Lee Boon Yang
Singapore
“6 The other guidelines are that there must be a post office sited within 5 km of every private residential estate and within 1 km of any commercial or industrial estate. MAID LEVY CONCESSION (Applications by the disabled) 32.”
“Madam, can I quickly respond to the point on assistive technology? Certainly this is an area of interest. We cannot say that we have the capability at this juncture but we will certainly look into what is possible and work with our ICT sector.”
“Nevertheless, if the spouse of the homemaker is working, he will be eligible for WIS if he satisfies the criteria. Husbands of homemakers are further eligible for tax relief.”
“Sir, I do not think it is quite correct to say that we always expect our own artists to perform for free or do public service. There are, of course, occasions where we do seek Singapore artists and arts companies to contribute to the national causes. For instance, when we went international for Singapore Season in China.”
“Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for National Development (a) what checks does the Ministry or the National Environment Agency have in place to prevent mistaken payments to hawkers who cease operations due to upgrading works at hawker centers; (b) how did the mistaken payment of $18,000 to Mdm Lee Ah Muey come about; and (c) what will the…”
“While it was also true that initially the reaction or the response of the licensing authority was that foreigners should not participate in such an event at the Speakers' Corner - because there is already an existing prohibition against any foreigners taking part in any activities at the Speakers' Corner - subsequent assessment resulted i…”
The complete record
Every one of 2,412 lines we hold for Lee Boon Yang, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 48 of 49.
“Furthermore, we must remember that much of what we need in daily life is imported and any stimulation of domestic demand at grassroots level will result in more leakages of our income. If we try to stimulate domestic demand, as suggested by the Member for Anson, we shall only be increasing the imports of more consumer goods from abroad. But will it provide real stimulus to our economy? For the economy to recover, we need to export more, not to import and consume more. What kind of demand does the Member for Anson want to stimulate? Does he know that there is consumer demand and there are investment demands. What we would like to stimulate is an investment demand, an increase in the investments in Singapore to create more jobs for Singaporeans. Sir, I will not need to go further to demonstrate that the amendment proposed by the Member for Anson has absolutely no merit. The surest way to help Singaporeans ride out this recession is for the Government to take steps to overcome our inherent weaknesses and to provide new opportunities and attractions for investors. The recommendations of the Economic Committee provide a workable recipe for us to channel our efforts for economic recovery. A strong and growing economy is the ultimate answer to difficulties being experienced by jobless Singaporeans. Only by overhauling our economic engine and pointing it in new directions can we hope to provide our people with secure and lasting employment. The prescription held out by the Member for Anson as suggested by his amendment will not only be a poor relief for economic pain, it will actually lead to more problems if taken seriously. Follow his prescription and we will be taking the fatal step towards eroding our own foundation and prospects for economic recovery.”
“Exports constitute two-thirds of the total demand for all our goods and services. Sir, for every $100 worth of goods and services that we produce, $66 must be exported if we are to maintain our economic growth. We are highly dependent on exports because of our small size. Our domestic market based on 2(r) million people simply cannot sustain the high standard of living that we Singaporeans are now accustomed to. It is therefore futile to expect that cutting employee's CPF will lead to a rebound in the economy. It will not change the employer's cost for one thing, it will not improve competitiveness. Worse still, it will provide wrong signals to Singaporeans to go out and spend more money, wisely or unwisely. In time of economic recession, workers should be prepared to tighten their belts rather than spending beyond their means.”
“If the Member for Anson had given deeper thought to this situation, he would understand why cutting the employee's CPF will only aggravate the problem without providing relief for our economic recession. As it is, Sir, a 15% point reduction in employer's CPF is the minimum required to have a significant effect on achieving competitiveness. The Member for Anson himself was reported to have had two constituents who needed help to overcome loan repayment as a result of CPF reduction. I must conclude that he is unhappy over the situation as the number is not to his liking. So he comes to this House to ask for measures to swell the trickle of people who are turning up at his meet-the-people sessions. Is he running out of people coming to see him? He wants the Government to cut the employee's CPF so that more people will experience greater difficulties and therefore more people will run to him for help. Sir, I must again question his sincerity in wanting to help solve the problems faced by jobless Singaporeans. The most important external cause of our economic difficulty is the decline in the demand for our goods and services.”
