Lee Siew-Choh
Singapore
“Sir, of course, this is going back to old history. He is asking whether such a thing has happened? I say it has. That was in 1972. But it is no use my going back on what had happened then. In fact, I did consult a lawyer and was thinking of taking up an election petition. But, unfortunately, so many other things happened.”
“One final word, Sir. I can assure the Minister that many violations had been committed in past elections. Do you believe that if we make a protest, it will be published in the newspapers?”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 4, line 12, to leave out "4" and insert "30". Sir, I have also other amendments (Cols. 291 - 294) to clauses 8, 9, 16, 22, 23, 25, 31 and 36. All my amendments are related to the process of election of the President, though on different aspects. Perhaps it might be convenient to consider all of them here.”
“Consequent on what the Minister has just said, the Government is very keen on market forces and they want conclusive results of the new system. Dr John Chen has already asked the question whether those people who make high bids be made to pay the amount of the bid so that they will not make high bids.”
“Sir, the date of the Observer article was 28th April and it states: 'Arms from China and North Korea are being shipped through Singapore where they are being reloaded.' Is that true or not true? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. Standing Order No.”
“Has the Minister read of an article in the Observer in late April about shipments being transhipped in Singapore? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know what Observer article the Member is referring to, but we have no records of transfers taking place.”
The complete record
Every one of 828 lines we hold for Lee Siew-Choh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 14 of 17.
“And then, having taken in the best of the girls, do you then use them as clerks and storemen? How do we employ them to maximum advantage? I am not saying we will never do it, but it is a complicated matter. Let us take some years to think it over. Dr Ong asked about contract servicemen and pensionable servicemen and service status, and why we are strict about it. I do not have the precise data with me, but this is Mindef's general thinking. The SAF is an organization of young people, young soldiers. It also needs young officers. This must be. We can choose to be either a young army or an old army. In young army, people work, act, fight much more quickly; then, come the age of 40 or 45, they go on to other careers elsewhere. Or we can be an old army, in which case we have lots of very experienced people, but the cadence is quite different. Dr Ong has seen the SAF, and he has seen many others I am sure he knows that there is a difference between a young and an old army. The SAF wants to be a young one. That means we must make sure that people who are in the structure are in their prime, able to contribute their best. There is no sadder sight on earth than a commando who has passed his prime - hunched, pot-bellied, tired, no longer able to jump out of an aeroplane, but still wearing a red beret and a chestful of badges. It does not do us credit. So when we keep people in the Armed Forces, we must be sure that they have a role for as long as they are there. If they want to stay on for the entire career, until they are 55 or 60, or whatever the retirement age, not everybody can easily be fitted into the Armed Forces.”
“If we assume that the person works for 40 years of his life and spend two years in Mindef is 5% of the workforce eaten up. We are very, very reluctant to do it because we would first prefer to make maximum use of the national servicemen whom we have, cut out the non-essentials, hive-off the parts which can be done by civilians; make our combat units trim, substitute fire power for soldiers. Only after we have done all that and still cannot cope, then we can consider women. Bringing women into the Army is quite different from bringing women in just to do some general purpose national service, be it nursing, teaching, or some other community work. If we bring women into the Army, it must be for a specific purpose. They must have a role. They cannot be standing around, waiting to be given instructions. They have to be trained for something. I can tell you quite frankly what the problem is. In peace-time they can be trained to do a lot of things; but many of these are jobs which in wartime we would not want to see any girls in. Because of these difficulties, very few countries have implemented national service for women. Only Israel. Partly out of desperation, but mostly for historical reasons. They did it from the beginning. But today they issue exemptions for women from doing national service as liberally as they possibly can, on the slightest excuse, because they have so many women that they do not know what to do with them. We do not want to be in that situation. We can avoid it by being selective, but that creates another problem. If we are selective, do you choose at random? Or do we choose the person who did best in school and is going to university, and is therefore going to incur the highest opportunity cost?”
