to stop the free market from rolling on. But in fact, on closer analysis, the biggest mistake Gorbachev has made was to liberalise prices before breaking up the monopolies of cartels which had dominated the Soviet economy. But at that time, of course, Gorbachev's hands were tied because he needed to fill the shelves with goods very quickly. But critics of the free market should look to China to see the success of the system there. They cannot be so dense to ignore how much happiness, how much joy, how much prosperity, the free market has brought to the Chinese. Sir, the free market is the final arbiter of who earns high income, who earns low income. The market is not the best judge, but in an imperfect world like ours, the market offers the least imperfect solution. Sir, we should never envy the rich remisiers or the rich estate agents because they earn more money than some of us. Everybody likes to talk about them these days because we have just experienced the crest of a property and stock market wave, notwithstanding the fact that in the last few days it has gone down. But when the market crashes, who cares about these remisiers and property agents. We should never be so arrogant to assume that street-smart people have low IQs. Indeed, I have a university colleague, a Ph.”
“Sir, change is frightening. It will always be resisted. That is why we must reaffirm our commitment to the tripartite arrangement between all three parties - the Government, the management and the union. We must work together to explain the need to change and cushion some of the harsher impact of some of the new policies to come. For example, some policies that are good are not very clearly explained. Dr John Chen, my colleague, has already pointed out some of these policies. It does no harm for me to repeat in a different manner what he has just said. The new health care policy to be put in place is a welcome one. But some schemes, like the co-payment scheme, the MediShield scheme, are not very clearly explained to the ordinary man-in-the-street. I was just told this morning that one civil servant went to the CPF Board to collect some MediShield forms. The counter staff told this civil servant that there was no need to apply. Why? He was told MediShield does not apply to civil servants. This is wrong because MediShield is a safety net for all of us who have not opted out. I think such simple policies which we all need to know in very clear simple terms are not made explicit to some of the counter staff, some of the civil servants. The task of explaining the new impact of new policies should be the task of Government, employers as well as the unions. I think I need to repeat this point because in the last few months many new policies have come on stream. Some are very difficult and complicated policies that cannot be made too simple, yet we must try to make them simpler. The President has told us that some things have changed. So we must respond quickly.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you very much for allowing me to join in this debate. Sir, the most significant event which has direct impact on the Singapore economy in 1993 is the successful conclusion of the Uruguay round of GATT. The last-minute packaging of the Uruguay round in time for the fast track approval by the US Congress has given Singapore some breathing spell in its ability to compete in a free and fair trading world. In fact, Sir, ironically, the impetus to the conclusion of GATT came not from a belief in free trade per se but from a growing fear of regionalism, tribalism and the formation of trading blocs. GATT was concluded in the shadow of NAFTA and the US threat of retreating from Europe into the embrace of APEC. In other words, the world is at once becoming more global because of GATT, and more local because of all the regional groupings. Singapore must therefore operate within this new world order. The President is right to urge Singaporeans to work overseas, to venture abroad, to be more internationalist, because obviously that is where the markets are. But at the same time, the President has exhorted us to be more Singaporean to face the world as one people. What did the President's Address touch on? He touched on many issues. But to me, the basic message is that the world has changed. So some policies must keep pace with these changes like, for example, we are all living longer, and the demographic pattern is changing. So I think it makes sense to secure our retirement by keeping more money in the CPF. We should all support the proposed revision to the CPF Minimum Sum Scheme. I think some of this should be in cash because when we retire we may have our HDB flats, but we cannot eat our assets even though we may enjoy in their comfort.”
“Sir, if I may make some clarifications. When I said CASE supports the concept of balance billing, I meant CASE supports the concept of limiting balance billing. In other words, capping the amount over which hospitals allow Medisave to be used. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, That the proceedings on the item of business under discussion and the remaining item on the Order Paper today be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE (Motion) Debate resumed. 3.38 pm”
“Sir, CASE would prefer the balance billing concept. Because under the present concept put forward in the White Paper, there is already a provision for hospitals to withdraw themselves from using Medisave payments. So if a hospital thinks that balance billing is bad, the hospital can say, "Look, I encourage all my patients to use cash." If the hospitals take that position, it is equivalent to the pre-1986 position.”
“Therefore, means testing is not necessary. "Equitable access" means that there will be some form of rationing and therefore I think some means testing is not out of place. Sir, the equitable and efficient way to means testing is to set some simple and easy to administer barrier which prevents the rich from consuming the services for the poor. For a start, if I may suggest, we can set very high limits so that for all practical purposes, the vast majority of both the rich and the poor can have access to B2 and C wards. Then over time, as health care costs rise, the original means test will progressively filter off the rich into A and B1 and allow the less rich to use the heavily subsidised B2 and C wards. One way to do it might be to look at the CPF amount available or withdrawn to gauge the wealthiness of a patient. Sir, I support recommendations of the White Paper.”