“The sooner we discard the illusions put up by the Member for Anson, the sooner will we succeed in injecting new vigour into our economy. Sir, even as he was supposedly championing the cause of workers in Singapore, the Member for Anson found the opportunity to go to a neighbouring country to berate all Singaporeans for being selfish and profiteering at our neighbour's expense. I cannot help but suspect that all these posturings smack of opportunism. It is obvious that he sees the recession as a golden opportunity to stir up dissatisfaction both within and without Singapore. It is equally obvious that instead of helping to galvanize Singaporeans to tackle the national problem, he is trying to ingratiate himself with some Singaporeans who are feeling the pinch of unemployment. The Member for Potong Pasir had said yesterday that Government ought not to have politicized private business. He and the Member for Anson have a perception of the economic crisis which is totally coloured. They see the economic crisis as an opportunity to bolster their political ambitions. Do they really care for the jobless? How sincere are they in wanting to help the jobless in Singapore? Or are they more concerned with stirring up discontentment and resentment? The Member for Anson's amendment to the motion shows that he is more interested in undermining efforts for economic recovery than the welfare of workers. Now, who is politicizing our economic difficulties? The Member for Anson had said that the Workers' Party had long ago asked for a cut in the employee's CPF. He thinks that this will help the economy to recover. Everybody knows that one of the problems brought up by reducing the employer's CPF is the extra burden placed on home-owners who have to service housing loans.”
“Sir, the Economic Committee has charted new directions for economic growth. To succeed in our new endeavours, we must have the total support of the people. Giving out unemployment benefits as suggested by the Member for Anson can only retard this effort to evolve a leaner, fitter and more competitive economic machine. We must avoid taking this fatal step, Sir. It can only lead us down the slippery road to welfarism. Nations which have succumbed to this temptation are today feeling the effects of having taken the easy way out. These are nations larger than us, much more wealthy, yet their governments are faced with growing mountains of deficit, chief of which is the welfare deficit. Can we in this tiny island of a nation, devoid of any natural endowments, hope to achieve success where others better equipped than us have encountered nothing but trouble? I seriously urge the Member for Anson to think over carefully what he has said. He should not cast covetous eyes on the Government's surplus and the foreign reserves and see these assets as means of providing soft options to solve immediate problems. He should re-read, that is if he has not read, the Economic Committee's Report. There is much wisdom and incisive analysis of our problems within those 400-odd pages. Sir, the problem of unemployed Singaporeans is best faced squarely. The long-term solution is to reactivate our economy, make the necessary changes to restart our engine. We should work to reestablish our competitiveness and attraction to investors. When we have succeeded, then Singaporeans will once again be fully and gainfully employed. They will once again be able to use their skills, training, resourcefulness and willingness to work hard to earn better incomes for themselves.”
“Can we afford to suffer the same ailments seen in some welfare state countries where unemployment benefits have imposed a growing and crippling burden on the output of those who work for their livelihood?”
“If the Member for Anson wants to know more about the jobs, he can always refer to my colleague, the Member for Mountbatten, who is in the Ministry of Labour. He has already said that if any Member here has difficulty finding jobs for his unemployed constituents, he is always ready to help. And, Sir, yesterday, the Member for Telok Blangah pointed out in this House that there are already in existence at least three organizations whose sole purpose is to help the unemployed to find jobs. These are the Ministry of Labour's Employment Service, the employment bureaux that have been put up by the NTUC and the Singapore Manufacturers' Association. Certain sectors of our economy are still having difficulties filling up their vacancies. Some of these jobs may pay less. The work may be harder but Singaporeans must be willing to adjust their expectations. We have to be flexible if we are to survive difficult times. Retrenched workers must be prepared to take alternative jobs. We must avoid the pitfall of the Member for Anson's catch cry, "Don't take on an alternative job unless the pay is the same as your last drawn salary." But times are hard now. We must be willing to accept changes. The Member for Anson asks that the Government retain all the workers, whether they are needed or not. He cited the case of the PWD workers who had been retrenched after the job at Changi Airport was completed. He suggested that unemployment benefits be paid to those who are jobless. And the Member for Potong Pasir predictably came to his support on this issue. But, Sir, are unemployment benefits really able to solve the retrenched workers' problems? We have a small labour force here.”