“Let me take the other lesser items first before addressing the main subject of the Member for Cheng San GRC. Reservists, raised by Dr John Chen. Yes, it is important for employers to be supportive. Indeed, we can never do enough and more has to be done. The Government recognizes what a substantial inconvenience and sacrifice it is for somebody to remain a reservist for 13 years of his life. At the age of 18, doing full time NS for two years, he just cuts that out as one clean block. He is young, he is fit, he has no other commitments, he has not got kids or a wife yet, and he can put whole heart and soul to it. Five years later, he might be married. Ten years later, he has kids, he has got a job, he might be lecturing in the university or working in a factory. To pull out two to three weeks a year or a few days at a time many times a year, is not easy. It requires forbearance on the part of his employer, a supportive family, and Mindef to give as much notice as possible of its plans and intentions so that you do not get presented an overnight notice, except in extremis. We have tried our best to be accommodating. We set up ACCORD, a committee between Mindef and civilian organizations, to get some feedback on how to manage reservists and on our overall SAF PR posture. We can consider the suggestions which the Member has made, and we will implement them in due course. Secondly, women. The Member for Aljunied GRC has suggested that we call up women as a solution for our lack of national servicemen. It is a solution, but I think it is a last resort solution, because the cost is high. We can give them an allowance, like the men, but the cost to the economy of bringing in another, I suppose, 15,000-18,000 people a year is that number of people taken out of the workforce.”
“I have been misinformed. BG Lee Hsien Loong: The allowance was last revised in 1983. Before that it was about $90 a month. It is an allowance, not a salary. It is deliberately an allowance because if we have to pay national servicemen the economic opportunity cost of diverting them from the economy, the cash outlay for the Government will be very large. It will mean either taking money out of the 6% defence budget, out of training and equipment and ammunition, to put to salaries, or upping the defence budget from 6% maybe to 6(r)%. We cannot have it all ways - cut the defence budget, up salaries, and still have a better army. Of course, we watch the cost of living to make sure that there is no undue hardship on the soldiers. Inflation has been very low. The consumer price index has gone up by only 5% since 1983. Actually National Servicemen do not have to buy all of the things in the consumer price index. Food and accommodation are all provided for them. So MINDEF has an index which calculates just the basic items - lunch snack, bus concession stamps, and miscellaneous laundries and toiletries. I do not notice a dating allowance, but I will ask my officials to look it. Based on these essentials, allowance, basic items, overall the increase - the effect of inflation has been over - all these years is 5-6%. So we are not very far off. We do review the figures regularly, every year, in fact. Last year we reviewed it and we decided that the correction was small and we could delay it. This year, Mindef will review it again. If necessary we will make some adjustment. Although when we last revised the allowance, we deliberately made some over-correction so as to accommodate possible future inflation, it may be that some correction will be made this year.”
“Sir, I speak on an issue that has been an old grouse of many people. Young men who are being drafted into national service are all those just about to enter into the labour market. Some are, in fact, already working part-time and they get as much as $20 per day sometimes, and there are other people who have been all the time helping their parents in whatever business they are engaged in. At the present moment, the national service allowance is $120 per month. Sometime ago, it was $90, I have been told. And nowadays young men, responding to the call for early marriage and family formation, are starting to date girls early. For these people, $120 a month is definitely not enough for the month. The complaints are, I have heard from many sources, directly as well as indirectly, and also from parents, that parents have been forced to supplement the allowances to their sons on national service. There is plenty of talk about increases of salaries for high civil servants and Ministers. I am just wondering why those people who are lowly paid should not be given extra allowances today. Let them enjoy an increase from $120 to $180, or $200. That will not affect our huge surpluses. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, I will take the NCMP's point first. If we implement all of his proposals which he has generated in the last two days, there might be some dent in our "huge surpluses". Our national service allowance is not $120 a month. It is $135 a month. In fact, Dr Lee asked me the number yesterday and I told him, but he must have forgotten. So I remind him again.”
“But perhaps it is not necessary to do that, Mr Chairman, because those parents and national servicemen can watch it on television tonight.”
“Yes, that is more or less my position. But I tell the Minister again, Sir, that a lot of injustices have been done to many people who have opposed national service and many of them are still suffering as a result of decisions made by the Government against them. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the NCMP for his candour and his integrity. I think there is a basis for us to work. I am not here to discuss a long settled case of national service defaulters. As for injustices, the Government's responsibility is to enforce the laws, to be fair to all those who did sacrifice their 2 years and 2(r) years for national service, and to ensure that the incentives are for people to do the right thing by the society instead of to renege and weasle out of what they know to be their duty. The other items about period of national service, study periods, etc., are all suggestions which can be considered. They are not issues of principle. If the matters are raised, they can be debated. As for "pom pom," and nothing being left, may I remind Members that the SAF is not a national fireworks troop. If anybody thinks that we are training our young people too hard, that we are equipping them too well, that we should not prepare them in peace-time for what is likely to be the most dangerous challenge they would ever face in their lives - should they have to go into combat, then I would invite that person to a large gathering of national servicemen and their parents, and ask him to explain to them why their sons should not be properly looked after, properly trained, properly equipped and given the best chance to fulfil their mission in battle. If he persuades these parents that this is so, well and good.”