“Finally, in the jobless growth era, consumers are evaluating the worth of every single purchase. This is happening in the West and I believe it will come to the East. In the West today, people drive for miles, 10, 20, 30, 40 miles, to get discount rates in WalMart, in discount stores. In Europe, airlines are redesignating first class seats into business class and redesignating more business class into economy class. Many 5-star hotels are retrofitting into 4-star hotels and some 4-star into 3-star. Why this behavioural change? Because in their search for value, consumers in the West are looking for a product's intrinsic worth, not its cosmetic value. If what the Minister says is true, our class C is almost as good as our B1, then why would a person go to B1 instead of going into C? Sir, as the huge cost of health care begins to sink in, Singaporeans will also re-evaluate the worth of their purchase and I think the tendency to migrate from A to B1, from B1 to B2, B2 to C will start sooner rather than later. Sir, since the Government is taking this opportunity to revamp the entire health care system in Singapore for the 21st century, I think it will be wise now to signal to the public that at some point later, if not sooner, means testing would be inevitable. After all, we do means testing in many things. For example, in HDB applications, we do a means test. Means testing is also a fair way of rationing scarce resources under any hybrid system, unless you free it altogether and go for the fee-for-service system. I note that in the White Paper, the Committee chose the words "equitable access" instead of the words "universal access". Clinton's health care plan uses the words "universal access". "Universal" means everybody gets what he wants.”
“Sir, because the hybrid system proposed in the White Paper is essentially a cross between the pricing system (which is a fee-for-service system) and the queuing system (which is a free medical system) I think it would be wise to do a means test for people who qualify for the lower wards, the B2 and C wards. Why means testing? Basically because the ward charges in these two wards are heavily subsidised through general taxation. Yes, right now, there does not seem to be a rush for people into the Class C wards. But I believe that, over time, more and more people will rationalise their demand and want to bed themselves into the B2 and C wards primarily because of these reasons. First, the Government is overhauling the image of class C wards. I heard the Minister's persuasive speech yesterday trying to convince us that class C is as good as class B2, B1 and A in most of the services with the exception of a very small category of medical benefits. Sir, the more successful the Minister and the Government sell the class C and B2, the more people will want to go to B2 and C wards. It must be. Because, after all, Singaporeans are rational consumers. And certainly there is a difference in the C class wards of yesteryear and the C class wards of today. Yes, there is still some social stigma attached to being warded in a class C ward today. But the reality will sink in that class C wards give very good value for money. And I think the more successful the re-imaging process, the higher the demand for C wards. Second, as our population ages, more people will need more health care services. Even if the proportion of people going to B2 and C wards does not increase, the absolute number of people going in will increase over the years, meaning more demand for class C wards.”
“Sir, most of my wards in Tiong Bahru and the unions are senior citizens, who are either economically inactive or working class people, with little cash savings. Unlike younger Singaporeans who are paying into the health care system but are not using up their share, my residents and my workers are beginning to consume some of the health care services. Fortunately, these are not demanding people. In fact, their needs are quite simple, albeit well-defined. The things they look out for are: (a) adequate and prompt medical treatment; (b) humane attention from medical staff; and (c) affordable health care. Sir, the White Paper promises to deliver on all three counts. Hence, for the vast majority of my residents, they are reassured that this Government will not let them down. Sadly, Sir, a few of my residents are really so poor that even affordable is prohibitively expensive. But I am glad to note that our system takes care of even the destitute. Over the last two years, since I became MP in September 1991, I have made several representations on behalf of my poorer residents to get waivers on hospital bills. I am happy to tell everybody in this House that the Ministry of Health has always looked at all these destitute cases personally and sympathetically. In fact, the CEOs of the restructured hospitals have replied to me personally, explaining each case in detail. Sometimes, they have even called me up. I want to take this opportunity to thank the civil servants in the Ministry of Health for this human touch in health care.”
“Calling themselves Generation X, after Douglas Coupland's novel, this group of people see no future for themselves. When Generation X was born in the mid-60s, health care cost in the United States took up less than $100 billion because less was spent on health care. There was more money and everything else for people who were already in their 20s when Generation X was born in the 1960s. So by the time Generation X started their careers a few years ago, their seniors, who are already in the late 30s and 40s, whom Generation X called the Boomers, were already entrenched in well-paying jobs, while the younger ones were left to pick up the crumbs. And Generation X is very angry and disenchanted with their seniors. Part of the reason is that they think that health care cost is to be blamed. Between 1961 and 1992, health care expenditure in the United States shot up from less than $100 billion to its present $800 billion, and by next year, it will be about $1 trillion. Generation X, the younger people, thinks that it is not fair to them because they are not consuming health care services but they are paying taxes on them. Sir, younger Singaporeans in Singapore are not so antagonistic. They want to share in this health care programme for their parents and their seniors, but they like me to suggest to Members of this House to take their views into consideration when implementing any health care policy. Because while they are not consuming health care now, they will be consuming health care in 20 to 30 years' time. And they are afraid that by the time they get old, there will be not much left for them. Sir, my second comment on the White Paper comes from my perspective as a Member of Parliament for Tanjong Pagar GRC and as labour MP for Singapore workers.”