“The Member for Anson ignores the fact that even today there are jobs which go a-begging in Singapore.”
“Shall we then leave it to the Member for Anson to decide if they are genuinely unemployed"? This is another example of his foggy thinking.”
“You are not listening. You have not heard what I said. I said, "How long will you be giving the unemployment benefits to those people who are unemployed?"”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson does not have an answer for us. He does not know how much. How long should you give those unemployment benefits that he talks about?”
“I asked a question and I expect an answer. How much?”
“Would the Member for Anson please tell this House how much unemployment benefit he would give to those who are unemployed? I am prepared to sit down while he gives us his answer.”
“Why does he not state this in specific terms? What has he got in mind?”
“These sacrifices will prove to investors that Singaporeans are realistic and supple. That we can deal with setbacks rationally by trimming our expectations and holding on to our standard of living for the next two years, we will be able to achieve a faster turnaround for our economy. The Member for Anson goes on and on about something which must be done to help those who are jobless.”
“The Member for Anson views this as being unfair on workers. Sir, there is no painless way for us to recover from an economic recession. Some employers have already suffered fatal pains. Their businesses have failed, resulting in retrenchment of workers. Trimming our wages by cutting the employer's CPF is a less painful way of regaining our growth prospect. This move will allow employers to recover some measure of competitiveness against the other newly industrialized countries. It reduces cost for the employers without diminishing the take-home pay of the workers. Taken together with the other recommended reductions on taxes, these measures will help to attract new investments, particularly the proposal to grant a 30% tax rebate on capital investments. This will encourage more entrepreneurs to reinvest part of their profits here in Singapore for business expansion. Sir, this will help workers by providing more employment opportunities. CPF reduction will affect those with housing mortgages but I am reassured by the Government's move to carefully study the predicament of those who are so affected. These people, whether in public or private housing, will be given a helping hand until better time returns. The Member for Anson, however, ignores the obvious. He turns to dangerous divisive tactics. He hopes to turn the workers against the Government. He is against the Government's call to mobilize Singaporeans for a joint effort to turn back the tide of recession. Workers should not allow themselves to be confused by his attempts to polarize the issues which are facing us today. The way to economic recovery is to re-establish our attraction as an investment centre. Some sacrifices by Singaporeans will be needed.”
“Sir, it is unpalatable but inevitable that wages cannot be allowed to lead productivity year by year. If we ignore this fact, we will only bleed the economy to a slow death and stifle any chance for future growth. Therefore, the Economic Committee has suggested drastic but practical moves. It has recommended that wages must come down to more realistic levels and stay in tune with the true productivity of our economy.”
“So much for his promises. The Member for Anson also promised much but delivers none. The recommendations of the Economic Committee are exciting and contain bold ideas to invigorate our economy. It is true that workers will have to take a wage cut. This is unpleasant but necessary.”
“He proclaimed that he shall be a sincere, loyal and constructive opposition.”
