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 7 of 7.
“Compare this to the relatively generous ratio of eight working persons to one retiree now. Sir, to maintain the same standard of living in the year 2030, we have two alternatives. One, we can tax the working population then heavily. Unfortunately, even with the highest productivity, which we do not have, it is difficult to see how one young adult can support 2.2 retirees for a high standard of living. So also morally, do we want to condemn future generations of Singaporeans yet unborn to bear this very heavy tax burden? The second solution is more amenable, more workable, and more humanitarian. From now to the year 2030, we should put aside some money every year to build up a bigger reserve, more than the nine months of retail imports that we now have. And the interest from that reserves can then be used to lessen the tax burden of our adults in the year 2030. Sir, the signs are quite clear now. Over the years, the contribution of income and profit taxes to total revenue have become smaller. So Singaporeans are paying less. Yet miraculously our standard of living has gone up. How do we do that? The short answer is that our non-tax revenue has been getting a healthy injection of earnings from our reserves, which is another reason why we must not rob our reserves now. One MP said yesterday that we should allocate a smaller surplus to our reserves which is in fact what is being done now. The size of the budget surplus as a proportion of the GDP is shrinking, from 11.7% in 1989 to 7.8% in 1991, and 4.5% this year. In fact, this budget year 4.5% of the surplus will go to the reserves. So you see it is already shrinking by the natural order of things. My worry is, will it shrink even smaller?”
“Singapore's diamond is bigger than the Japanese diamond and the diamond measures the four indices that all governments aim for - strong growth, low inflation, low unemployment and a "sound" balance of payments position. Yesterday, in this House, Mr Chiam said that South Korea did better than us. In what respect? One set of statistics does not tell a story, but a group of them might. The OECD has decided that these four indices - strong growth, low inflation, low unemployment and a "sound" balance of payments - together reflect a country's strength and you can see that Singapore is doing very well. But people are saying that the diamond is too big now and let us cut it and share it around. I say it is nonsense. We know that the price of diamond is not proportional to its weight. The price of diamond is exponential to its weight. If you have got a 10-carat diamond it is worth more than 10 1-carat diamonds. So why split it? Keep it. One MP said yesterday that growth is slowing down, but we should aim for higher growth. It is not sustainable. You look at Japan's growth. You look at the "G" index. They are about 4% now, whereas ours was 8.5%. I think eventually, in the long term, the north end of the diamond will come down lower and hopefully the right end will shoot to the right end side. I think we can present the diamond this way - slower growth but a better overall balance of payments position, like Japan's. I take the diamond and pass it down as an heirloom to future generations. And also there is one more reason why she keeps the diamond, figuratively speaking, to finance our own old age. I think many of us will be around by the year 2030, and if present democratic trends continue, there will only be 2.2 working adults to support each elderly person.”
“It has misled some into thinking that we are sitting on a mountain of gold. In fact, we are not. In reality, those reserves can buy us no more than one year's supply of imports. To be precise, it is about nine months of retail imports. And after nine months, what do we do? I think we will have to starve. Because we do not have the collaterals to borrow money. We have no agricultural land, no livestock and no mineral resources. So no banker will lend us money from their own pockets. Clearly, we do not have the qualifications to beg and we are not sitting on a mountain of gold. Perhaps we have a few trinkets for the pawnshop which will buy us a few months of livelihood. Over the last few decades, prudent financial policies, like spending what we can afford, like allowing the market to prevail whenever possible, have allowed Singapore to achieve the twin goals of strong economic growth coupled with equitable income distribution. And we are a very equal society because we are all equally rich. In some countries, they are equally poor. Along with this economic progress, we have also debunked the commonly accepted modern economic theory these days that full employment can only be achieved at the expense of high inflation and vice-versa. In short, Singapore is an economist's utopia. Since the early 80s, economists at the OECD have used the "economic diamond" to measure a country's overall performance. Sir, I have asked the Clerk to circulate copies of the diamond. Members can see clearly that it is the jewel in the OECD's crown. It is big, and big is beautiful.”
“Sir, I rise in support of the motion moved by the Minister for Finance. You will recall, Sir, that yesterday I was talking about the 1992 Budget statement being a pro-Singapore budget. I said that the Budget looks to the future in the cautious perspective of the past and as our economy slows down to a more sustainable 4-6% growth, we should rally behind the Minister even more. But some people are unhappy. Many are looking for softer options. More tax cuts is the usual cry. I personally believe that tax cuts should never be used as a counter cyclical measure unless the structure of public spending has changed, ie, there will not be likely tax rise in the future. There are others who clamour that the reserves are growing too fast. One Member said that we should allocate less of our surplus to the reserves. But the most irresponsible are those who want to rob our reserves and spend them now on the various consumptions. I will speak more about that later, Sir. Sir, I also hear that some Singaporeans are saying that we should not talk about the reserves and that too much talking is bad, and people are not listening anyway. I think that is something which is good, like protecting the reserves must be said again and again. If we have said it not enough times, I think all of us should be committed to trying to sell the idea even more. Why is it that some people are asking us to use our reserves at this point when there is really no need to do so? I ask them: has our economic ship run aground? Are we in real trouble? Because the simple fact is that we do not have so much reserves. Our reserves, statistically at about US$15,600, we do have the highest reserve per capita in the world. But this fact is very misleading.”