“If more money is spent on health care, less will be available in education and other social investments. Poorly trained people, and inadequate infrastructure will encourage joblessness which in turn demands higher consumption on health care. So each turn of the vicious cycle traps ever more people into joblessness and higher expenditure on health care. And the cycle will carry on and on until society is bankrupt. Hence, Sir, the first important point I wish to make about the White Paper on Affordable Health Care is taken from the perspective of younger Singaporeans which, I think, not many of my colleagues have spoken out for, and I hope to represent them in my office as the Deputy Chairman of the National Youth Council (NYC). Sir, the National Youth Council is an umbrella group representing most of the youth movements in Singapore. On 4th July 1993, the NYC debated on various issues affecting youth, including one on health care, and some of these issues are captured in this report "NYC Seminar - The Future in Your Hand". I suggest that everybody should read it. Since then, I have had various discussions with younger Singaporeans both in the NYC and outside. They all support the White Paper. All of them want good basic affordable health care for Singaporeans, especially for their aged parents and relatives. But they also recognise that in a hybrid system like the one proposed in the White Paper, the younger Singaporeans are the ones who will be paying for the subsidies on the B1, B2 and C wards. Sir, in the United States, younger Americans are already fed up and disillusioned with the exorbitant health care cost because they have been asked to shoulder a disproportionate share of the nation's health care bill.”
“Under the proposed new civil service scheme, young employees actually benefit from the scheme because they do not consume health care during the early years of their civil service employment and they can choose to either save the money in their Medisave which, when it reaches above a certain amount, will flow over to the Ordinary Account, or they can choose to buy insurance. So, I think on this score, perhaps Dr Soin is misunderstood. Sir, the words "health care" are of recent minting. The original words were medical care. Because medical care was closely associated with hospital care which, in turn, evoked all kinds of unsavoury imageries, few people avail themselves of medical services. There was, therefore, no problem in medical care, until the words "health care" came along to replace it. Now, people take health care as a right and demand instant services, where they want it, when they want it. This behavioural change is not inexplicable because Singaporeans believe that health care administered in large doses will extend their lease on life proportionately. But this, of course, Sir, is a fallacy. Because the Americans who consume something like $1 trillion, or 14% of its GDP, do not live longer and healthier lives than the Japanese or Europeans who spend far less. In fact, the average Americans die one year earlier than the Germans, and 3.5 years earlier than the Japanese. Clearly, the key to longer and happier lives is not to throw money at health care. The way to happiness is to reinforce traditional family values, empower people with jobs, and create a sense of purpose and self-worth in society. Excessive spending on health care is a vicious form of poverty trap.”
“They can choose to exercise this balance billing when it is implemented or the hospitals can choose to take themselves out from this scheme by asking patients to pay the entire amount in cash. Therefore, to balance bill, or not to balance bill, is really not the issue. But I think balance billing provides some assurance on the size of the health care bill to consumers. And on this score, CASE supports it enthusiastically. Sir, I was listening to my colleague, Dr Soin's point about this new scheme proposed by the Government about paying 1% of the salary into Medisave and thereby allowing the employee to use that 1% perhaps to buy insurance to cover any illnesses he or she might incur. And Dr Soin, if I heard her correctly, said that this scheme is regressive because, under the existing civil service scheme, all civil servants get universal coverage. In other words, they all get the same kind of coverage, which is not the case, because I serve in the NTUC and we sign collective agreements (CAs) with different employers. We also have the AUPE signing collective agreements with the Government and we know that different CAs provide for different kinds of coverage. Sometimes in one CA, we have different coverage for different categories of employees. So if you are a top executive, you might get Class A or B1. If you are lower down the scale, you might get Class B2 or C. So even under the existing scheme, there is no universal coverage and not everybody is covered equally.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate on the White Paper on Affordable Health Care. Sir, I would like to say something as the President of the Consumers' Association of Singapore (CASE). The content of the White Paper is something CASE can endorse because it provides good affordable basic health care for Singaporeans who are consumers but, more importantly, CASE can endorse the findings of this White Paper because of the checks and balances it has drawn up to protect consumers. In particular, CASE endorses the concept of balance billing when private hospitals allow patients to pay part of the bill through Medisave. Sir, the fear that balance billing might encourage private doctors in private hospitals to under-service patients is not likely because of the competition provided by Government and Government subvented hospitals. But experience in other countries, in the West especially, when balance billing is not there, there is a tendency somehow for bills to rise out of proportion. So CASE endorses the balance billing concept. I share the concern of some of my colleagues in this House on balance billing and some doctors have also suggested that balance billing is not good for the patients because it encourages doctors and hospitals to take short cuts, to under-prescribe and to under-treat. If that is the case, then perhaps these people should actually lobby the Government to revert to the pre-1986 situation when Medisave could only be used in the Government subsidised hospitals. But so far, these people have not done so. Because the fact of the matter is that, right now, the choice lies entirely with the private hospitals.”
“Sir, when you look at the advertised price of a car in the newspapers, and it does not specifically say it is COE inclusive or COE exclusive, how do you know? So you must call up. The immediate reaction is: does it include COE or does it not? At that point, I am confused. But, of course, I have the common sense to ring up and check before I go to the showroom and take a look.”