“We should not look at our economic slowdown from a worker versus employer perspective. We must not seek merely to assign responsibility. The Member for Anson is particularly good at making decisions, at announcing conclusions with the benefit of hindsight. Only the Member for Anson can persist in such myopic viewpoint. All along, Sir, the basis of our economic strategy has been to reward employees, has been to provide gainful employment for our workers. Workers are given every opportunity to improve their earnings and incomes. At the same time, our policies must also allow employers and those who invest here adequate opportunity to make reasonable return on their investments. This is the only way to encourage more investments by both local and foreign investors. Can the Member for Anson find us investors who are willing to put their millions into unprofitable businesses? Just because the Member for Anson is often foolish enough to indulge in unprofitable ventures does not mean that there are others who would follow him. Without profits, Sir, who will invest? Without investments, how can we find jobs? If we fail to ensure that those who invest make a profit, how are we going to attract more investors here? The Member for Potong Pasir yesterday came to this House and in an apparent show of earnestness expressed concern at the 20,000 or so school leavers who are looking for jobs. Sir, that was all he did, express concern. Did he suggest innovative ways of creating more jobs so that these school leavers will find employment? Where are his ideas? Why not share them with this House? After all, last year during a similar debate on the Presidential Address, the Member for Potong Pasir loudly proclaimed that he is not just any Opposition. He is special.”
“The pain for employers is business failure. For some entrepreneurs, they have seen their investments, their-life time efforts gone to waste. For the workers, recession means unemployment and an uncertain future.”
“The recession hurts all parties to the economy.”
“He has failed to appreciate the gravity of the problem. He has failed to realize that employers and employees are in the same boat.”
“Sir, the Member for Anson looks at our economic difficulty as a conflict between employer and employee. He thinks that this problem can be solved by another of his commission of inquiry or another of his referendum. He spoke at length about who is at fault as if it would suddenly diminish our problem if we could find out who is at fault.”
“Sir, does he not know that from 1975 to 1982, we made tremendous economic growth here in Singapore without the Vietnam War? I am therefore forced to conclude that both the Member for Potong Pasir and the Member for Anson are out of touch with this world, and I have to totally reject the amendment. Let me now proceed to highlight and to refute some of the melodramatic and outrageous claims and allegations that have been brought up. The Member for Anson started off by saying that the President's Speech lacked suggestions in helping Singaporeans. Has he read the speech? Perhaps he has read the wrong speech. The President in his Address clearly accepted, in principle, the recommendations of the Economic Committee. The Report of this Committee spelt out in precise detail ways and means of overcoming our economic problems. But the Member for Anson has failed to understand the impact of these recommendations. He thinks that they are only to benefit the employers. Why? Because he complained that the Economic Committees members were not elected but appointed. Even here he was caught trying to mislead this House and the Member for Moulmein promptly pointed out to him that the union representative on the Committee was an elected representative of the union.”
“And along with him, Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir has tried to give us a history lesson. He told this House that Singapore made tremendous economic growth. Why? Because of the Vietnam War in the 1960s. When did the Vietnam War end?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I also be allowed to respond to the amendment standing in the name of the Member for Anson. Sir, the only regret that must be expressed today is that the Member for Anson has made a lengthy speech which contained nothing new. Equally regrettable is the speech made by the Member for Potong Pasir yesterday and earlier this afternoon. Both speeches are demonstrations of foggy thinking and groping in the dark. The Member for Anson said that the Report of the Economic Committee has not suggested new ideas to help Singapore overcome the economic problems. But it is the Member for Anson himself who has not provided any ideas for solving our economic difficulties.”
“And we are still waiting to hear about his personal act to support this motion of his. Sir, I have digressed slightly for a reason - to show that insincere rhetorics and artfully twisted arithmetics must not be allowed to reduce the scale and magnificence of the HDB's endeavour to provide homes for Singaporeans. 4.02 pm”
“Sir, he last came to this House with a motion to reduce MP's allowance by 25%. What happened next was a forewarning of his tendency to juggle figures. Inexplicably, he changed his mind and reduced the amount of his sacrifice by 10% to 15%.”