“It is the economic ship now. The days of the carriages are over. Second, in a seafaring economic journey, we must never panic and start to throw our lifeboats overboard unnecessarily. What are our lifeboats? Sir, I am referring to our seemingly huge financial reserves that members of the public, and I think Mr Chiam and Mr Ling have made reference to. Already, I hear and read of Singaporeans wanting us to use our lifeboats.”
“The Prime Minister is the Head of Government. Dr Hu is our financial captain. Dr Hu has steered us through an economic storm in the mid-80s. I think he will help us reach the bountiful shores again in the 1990s. An hon. Member: No more carriage.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Budget Statement moved by the Minister for Finance. But before that, maybe one comment. The press calls me the "letter-writing MP". Maybe Mr Ling How Doong should be called the "Subsidy MP". Sir, first, I would like to make a pronouncement of the 1992 Budget Statement. Different people have made different verdicts. Some say it is a "Pro-worker" Budget, some say "Pro-business", "Pro-reservists", and some say "a healthy life-style Budget with a heart for the poor". To me, Sir, the Budget is a "Pro-Singapore" Budget. It is a Budget that looks to the future from the cautious perspective of the past. The Budget charts the course out of the prevailing economic storm that threatens to engulf the world into economic chaos. Under the ever watchful eyes of the Minister for Finance, Dr Hu, the 1992 Budget Statement would steer away from the rocks of recession and the white waters of inflation. Many other economic ships, like those of Australia, the United States of America and Britain, have already hit the reefs of recession. Britain is suffering now from the longest, (but they say not the deepest) recession in as many years. Dark clouds are also gathering ahead for the industrial superpowers like Germany and Japan. Sir, as our economic ship enters the impending economic storm as Japan and Germany, our survival strategy must be very clearly understood. First, we must stay cool, listen to our captain, Dr Hu, and have faith in him, which the Chinese say: (da hai hang xing kao duo so). An hon. Member: Mr Goh is our captain.”
“I repeat, to achieve this, we need a strong economic horse bred for the free market, and a political cart built out of the conviction of MPs before the tide of economic and social goodies can be towed to the people. Sir, I support the motion in the name of Dr John Chen.”
“It has been estimated that in the year 1992 alone, at least 12 countries will attempt to corporatize or privatize their telecoms and eight their utilities. And these include countries of every political hue, from Australia to Argentina, from Vietnam to Venezuela, including some big G-7 countries - Canada, Germany, and, surprisingly, Japan. Now more than ever before, Singaporeans should stand behind the Government, throw away their phobia, to implement free-market oriented policies before we are overtaken by worldwide events. This message cannot be more powerfully conveyed than by images of human sufferings transmitted by live satellite pictures from Russia. Even in the face of seemingly interminable breadlines, the Russian President, Mr Yeltsin, is asking his "New Russians" to bite the bullet and let the market decide. Obviously, the Russian economy will go further down, before it even climbs up. But Mr Yeltsin's decision seems to have echoed a 4,000-year-old wise Chinese saying: [ ] (liangyao ku kou). Loosely translated, it means good medicine tastes bitter. Any politician who tells otherwise is a charlatan and should be exposed as one. The lesson for us is quite clear: we can either move for free market now or later. If we move now, we can do so in the luxury of jobs with some side effects. If we do so later, we may have to do so in the agony of breadlines. To paraphrase President Reagan: we can run but we cannot hide. The free-market will meet up with us. There is no escape from free markets, subsidies soothe the pain but only temporarily. I look forward to the next five years as years of opportunity to help the Government build the kind of society envisaged in the Presidential Address.”
“Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan has even personally endorsed advertisements placed in internationally reputable magazines to say that in effect everything in his country is privatisable; nothing is sacrosanct, everything is on the table for privatisation. He wants to do it against better political advice within his 5-year term. Equally, Mr Rao, the Prime Minister of India, is bent on the wholesale destruction of India's sacred cow - its industrial licensing system. Closer home, our ASEAN neighbours are already driving on the free-market highway. In his Presidential Address, the President warned that unless we keep ahead of competition, we must be prepared to be left behind. In some aspects, our closest neighbours are already setting the competition. Malaysia, for example, has privatised their Telecoms way ahead of ours. On the 1st of January this year, they have also sold the 165 years old Postal Services Department, making the mailing of letters on the same par as sending letters through the DHL. Also on the shelf this year are Malaysia's National Savings Bank and their utilities. When I was in Kuala Lumpur in December, I found a new sense of confidence among my Malaysian friends. "Malaysia", they said, "will become a developed nation by the year 2020 (their so-called Wawasan 2020)." But parts of Malaysia, like Kuala Lumpur, will reach developed status much, much earlier. Looking at Kuala Lumpur, I have no doubt that they will succeed. Sir, the brave new world is learning new tricks. We stand still to our own peril. Singapore is not so special that we can ignore the worldwide events moving around us. However nimble we are, we cannot swim against the free-market wave now sweeping the world.”