“I am not looking for a job. Sir, it is instructive to look at Hong Kong, because Hong Kong is a model that we should approximate within limits. In Hong Kong, they do the right thing. The Minister of State there talked about how Hong Kong built public houses. In Hong Kong, they do the right thing, I believe. And they have a statutory department to deal with consumer affairs and that department is staffed by over 100 professionals. And here in Singapore, we have CASE with only 15 staff, many of them semi-professionals and most of them are employed to serve our Advisory Councils. And people expect CASE to do great things. How is it possible? I do not know. But things, I hope, will take a turn for the better. The CRC Report has made its recommendations on CASE, but it has left the details to the Government. In my personal view, the Government should decide once and for all whether CASE deserves its full support. CASE cannot go on serving the needs of three million Singaporeans and six million tourists, minus those Malaysians coming in from the Causeway, on the present Government grant of $150,000 based on 5 cents per head funding basis. Sir, the NTUC and the SLF have been the two key pillars of strength for CASE. I hope the Government will now put the roof over our house. Sir, I congratulate the CRC for their well researched Report. I hope Mr Chiam See Tong will gain his sanity back and see that perception is one thing, reality is quite another. Sir, I support the motion that the recommendations of the CRC Report be accepted by Parliament.”
“Simply because they think they can get away with it without getting into too much trouble with the law. Consumer affairs are given top priority in New Zealand and elsewhere. In New Zealand, I believe there is even a Minister of Consumer Affairs. But I do not think Singapore needs to go so far.”
“For example, the Fair Trading Act prescribes that advertised prices must include GST or it must be clearly stated that GST is excluded. Sir, today, when you look at the advertised prices in our press, sometimes you do not know what the prices really mean. For example, when you want to buy a car, you look at the advertisement in the press. Many of the prices quoted in the newspapers on cars do not reflect the COE. Some do, some do not. They have the discretion on that. Some people are confused. I am confused sometimes. Similarly, when banks or finance companies advertise their loan interest rates, these interest rates come in different shades. Sometimes they quote yearly reducing, sometimes monthly reducing, sometimes daily reducing. When you put money in the bank, they tell you it is daily compounding, monthly compounding and various shades. But the problem lies more with the lending side. Consumers need to have a common base for comparison. I often wonder how many people actually know the effective yearly interest rate credit card companies charge consumers on their overdue payments. I believe it is quite high. I think they should work it out. Sir, there are more daily transgressions of the consumer sensibilities that sometimes disgust me and I think we all should be disgusted. For example, some retailers have the audacity to advertise for sales all year round; never mind that the colour of the sales banner has already faded. Others continue to mark down limited items as loss leaders to deceive customers into believing that there are unlimited items on sale. So people rush down only to be disappointed. Then they complain to CASE. What can we do? Sir, why do traders and shopkeepers keep doing these things?”
“It does not have the fiscal and monetary tools to fine-tune employment and inflation. But what can CASE do? CASE can do something. What CASE can do is to make the public aware of their consumer rights. CASE has the moral authority to publicise unfair traders which, I think, in the free market, is really more powerful than any legislation. But legislation cannot hurt. It will give CASE, a consumer watch-dog association, both the power to bite as well as to bark. A dog that can bark only is a pet dog, and not a watch dog! So we need to bark, we also sometimes need to bite occasionally, like the German Shepherd. You see the German Shepherd does not bark, but when it barks, you know you are in danger. When it bites, you are finished. Sir, the Government went to New Zealand to study their GST. Rightly so, because New Zealand is showing the world how to reform and re-invent government on many issues a long way ahead or long before the words "re-inventing government" became fashionable in America. New Zealand led the world in the accrual budgeting system, which I had earlier urged this Government to implement soon. When the GST went into operation in New Zealand, the New Zealand Fair Trading Act followed together back to back. I now urge the Government to look closely at New Zealand's Fair Trading Act implemented in 1986, the same year the New Zealand GST was put into place. The Fair Trading Act is an Act to give consumers and tourists a fair deal. Why? Because there are unfair traders among us. The Fair Trading Act covers advertising and selling. Specifically, it prohibits misleading and deceptive conduct, false representations and unfair practices. The Fair Trading Act was also a key tool in preventing profiteering in its implementation of the New Zealand GST.”
“Sir, "substantial" must be taken in the context of a substantial increase in both substantial percentage terms and in absolute terms. That is the reason why in the NWC negotiations, we always say that for those low wage income earners, the wage increase must be factored in absolute terms plus percentage terms. So I think we must not abuse statistics and realise Mark Twain's calling that there are lies, damn lies and statistics. But it does not mean that even if CASE were to get good funding from the Government, CASE should remain silent over price increases of public sector goods and services. Sir, under my watch, CASE will ask the Government to explain to the people why the prices of goods and services need to be raised. This transparency of information is good for the Government. It is good for consumers so that, collectively, Singaporeans can understand the reasons for the increase, and the consequences of not doing so, like raising utility rates in the Philippines which they fail to raise and therefore they have no utilities today. The burden of proof for each increase must lie with the Government. And the people should see the Government's reasoning in the light of world cost increases, their income increase and the consequences of not accepting these increases. But, Sir, CASE will not be all things to all people, even though we need the support of all Singaporeans. In an editorial of 1st October 1993, the Straits Times leader suggested that, and here I quote, "provided it serves the public interest and becomes a key element in the national effort to keep inflation from eroding living standards, it [CASE] will get the support." I think the leader was mistaken. CASE cannot fight inflation. It has no tools. CASE does not sell any goods and services.”