“That clearly showed how much faith the Member for Potong Pasir had in his own figures and in his own advisers. Sir, today he is repeating the same chant that the HDB is making a profit, yet in the same breath he admitted himself moments ago that the cost of flat must go up because cost of construction goes up. Sir, if he had any faith in his own claim or in his own figures, then should he not have accepted the Hon. Minister for National Development's previous offer to build four blocks of flats and keep the vast profits for himself or for his Party? Again, he chose to evade the issue by asking for ridiculous preconditions. Where is the element of sincerity in the Member for Potong Pasir? Either he believes in his allegation that they are true and show by deeds what his words claimed, or he stands accused as a manipulator of facts without credibility. Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir would have us and the people of Singapore believe in him. But, as the records stand, there is nothing to substantiate his claim to be an honest and sincere seeker of the truth.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir has again repeated his allegation that the HDB is reaping untold profits from the sale of too costly flats. He has supported those of us on the Government side of this House in recognizing and commending HDB's achievements and contributions in the area of public housing. This is evident from the wording of his amendment to the motion. However, he has, in his part of the amendment, attempted to belittle the contribution which HDB has made to our nation building effort. Sir, it is no mean task to provide homes for nearly two million people and to provide daily care and management for the vast number of housing estates which are sprouting all over the island. The HDB and all those who are associated with its operations must be congratulated for having done a fine job, for having accomplished the objectives. Sir, is the HDB making unseemly profits? The Hon. Minister for National Development had, on the 21st March 1985, explained to this House the various costs involved in putting up a housing estate. He has stated that the HDB is, in fact, losing money. I recall, Sir, that on the same occasion the Hon. Minister for National Development asked the Member for Potong Pasir if he was indeed a liar who distorted facts on the cost of building HDB flats in order to mislead the people. What was the Member's reaction? Did he jump to his feet to protest that he was being maligned? Did he produce more facts and figures to further prove his case? No, Sir, he simply changed the subject of the debate at that moment with another question so that the question of whether he lied or not was left unanswered till this day.”
“He is quite unaware of how Government finance its expenditure and he has not at all been lucid in pointing out how buying more imports will result in us getting richer. Sir, I declare that there is no merit whatsoever in his amendment to the motion. It deserves to be rejected. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out," and negatived.”
“Are our people really better off in following the Member for Anson's suggestion? Can we stimulate enough domestic demand to keep our petroleum refineries working to prevent retrenchments? Can we stimulate enough domestic demand by cutting CPF to make sure that our shipyards will be able to work at its full capacity? Can we stimulate enough domestic demand to ensure that all the electronic factories will be able to hum away 24 hours a day on three shifts? Sir, the solution is not just to stimulate demand. We must strive to increase our competitiveness in order to sell our products to the world market. Although the Member for Anson agrees that it is necessary to maintain a strong saving rate, he questioned the need to continue building up our national reserves. Is he suggesting that we are now in the happy position to "retire" in a manner of speech and to live off our national reserves? How long does he think our national reserves will last in that event? This is the first time that a Member has suggested that the national reserves be used for this purpose. It is precisely for this reason that the Government is considering moves to instal a second lock on the reserves to prevent irresponsible Members from raiding the bank. Without sustained efforts to maintain the reserves, we will lack the hard cash that is needed in a real crisis. The Hon. Prime Minister has already indicated that the strong and growing reserves is necessary to allow CPF withdrawals to finance the people during a sustained recession. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson has displayed total neglect and ignorance in touching on the economic problems that are facing us. He is not at all aware of the fundamental role of government in fostering economic growth and development.”
“Sir, the Member for Anson has gone so far as to suggest that cutting CPF will encourage everybody to spend more. And it seems his mission in life is to get everybody to spend more. Where is the money going to come from? That is far from his consideration. In his view, if the people have more money in their pockets and they will spend more, then our economy will be richer. He proposes that we cut CPF to stimulate demands. Demands for what, may I ask? Demands for more houses, demands for bigger, safer savings for future needs? Or is he suggesting more demand for Sony television, portable radios, video-recorders and cameras?”
“Let CPF members be aware of what he is subtly proposing. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson seems to be particularly confused at this juncture. Allow me a minute to explain to him. He is proposing that the interest rate paid for the mortgage on HDB apartments be reduced to 4%. How is that going to be possible without an equivalent reduction in the interest rate paid to CPF account holders in order to balance up? Somebody will have to pay for that interest rate. Mr Jeyaretnam: I suggest you pay!”