“It was the PAP Government that singled out my son simply because he happened to be my son, and sent him to prison twice, not once, for the same offence. The lawyers would call it double jeopardy. That was what happened, twice for the same offence of non-registration for national service. What justice is that? The Minister spoke about helmets, small little engines, and things like that. They are all small little things. He spoke of a fishing boat and a few guns going to the Maldive islands. We have have so many of those things. We have big guns. We have big tanks, big aeroplanes. Why do we need so many more? For what? They just want to upgrade equipment and send the shells into the sky. In the old days, Dr Goh Keng Swee told Mr Lee Kuan Yew during a parade that every shell that went up meant $600 lost. Mr Lee Kuan Yew at that time said, "Well, we could afford it. So there is nothing wrong." Similarly, now the Minister tells us that one shell that goes up costs us $1,500. And 18 shells is $27,000. All that into thin air. Is it worth spending? You mean to say that we should earn all our money just to allow this money to go up into thin air? Pom, pom, and with nothing left.”
“If they miss the target and the commander in a moment of rage says, "Repeat", he has just burnt another $27,000. Do you want people to be conscious of that and never burn money away? Yes. How? Through management accounting. He has to trade off. If he fires a repeat, that means so many other things which a unit needs will be forsaken, maybe sports facilities, maybe another training exercise, maybe even a bit more comfort for the barrack rooms. Therefore, make sure that they never waste that round. At the same time, they must make sure that the first round genuinely lands on target, is effective, and we get what we want out of the exercise. That is complicated. We are still working out the system. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, Sir, from our limited experience over the last few years, making people think about how much money they are spending has a salutary effect in concentrating minds. Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Sir, the Minister has mentioned a few points concerning me personally, namely, whether or not I still oppose national service today and that I sent my son to prison because of our opposition to national service. First of all, about whether or not I accept national service. It is an institution that nobody can get rid of. So there is no point in continuing to oppose it. In the present circumstances, we would say that national service should only be for a short period and should never affect the studying period of the young men. Many people who have gone to do national service cannot study again in the same way as they originally did. And, of course, they fall by the wayside as a result. They learn many of the bad things there. As regards my son, it was not that I sent my son to prison.”
“We have tried to get every soldier to contribute to productivity through PRIDE (productivity in daily effort). What he sees, he knows and takes responsibility for. We have tried to upgrade equipment instead of buying new ones wherever possible. I mentioned the Skyhawks, also our tanks. A new tank will cost $10 million. Upgrading an old one, $2-$3 million. Of course, it will not be as shiny, polished and nice, but that is a lot to pay for the shine. So just upgrade the old tank. We keep the SAF in the job which it knows best, namely, military defence, and keep it out of business which it should not be involved in - maintenance, support, work which can be commercialized and given to non-uniformed outfits to manage, whether it is repair of equipment, management of inventories, or supply of rations. Why should uniformed national servicemen cook for our soldiers in peacetime when we can make a contract with a commercial caterer to provide us vast quantities of food at more economic prices? As a result, now, soldiers know that soldiers-cooked food is a lot better than non-soldier- cooked food! We are establishing management accounting systems in the SAF. That means when you fire a round, when you take a tank out for an hour, it is noted somewhere and docked against your account, so that you do not just spend it without knowing how much it costs. The potential here for waste is tremendous. When an artillery battalion is on a live firing exercise, each round you fire, shell, fuse and charge, will cost perhaps $1,500, not counting wear and tear on the barrel of the gun and the salaries of the troops. When a battalion lets off a salvo, that is 18 times $1,500, which is $27,000.”