“But, Sir, it was powerful consumer voices which successfully prevented the electricity companies from raising prices on their utilities. So in the Philippines, consumers asked for low utility rates. They got no utilities at all. Now, they are asking for utilities. It cannot be done overnight. Therefore, Sir, CASE will not be out on a witch-hunt to nail down the most profitable companies in Singapore because, in a market economy, like Singapore, the companies that make good profits are often the most efficient providers of goods and services. At the macro level, it is not possible to have wage increase without some cost increase. If our wages go up, it is unrealistic and unfair to expect the laksa seller, or the taxi driver, to hold down his income forever. Sir, in a market economy, CASE believes that profiteering can only occur when knowledge is imperfect. For this reason, CASE hopes to find the resources to disseminate the prices of key consumer items captured in the CPI basket in the media when GST is implemented. This is one more reason why CASE needs more money from the Government. CASE is encouraged by the two words "substantial funding" in the CRC Report. The reporters got excited by these two words. They rang me up, "You have got lots of money now." But, Sir, the word "substantial" must be viewed in the light of the very small base. It must be viewed, as my colleague here says, relatively. The previous funding for CASE was five cents per head. We all know what we can do with five cents today. If funding were to be increased to, say, 50 cents, per head, this increase is indeed very substantial, but the absolute value is still minuscule.”
“Sir, I note that the CRC Report has also recommended that the Consumers' Association of Singapore (CASE) be given substantial funding for it to perform its role as a consumer watch-dog association for all Singaporeans. On behalf of CASE, I would like to thank the Committee for its deliberations. I wish to add, at the outset, that money alone cannot be the panacea for CASE. Ultimately, CASE must assemble a core of dedicated men and women to run the Association. But more money at this stage will help CASE to educate consumers on their rights. We will help consumers to go about living with GST sensibly. Sir, the immediate task for CASE is to help consumers get over the fear that GST will stoke inflation, and will feed inflation. There will be calls, I have already received some, to ask CASE to act as a witch-hunter, looking out for hawkers, dealers and shoppers who profiteer. But, Sir, what separates profit from profiteering is a very fine line. It is not a broad blur. It is a very fine line. At the outset, I want to emphasise that CASE is not against making profits. Profit is not a dirty word. Profit is sometimes even necessary to advance the interest of consumers. Sir, in July, I visited the Philippines with some 23 trade unionists. There, we became witness to the reality of people power. People power in the Philippines got rid of Marcos. But people power also created huge lobby groups out to advance all kinds of agendas, not all of them bad, but together they are divisive. What is immediately obvious to any tourist, or to any businessman in the Philippines, is the unpredictable brown-outs which condemn the lives of decent, honest Filipinos of up to 10 hours of darkness. Many reasons have contributed to this sorry state of affairs.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thought the debate was interminable. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion that this House accepts the Report of the Cost Review Committee. This Report represents the collective effort of 16 Singaporeans from across the economic and political spectrum, both the PAP and the Opposition, to understand why there is this perception that cost increases have raced ahead of income. Invitations were sent out to SDP but they refused. And now Mr Chiam comes round and says that this CRC Report is a political propaganda to win votes for the PAP. I think Mr Chiam should apologise to these 16 members, both the PAP and the Workers' Party, and also the neutral people from the University, from the press, for imputing this malicious intention on their part. I think their efforts were selfless. They took time off from their office and some of them took leave. And here Mr Chiam comes round and says that these people are part of the political ploy. Sir, what the Committee found was that some costs have been high. The Government has never denied that the cost has been low and the CRC Report confirms that some costs have been high. But mostly, cost increases lagged behind income increases. What has increased, as the CRC Report found, was our expectations and these translated into lifestyle cost. Sir, the CRC Report nails the lie that the CPI does not reflect the cost of living. It also nails the lie that the Government fudges its figures and cooks up its statistics. The figures have been put under the microscope. They have withstood the test of multi-partisan scrutiny. Mr Chiam did not see the facts. That is his problem. I think we should let the matter rest.”
“Sir, will the Minister tell the House whether the price of democracy, ie, $500 to $1,300, is high or low for each question filed in Parliament?”
“Sir, the third development after the GST Bill had been introduced is that the Cost Review Committee has come out with its report and made several recommendations which, I think, will help Singaporeans to be more aware about how profiteering can and cannot occur, and CASE will help Singaporeans to be aware of price differences in the market. So where information is transparent, CASE thinks that profiteering is unlikely. Sir, these events, viewed in perspective, compel us to accept the GST Bill. I recognise two fears among Singaporeans: one, inflation, and the second, bureaucracy. As I said earlier on, inflation is unlikely, if information is readily available and is transparent. Secondly, I think we must tame bureaucracy. I have read the Reports from MTI and the Finance Ministry which were put up for the Estimates Committee. I am convinced that bureaucracy will be kept to a minimum. Sir, we stand on this threshold of a very important event. Passing the GST Bill through Parliament now would save future generations from carrying the burden of a punitive direct tax needed to support an increasingly aging population. We stand at the cross-roads of history, either to be praised or condemned. Sir, the decision depends on Members of this House. I have made up mine. I support the Bill.”