“No. Interest rate on CPF savings be reduced to 4 1/2%.”
“4%. He is even going 1/2% better, 4%, Sir. Interest rate on housing loan is now 6 1/4%. Sir, as the Member for Kebun Baru has pointed out, loan interest rate is intimately tied to interest paid on CPF deposits which is 6 1/2% now. Is the Member for Anson actually suggesting that the HDB hand out another subsidy on the financing for the homes that are sold to Singaporeans? Is he suggesting that a cash subsidy be handed out to help them to further finance these mortgages? Or is he subtly suggesting that the CPF interest rate be reduced to 41/2%?”
“Sir, the Member for Anson has also proposed that we cut the CPF rate to 40%. He thinks that would solve all our problems. He knows full well that cutting CPF would in effect be reducing our workers' pay. If the result of cuffing CPF is insufficient savings, insufficient funds on the part of the workers, to finance or to pay their mortgages on their houses, no problem. The Member for Anson has another equally ludicrous solution. He proposes that we then cut interest rate on housing loans to 4 1/2%.”
“We have built up a trading network based on the concept of free trade. The result - a steady growth in our trade and commerce. Can we in all seriousness accept the Member for Anson's proposal to impose customs duty and tariffs? Should we do away with the gains that free trade has brought us? Is the Member for Anson suggesting that we should form a customs union and, as a result, Malaysia would do away with their customs duties and their taxes and join us in our free trade policy? Is the Member for Anson suggesting, on the other hand, that perhaps we could adopt the structure of tax and tariffs that are in place in Malaysia today? Mr Speaker, Sir, we do not need further examination to confidently dispose of such a suggestion.”
“I am just about to tell you what is wrong with that. Sir, I am just as amazed as my colleague, the Member for Chong Boon, at this ludicrous suggestion. Does he understand fully the implications of his words? Sir, I must believe that he spoke without fully understanding what he meant, without realizing the implications of his own suggestions. As the Member for Chong Boon has pointed out, is the Member for Anson suggesting that we give up our free trade with the rest of the world to form a customs union with Malaysia? We have done away with tariff. We have done away with taxes.”
“Sir, what measures has the Member for Anson proposed to overcome the current problem? What brilliant ideas, what gems of innovation has he brought forth to help the people of Singapore in this situation of economic slow-down? If he has not, is he not the one who has procrastinated? But perhaps he is simply unable to bring forth sound and practical measures. On the 26th July 1985, he spoke to the NUS Guild members (i hope he remembers that). He suggested, Sir, that the problem of a drop in demand for our exports will vanish and mysteriously turn into a bullish trend if we were to form a customs union with our good neighbour, Malaysia.”
“Read it for yourself. I presume you can read.”
“Perhaps he will then better understand the issues that are concerned. Mr Jeyaretnam: Tell me what is that?”
“The Member for Anson and his erstwhile supporter, the Member for Potong Pasir, have chosen to ignore all these and instead accused the Government of tardiness in attending to the economic situation. Sir, for 26 years, this Government has been solicitously attending and nurturing the nation's economy. The efforts and results are no illusion or lip service as alleged by the Member for Anson. This Government had planned and guided our economy to become a viable contender in the complex and competitive modern global market. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not expect the Member for Anson to pay tribute to the economic achievements of this Government. But I do expect Singaporeans to know that the economic well-being of this nation is of paramount concern to this Government. Sir, it is highly irresponsible to charge that this Government has procrastinated in tackling the economic difficulties which we are facing now. The Hon. Prime Minister, in his National Day Rally Speech on the 18th August, gave us a clear and concise exposition of the reasons and sequences of events which led to this present situation. I do not propose to repeat his eloquent speech but strongly urge the Member for Anson to spend more time in a careful study of that speech.”