“I shall be going next week for the opening ceremony together with the Indonesian Defence Minister, General Benny. So we are spending enough money on defence. Of course, from a soldier's point of view, you would always like more. But from a national point of view, I believe what we are allocating is a fair share, because we have other priorities to look after also. On the point raised by the Member for Serangoon Gardens, while we want to have adequate money for new equipment and for training, we do not want to have a flabby budget, with too much money to spend, because then projects may be approved uncritically, resources may be wasted, and things could have been done much better. There is another danger with defence. In other Ministries, the bottom line is fairly easy to measure. In education, you can calculate per head how much money goes in, how many graduates come out. In Health so much money, so many patients. With EDB, so much budget, so many investments. But with defence, how much money - you can see. How much security, you cannot measure. You may well have spent it all on the wrong things. If you are lucky, nobody will find out until after you have retired, but it would still be a disaster for the country. So spending cash on the right projects is most important for Mindef. In such an environment, it is better for us to have lots more ideas, than money to fund them, instead of lots more money than ideas of how to spend it. Then we can be sure that only good ideas get through. When we do spend money, we have to be sure that we do not purchase what the Americans call "golden toilet seats" - just nonsensical, profligate waste. Mindef has a variety of programmes and audits to try and keep ourselves trim.”
“I do not think it is necessary to look fearsome. Just look serious and not to be trifled with. That is sufficient. And that also makes it possible for us to establish confidence and diplomacy and friendly bilateral relations with our neighbours, as Encik Wan Hussin has suggested and as Dr Lau and Mr Chandra Das have pointed out. We pay a lot of attention to bilateral and multilateral relationships with our neighbours, exercises, to-ings and fro-ings, arrangements like the Five Power Defence Arrangement and the Integrated Air Defence System. We have discussed these in previous debates in this House. In the last year, these efforts have continued and we have started a few new initiatives. I will mention a couple of them, just to convey their flavour. It is not an exhaustive list. Mr Goh Chok Tong visited Malaysia in January. He invited the Malaysian Armed Forces to participate in an infantry battalion live firing exercise in Singapore this year. They have accepted and the exercise will be held in May. At the same time, the Malaysians invited us to participate in bilateral Army exercises. This is of particular significance because although our Air Forces and Navies have exercised together, our Army units have never exercised together. We recognize that it is a sensitive matter for the Malaysian government. But we are happy there has been a breakthrough. We have accepted their invitation and the arrangements will be worked out. The bilateral Army exercise will probably be held somewhere in East Malaysia this year. We are jointly developing an air weapons range with Indonesia in Siabu, near Pekan Baru in Sumatra. We will conduct some courses together. It will be the opportunity for both Air Forces to exercise and train together.”
“Because we have spent 6% of GDP on defence, because we have made this sacrifice and put our manpower and resources and talent into defence, therefore we have security, therefore we are at ease, therefore over the last 10 years the defence budget has been able to double and triple in real terms, and yet remain the same percentage of the GDP, because the GDP has grown. If we had not done that, do you think the multi-nationals will come to Singapore - Japanese companies, American companies, European companies - and be safe, feel that their billions of dollars of investments here are safe? Or do you think they might decide in that case: "Thank you very much. You have a nice tropical beach, but I don't think I am going to put my equipment or create jobs there." Maybe the NCMP would prefer not to have multi-nationals in Singapore. But in that, I think he would concede that his views would belong to the minority. Therefore, we spend enough for defence. Not excessively, but what we need. We do not do it for demonstration effect. I do not know whether our neighbours are going on shopping sprees, as the Member for Bukit Batok has said. But even if they were, it would not be necessary for us to follow suit. Because we are not in an arms race with them. We are friends with them. We are equipping ourselves for long-term difficult-to-foresee eventualities, for surprises, which are bound to ambush us if we go unprepared. When we need to, we buy new aircraft. When we need to, we buy new ships. But only when we need to, and not in an arms race with our neighbours. To go one for one would be destabilizing and alarming. It would change the whole nature of relationships in Southeast Asia, and lead to less confidence rather than more. I do not know how fearsome our teeth or fangs look.”
“Why are we quite confident that nobody can do to Singapore what a few renegades did to the Maldives - they just arrived in a fishing boat one morning with a few machine guns and sent the entire government into hiding? It is because we have the SAF. It is because we have national service. We have put good officers into the SAF, with many schemes, including the SAF scholarships, which I shall talk more about it later. And because we have equipped them well, nobody takes the SAF as a force to smile at. It is a serious fighting force, professonal, not trigger-happy. When we need it, it will be there. From time to time we exercise it, to make sure that it can perform its full responsibilities. It is easy to cut the defence budget; by a stroke of the pen, we can strike it off. Instead of equipping soldiers with lighter fibre-glass helmets, we can equip them with steel helmets and tire them out. Better still and cheaper still, just give them berets and tell them to take their chances against the bullets. Some of them may have thick heads. Why upgrade our tanks? Why spend money putting a new engine into an old A-4 as the most cost-effective way to get combat power without wasting money? Why develop new howitzers? So that when a solider fights, it is not just him, his bayonet and his rifle, but a whole system of fire support behind him, to give him the best chance of survival. We do not have to equip them. Just say, "Follow me. Charge!" I may not come back,and neither may they.”