“He argues that the poor, in fact, pays a smaller proportion of GST than richer people do. His thesis is premised on the fact that many of the so-called poor are not really poor. They are, in fact, in transition. This includes young people who make a good living over their lifetime. Others are pensioners living off accumulated assets. For example, if a pensioner lives in his house whose mortgage has been retired, he has little disposable income but he is not really poor because he is asset-rich. Conversely, if a young man has a set income but he is retiring his mortgage, he or she may not be actually rich. Thus, this economist, Gilbert MetCalf, reasoned that using GST over current income as a measure of regressivity is methodically flawed. The correct way, he argues, is to use GST over annual consumption. He called the latter "lifetime income". He confirmed his theory on 1,500 households captured in the consumer expenditure survey and found the results to be correct. So my doubt begins. If MetCalf and his crude findings are correct, then isn't the package to offset the regressive impact of GST a bonus for Singaporeans? But, nonetheless, this theory is still empirical and is still debated widely, but there is an element of truth in it. The logic is understandable. The logic is believable.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, since the Second Reading of the GST Bill, several developments which have relevance to this Bill have happened. First, the GST Select Committee called for representations. It received 70 written representations, of which 17 were invited for oral representation, including one from CASE. Also, the Estimates Committee, which I happen to sit on, have independently asked the Ministry of Finance to present its plan for implementing the GST. The Estimates Committee have also asked the Ministry of Trade and Industry to tell us how it intends to monitor profiteering when GST is implemented. Sir, CASE will work with the various Government agencies and some private organisations to monitor the prices of goods and services to ensure that profiteering does not happen and when it does, it will be highlighted. The second development is that one of the main objections to the GST, also known elsewhere as the VAT, is being reviewed by a new generation of economists. In effect, a fundamental pillar of the anti-GST camp is under attack and this has happened since April this year. It has long been recognised, or so we had thought, at least, I had thought, that the GST penalises the poor more than the rich. Why? Because the theory holds that the poor spend a higher percentage of their disposable income on consumption. Welfare economists call the GST or the VAT a regressive tax. And because of this, MPs in this House and various commentators outside this House have urged the Government to implement a package of reliefs into the GST which the Government has done, so that the poorer households will not be penalised adversely because of the GST. But in April, came Princeton economist, Gilbert MetCalf and his gang, who argued that the conventional wisdom is wrong.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in politicising the affair, I think Mr Chiam See Tong has also defamed my friend and colleague, Dr Vasoo, when Mr Chiam made a statement to the press saying that Dr Vasoo should return the tape. Mr Chiam said, "That is stealing, you know." He is implying that Dr Vasoo is a thief. As far as I know, the only thing Dr Vasoo has stolen is his time that he could spend with his family and in serving the nation. I want to ask Mr Chiam whether he will personally apologise to Dr Vasoo.”
“I am defending my family's interests because I hope that jobs will stay with them for as long as there is Singapore.”
“Do I have time? As I said earlier on, we are trying to take the leap from NIE into OECD. If we go there, these will be the problems. Why is it that, in the first column, he claims that high GST is co-related to high unemployment? In fact, this list of GST has already been scaled down. Over several years, with the exception of the introduction of GST in Canada, the GST of other countries has actually come down, and unemployment came about because they did not react in time. Many of the GST packages are poorly packaged, like the example given by Mr Dhanabalan and the example quoted in the Economist. So, on paper, Britain has a GST of 17.5% but, in reality, the tax burden falls unevenly. It does not uniformly fall across. In fact, there are other examples but maybe I just use one example. When I was in UK, I did some gardening. I needed an axe. To avoid the VAT, I went to one hardware shop and bought the handle, VAT-free, zero-rated. I went to another shop and bought the axe head because it is a replacement part. You go home, you fix them together, so you have got the whole axe VAT-free. The point I am saying is that the GST rates are high, but they should not be. If they have a system which is more broad-based, the GST rate will come down. Anyway, Sir, I would like to end by saying that I support the GST and I want to make one final point. People have told me many times that there is no need to support the Government on the GST because we have got top Ministers, like Mr Dhanabalan and Dr Richard Hu, who are well-equipped to do the explaining. I am not supporting the GST because I need to help the Government to defend. I am supporting the GST because I am defending my workers' interests.”
“Sir, we are more confused now. But, basically, I have one message: throw away that sheet of paper. Dr Wang Kai Yuen rose ---”
“It is up to the Speaker. I have no right to allow you.”