“At a time when significant parts of the rest of the world were fixated with command economies and its social cousins, we had a headstart by implementing market reforms. The rest of the world is charging ahead now, but our people appear to be hesitant. Now that Marxism has been lowered into the grave, market-oriented economies have found universal embrace. Developed and developing countries from Austria to Australia, and Malaysia to Mexico, are liberalising their markets and selling their state assets and with haste. The world-wide reform for privatisation and market-oriented economies may have begun in Britain under the hand-bag queen, Margaret Thatcher. But it was the political earthquakes of Eastern Europe and the sudden and recent collapse of the Soviet Union which have, first, accelerated and then endeared Margaret Thatcher's political brand to the rest of the world. Every country which has witnessed the economic sclerosis of command economies has now jumped onto the free-market bandwagon. Eastern Europe and Russia are selling their state assets with haste, as I have said. They are determined to bury the past and succeed. Poland, for example, even has a Ministry of Privatisation to make sure that it does. Countries like Czechoslovakia and Hungary have similar Ministries of Privatisation. Mid-way from home, Pakistan and India, Indo-China including Vietnam, are also dismantling their socialist machineries with a great sense of urgency. Indeed, the competition for privatisation is so intense that marketing strategies have been used to seduce international buyers.”
“The proven technique is to allow, whenever possible, market forces and private enterprise to steer the economy automatically. The Government's job is to chart the course and provide the manual override during times of economic and political turbulence. In short, we must train our economic horse for difficult terrain. Sir, unfortunately, at exactly the same time when Singaporeans should tighten their embrace for the market, they have developed a fear for it. Why? Because the market has been wrongly diagnosed as the source that drives up the cost of living, when in fact the opposite is true. Market oriented policies have brought us success, jobs and affluence. The rising cost of living is only a small side effect of the rising standard of living. Mr Chiam said that in 1972 he knew of an engineer who earned $1,600. My colleague, Dr Low, an eminent engineer, has already said that it was not the case. But even granting the fact that his friend is an exceptionally bright engineer earning $1,600 in 1972, his friend probably represents 2-3% of his cohort, whereas today more than 10% of the cohort who go to university own cars and houses albeit slightly longer. So the cost of living is only a small side effect of the rising standard of living. He talks about today's engineers wanting cars. It is because so many engineers want cars that they have to wait a little bit longer. So it is a sure sign that the standard of living has gone up. Nevertheless, this market phobia, while totally uncalled for, must be taken cognizance of in implementing future policies. For a country like ours which buys everything from the rest of the world at market prices, the urgency for charting our future with the free-market compass has never been greater.”
“And I will never allow myself to forget that I am here only on their behalf. But I also told them that representative democracy only works if I speak out of conscience and conviction, not out of convenience. Where the cause is just, I will speak out in Parliament with the full weight of my conviction. But I cannot morally champion a cause by conveniently echoing a viewpoint, however representative it may be, when I know that the long-term interest of my people is in jeopardy. I cannot argue my case more persuasively and more convincingly than by quoting the British MP, Edmund Burke, who told his electors in Bristol in the year 1780 that "I could hardly serve you as I have done, and court you too." Without saying in so many words, his implied message to the people was quite clear: parliamentary democracy must exercise leadership, and leadership means the courage and conviction to do something that may initially be unpopular but which will bring long-term benefits to the people. So the political cart we wish to build must carry the long-term social goodies, not just some make-shift device that carries the interest of a few intense minority. Neither should the cart be so flimsily designed that it will self-destruct before it has travelled the required distance. This brings me to the second point about breeding and nurturing the right economic horse to pull the political cart of goodies to the people. To my mind, the best way to serve my people is to help this Government foster a society where there are good opportunities and incentives for everybody to get ahead on his or her own. How to achieve this has already been identified in the Presidential Address.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by the Member for Hong Kah GRC in thanking the President for his Address on 6th January 1992. The agenda for the Government has been set forth by the President. He has identified four policy areas in the Next Lap that will significantly level up society for progress. These include funding scholarships and bursaries in education, restructuring our health care services, refurbishment programmes in public housing and the streamlining of our civil service. Collectively, they represent a bag of economic and social goodies. My job as an MP will be to help this Government build a firm political cart, as in a horse-cart, to carry these social goodies and breed and nurture a strong economic horse to pull the same to the people. And I will use this horse-cart analogy throughout my speech. Without a strong economic horse to pull the political cart, the bag of promised goodies will just remain another far-flung Christmas wish. This brings me to the kind of parliamentary democracy symbolised by the political cart that we wish to have for Singapore. When I asked my people, representing the mostly middle-aged and lower-middle income profile of our population land- scape, what I should focus on during this debate, they gave me one singular piece of advice that hinted at the shape of the political cart they want Singapore to have. My residents tell me, "Never mind what you say, just speak fearlessly for our rights and our welfare. We need you to echo (I repeat "echo") our fears, our hopes and our aspirations in Parliament." I thanked my residents for their counsel. My performance as the people's representative of Tanjong Pagar GRC must necessarily be judged by my people's yardstick.”