“This is a sign of maturity in our workforce, maturity in the relationship between our workers, employers and the Government. We have achieved a high level of mutual understanding, trust, and sharing of objectives. The Member for Anson tries, in his usual manner, to damage the good bond between workers, employers and the Government by alleging that the Government is blaming the workers for this downturn. This is far from the truth. The Government is well aware of the workers' sacrifices in joining the wage restraint policy. It is a policy of reacting to the realities of the market place. If our wages are higher than those in Taiwan or Hong Kong, then restraint is necessary to enable us to remain competitive in the world-wide market. The Member for Anson alleged that this Government has been dragging its feet in dealing with economic problems. Is he not aware of the measures which have been put into operation by the Economic Committee? What has he got to add to the list of measures to assist aII sectors of the economy to survive and to overcome present economic difficulty? Both the Member for Anson and the Member for Potong Pasir asked, "Why does the PUB not reduce its charges?" The Member for Anson says, "Fuel prices have gone down; why does the PUB not reduce its charges accordingly?" The Minister of State for Trade and Industry answered this question on the 23rd July 1985 in this House. He explained that PUB has to collect enough revenue not only to pay for its fuel and other operating costs, but to allow it to finance development expenditures which are required to meet the growing demand. Where possible, PUB by adopting a quarterly review of its rate has already taken into consideration the fuel cost.”
“Sir, this Government has led Singapore for the past 26 years to widely acclaimed heights of economic progress and success. It has created an economic structure which gives us prosperity, stability and security. The people have enjoyed two decades of social and economic growth. The development of housing for the people has gone on at a rapid pace resulting in the problem of housing being thoroughly licked. Today, nearly 80% of the people live in comfortable and, I must emphasize, Sir, affordable housing. This is an achievement which no amount of side-tracking by the Member for Anson can cover up or ignore. In view of the present economic difficulties, the Member for Anson has asked: do we have to wait till panic station to react? But, Sir, we are far from a panic station. A slow-down, yes, a recession, yes, but panic, certainly no. Singaporeans who wish to work can still find worthwhile employment. Even today, in face of economic difficulties, we are not experiencing mass unemployment that had been seen in other countries. We are far from having to activate soup kitchens and similar measures that have been seen in some other countries. Only yesterday, the Hon. Minister for Labour informed this House that jobs are still available for those who are prepared to work. They may have to accept some changes in the type of work. They may have to accept some changes in the pay that they receive. But a means to earn a livelihood is still available to those who are willing to work. Workers have realized that their own future and prosperity depends on the well-being of their company. They are in effect sharing the same cake with their employers, hence the highly commendable decision to refrain from seeking NWC wage increment this year.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to join the Member for Chong Boon in urging this House to dispose of the amendment proposed by the Member for Anson. The Member for Anson is highly predictable. As soon as economic trouble appeared, he hurries to this House to allege delays and inadequate effort on the part of the Government in dealing with the problem. He promptly placed the blame for the economic difficulties on the Government, hoping to speed up his political progress in the course of doing so.”
“It was an effort to allow an endangered industry to remain in Singapore for an interim period of time. It should not have been interpreted as an effort to make pig farming a permanent feature of Singapore. Sir, we are a small country and our environmental resources are scarce. To continue to practise an industry which will inevitably lead to the despoliation of our environment is to forgo a heritage and to forgo the opportunity to pass on to our children a better Singapore.”
“Sir, the Government has considered the pig farming issue in Singapore over many years and in great depth. The effort to allow them to change to intensive pig farming has been deeply misconstrued by the Member for Punggol.”
“Sir, for the Member for Chua Chu Kang's information, the import of pigs into Singapore has been insignificant. In 1984, we imported a total of 43,000 pigs into Singapore, which represents a little more than two weeks' supply of pigs, and that can hardly be construed as the cause of the present low pig price. Sir, it is quite clear that pig farms will be phased out in the next few years. As such, we will need to look for long-term sources to import both live pigs and frozen pork. It is in our best interest to continue to maintain an open channel for the import of such primary produce, and we shall continue to do so because we believe the current level of import has a negligible effect on our own market.”