“In Singapore, if our economy is no longer competitive, more factories, like Hoover, will move across the Straits to Johor, Batam, or elsewhere. By having the GST and lowering the corporate tax, we hope that this day of reckoning can be pushed further back and in the meantime we will buy some time for restructuring our tax system. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now clarify a few points about what Mr Chiam See Tong said. Mr Chiam See Tong said that the GST impacts on foreign workers also. So he is championing foreign workers and, he said that by championing foreign workers, he is also championing our lower income Singaporeans. And so he again recommends that the foreign workers' levy should be reduced. In fact, Mr Ling How Doong also made that point some days ago. My colleague, Mr Goh Chee Wee, has already said that if you lower the foreign workers' levy, you are actually depressing the wages of our workers. So he is a bit confused. He wants to champion the poor but he wants to take money away from them, making them even poorer. I cannot figure it out. Mr Low Thia Khiang's table should not be read. It should be discarded. The basic assumption is wrong. He is imputing his figures all the way back to 1983. You cannot do that.”
“But we must not lose sight of the broader perspective. I believe it is the press' duty to put the whole issue into perspective, lift the people from the ground and see the whole thing from a helicopter position. In Australia, the GST debated in the last week of the election were on things like, "Will my son and daughter's birthday cakes be exempted from GST?" "Will my son's lollipop be exempted from GST?" All these are human stories. Channels 7 and 9 picked it up, dramatised it and placed it in the home every day. People got worried. Unemployment, the main issue, was kept locked away. The real problem was not given the right focus. I hope that in Singapore, the newspaper must take a stand, lift the people beyond the horizon and help them see light. I want to summarise by saying that GST is about competitiveness but that is a very technical term. Many workers do not understand. I prefer to link the GST with jobs. Last month, an incident happened between France and UK which went unnoticed in the Straits Times. I think there was a short write-up. It was the quarrel between France and UK over the relocation of Hoover, the vacuum cleaner manufacturer, which relocated its plant from a place in France called Dijon to Glasgow. Because of the relocation, France lost 650 jobs and 400 were created in Scotland. Why did Hoover move over from France to Scotland? Because wage taxes in France were much higher so Hoover made its own calculation, "Well, we might as well move." There was relocation cost but, in the long run, it was going to be better off. So just for a few dollars more, Hoover moved, across the Straits, went up north and all the way to Glasgow.”
“Australia has been riding a roller coaster all the way down from a rich country to a not-so-rich country, but still not a poor country. Part of the reason is welfarism. Mr Chiam See Tong studied in New Zealand. I think in the early years he must have drunk the milk of welfarism there early. But he did not wean himself out of it. The main problem of New Zealand is welfare. So they keep upping their taxes. Mr Chiam is not here. He quoted Sweden. He said Sweden started with 3%, and then the GST rate went up to 24%. He is wrong, actually it is 25%. It is 25% now. The reason why Sweden's GST kept going up was that people wanted more and more. So the same government kept giving more and more to them. They raised the GST all the way from 3%, which is true, to 25%. This is what the PAP Government is trying not to do, trying to put a cap on welfarism, while maintaining that the lower income groups have a decent living, and keeping the tax base broad and the tax rate low. Australia has no formal GST system but already it collects something like 28% of its taxes on goods and services. So it has got a tax system that taxes consumption but not on every small item. It is for 28%. You look at Japan. Japan has a formal GST system of 3% and the tax contributed by indirect taxes forms only 12.6% of the GDP, which is lower than Australia's 28%. So, in fact, Australia has really a GST equivalent in place. The media in Australia did not help to clarify a very complicated issue. The media in the West is also part of the problem. They have become an arbiter of welfarism. They have become more and more compassionate, more and more sympathetic. So they talk about exemptions, talk about helping the lower-income groups - which is right - talk about helping the retirees, helping the poor.”
“The moment we go from NIE to OECD, the problem of unemployment becomes more serious than the problem of inflation. You look at this simple table here. The first column shows the GST of the G-7 countries and Singapore. With the exception of USA which has an equivalent of the GST - a retail sales tax - all of them have some kind of a GST. You look at the second column - Inflation. You see all of the G-7 countries have low inflation. With the exception of Italy, all of them are lower than 4%. So inflation is not a problem. You look at the third column - Unemployment. That is the real problem. The unemployment is so high. In Canada - 11%; in France - 10.5%; Britain - 10.6%; Japan is the best - 2.3%. Our unemployment, based on the statistics last year, is about 2.7%. So it is still very manageable. Our problem is that as our GDP improves but slows down, we are creeping towards the unemployment pattern of OECD countries. Unemployment might creep up. In order to slow down this problem, I think the GST would give us a few more years of leeway to maintain a low unemployment rate while capping inflation. Even if our inflation were to go up from the present 2.3% to 4-5%, so long as our people have jobs, I think the problem is not serious. Dr Wang's concern about inflation is sincere but misplaced. Because as a labour MP, I am more concerned about unemployment. If I have money, I do not mind paying some. But if I have no money, how to pay? I come to the Australian election. I watch developments in Australia quite closely because I spent four good years there, and some of my very close friends are Australians or Malaysians, and Singaporeans who have moved there temporarily.”
“In fact, study after study have shown that if the GST were implemented and thought out carefully, the impact on inflation is very negative, very minimal. In fact, I would quote him a study by Tait who wrote in a book on "VAT Revenue, Inflation and the Foreign Trade Balance". In the book there is a paper by Gillis who has studied the impact of the VAT on 35 countries, and he found that in 22 countries VAT contributed to no rise in inflation. In fact, in Taiwan and Korea, the CPI went down. Taiwan is an interesting case. Taiwan has got a huge hawker economy, huge underground economy, the economy that does not pay formal taxes. If they could implement the GST successfully, and the CPI went down, then surely we will do it. A significant portion of the Taiwanese income goes towards eating out at hawker places or entertaining themselves in places which do not pay formal taxes. Our Singaporeans are worried that if they go to the hawker, the hawker will raise the prices unnecessarily, thereby negating the effects of the GST, or, worse, if the GST bears an undue burden on them. I think the Taiwan example is a very good reassurance. In any case, the NTUC has made an assurance. The Secretary-General, Mr Ong Teng Cheong, has assured Singaporeans that NTUC FairPrice will serve as a reference point. So post GST, all items displayed and sold in NTUC FairPrice will not be 3% more than their previous prices. Sir, the problem is not inflation, as Dr Wang has worried about. The problem is actually unemployment. Can I ask the Clerk of Parliament to distribute one very simple set of table? [Copies of table distributed to hon. Members.] We keep telling ourselves we are the best NIE, we are the number one NIE, and then we are crossing the Rubicon into the league of the OECD.”
“That is the reason why I am speaking out today. I am repeating some points but I think it is important, and I will repeat it in different ways to different people in different places. That is why I have no script today because I just jot down some points and I think it is better this way - in a conversational format, instead of I being accused of giving lectures in previous parliamentary speeches. But if the Members of this House have not worked hard enough because people outside still do not know, the media is at fault. The media reports the GST in a very technical way. People are all confused. I think the media must take a position. BG George Yeo said the media is neither pro-PAP nor pro-SDP, they are pro-Singapore. Let us put them to the test. If they are for Singapore, they must be for the GST, because GST is about creating jobs. I think the press is caught in the middle. They report the GST in a technical form, as a news item, but there are not many opinions as to whether GST is good for Singapore. I think we should read more about the GST. And I want to say something about the media in Australia, how they played up or played down the GST. I think history will judge us not according to how eloquently we have delivered speeches here. History will judge us by how we have supported this Bill, because this represents a turning point, a watershed, or in the PM's words, a "landmark" budget. I come to Dr Wang's concerns. I think his concerns are genuine. He claims that if there was an inflation rate of between 4% and 7%, averaging at 5%, then all the GST gains would be wiped out. First, I think Dr Wang is a bit too pessimistic. He assumes the post GST inflation will be over 3%.”
“Mr Chiam also accused the labour MPs (myself and my colleagues in this House) of not fighting for the workers. He claims that by endorsing the GST, we are betraying our workers -rubbish! In fact, during the process of GST, the NTUC, particularly the Secretary-General, made many representations, both formal and informal, to the Government to come out with this package. Our primary concern is about jobs, and I will come back to that later on. We are assured that with the compensation packages being given out, our workers' interests are protected in the short term. In the long term, their jobs are secure vis-a-vis jobs in the neighbouring countries, including those further afield. Mr Chiam wants to open the angle of helping the poor. He is replaying his drama of politics of envy. He claims that we do not help the workers. The GST will be regressive. The poor will bear an undue weight of the burden. In fact, there is no need for me to answer now because Mr Dhanabalan had earlier on answered it very comprehensively. But it is difficult for the people, the lay persons in the street, to understand a subject as technical as the GST. In fact, The New Paper reported that a significant majority does not understand the mechanics of GST, other than playing with the acronym - Goh Says Tax - and all the acronyms. But GST is a serious matter, it is more than just playing with the acronym "GST". If the person in the street does not understand it, then perhaps Members in this House had not done enough to relay the message. Beyond these four walls, I think the message of GST - competitiveness linked with job creation - must reverberate beyond the walls of this Chamber and impact on the person who will suffer most if he or she does not understand what it is for him or her.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. Sir, when the GPC Chairman for Finance, Trade and Industry first asked me last week whether I would like to speak today, I told him "no", because what should be spoken today had already been spoken in the first two days of the debate on the Budget Statement. But then a few days later when Dr Ow asked me one more time, I changed my mind, and I said "yes". What prompted me to change my mind? Three events: First, a report in The New Paper; second, Dr Wang Kai Yuen's speech; and third, the Australian election which was fought on the basis of the GST. And sitting there during the first part of this session, two more reasons came out - Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Low Thia Khiang. Sir, Mr Chiam See Tong accused the PAP of being dishonourable because the party did not announce the GST in the Marine Parade by-election. But, in fact, the GST Bill was first mooted in this House, I believe, way back in 1986. I read the Hansard all the way back to 1986. I do not know whether he was already in this House then. But, in any case, in last year's parliamentary debate, I was here - I was just elected an MP - I remember the Minister for Finance said it loudly and clearly that a White Paper on GST was being prepared. That was in March 1992. So he knew it was coming. He did not exploit the issue, he did not make an issue of it during the by-election. Now he comes back and accuses us. And he tried to align himself with Dr Hewson, saying that although they lost, they lost honourably. I do not think he is in the same league as Dr Hewson. Dr Hewson was one of my teachers in economics in New South Wales. I think Mr Chiam should not align himself with such towering figure.”