“I should take the basic question raised by the NCMP, Dr Lee, which is,whether we need a defence force, and whether we need to spend so much money. Very, very old Members of the House will remember that back in the 1960s, when we first introduced national service, the Barisan Sosialis, then Dr Lee's party, was opposed to it. In fact, Dr Lee chose to send his son to jail instead of into the Army. He did not address this point today and tell us whether he is still against defending the nation, against protecting what we have, and also against equipping our sons and men with the best equipment which we can afford, so that they will have the best chance to survive and to fight, outnumbered, and win if we have to go to war. Of course, we are all friends with everybody else, including the Members of the Opposition. We do not all smile and giggle as disarmingly as the NCMP, try as we might. But we are on good terms with our neighbours. We are surrounded by friends. As Dr Lee has rightly pointed out, Singapore is not Israel. Indeed, Southeast Asia is not the Middle East, and we do not want to be like Israel, in a constant state of tension, alarm, conflict, and bloodshed, between a very small and very determined country and its much larger and equally determined neighbours. We are at peace with our neighbours, and long may it remain so. Having said that, the question is: why do we enjoy this happy state of affairs? Why are we relaxed with our neighbours? Why are we quite unperturbed when other fleets sail through the Singapore straits? Why do we not mind when other airforces transit our skies?”
“Everybody is becoming more friendly. Even the Opposition is more friendly with the Government! And Singapore businessmen have gone to China to do business and invest, and they are also doing a lot of business with Vietnam. On top of that, we have the protective umbrella of the US Seventh Fleet. Now, I hear that some of our experts here even suggest that we should become part of the Seventh Fleet, and do all the donkey work for the Seventh Fleet. Of course, Sir, we agree that we should rely on ourselves, and self-reliance is a good watchword. But I would agree with the first speaker that we are rather jingoistic in our talk. We talk as if we want to be an Israel in Southeast Asia. We should be realistic. We are a small country with a very small population, and with all the heavy expenditure we are not going to help ourselves. We can only help the countries that sell us all the arms, armaments which are partly obsolete, anyway definitely obsolescent. That is why we have had accidents recently in the Air Force. So we should not waste all that heavy expenditure on obsolescent and obsolete tanks, planes, rockets, missiles. We should spend that money on the people instead. The only real defence, Sir, as many have stressed before me, for a small island with a small population like ours, is to have good friendly relations with all our neighbours and even countries farther away. I hope that the Minister will address his answer to what I have suggested and let us see whether he can convince the Opposition or not. The Second Minister for Defence (Services) (BG Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Chairman, Sir, before I go into the details of the questions raised by Dr Ong, Mr Das, Encik Wan Hussin and Dr Lau Teik Soon.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I am really surprised by the views expressed by the speakers before me. While Dr Lau says that there was a jump of three times in expenditure for defence since 10 years ago, with budget increases of 30% every year and a heavy expenditure now of nearly $2.91 billion, he has nevertheless come to the wrong conclusions. And then there is Dr Ong saying that we should not be falling behind in defence expenditure. In other words, we could buy still more equipment, compete with countries around us as to who can pay more for more equipment. Sir, I do not need to re-tally the heavy expenditure that we have gone through over the last 10 years. I have got it listed here, but since it is already agreed that there is such a heavy expenditure over the last 10 years, I would just leave it at that. But this heavy expenditure has taken away huge chunks of our Budget, money which could very well have been allocated for social services, especially education, health and other services. I ask: is it really necessary to spend so much on defence? The impression one gets is that Singapore is actively preparing for war or is already on the verge of war with another country. What country do we think we are going to fight against? We have friends all around us. We have bilateral and multilateral cooperation, and even alliances. Singapore and Malaysia are partners in the Five Power Defence Arrangement with Britain, Australia and New Zealand. We are amongst friends all around. In the past, Sir, the Government used the excuse that China might be aggressive and therefore we had to spend more money on defence. Later on, the excuse was Vietnam. Now, the whole situation has changed. The whole world, in fact, is marching towards, not war, but detente.”
“Sir, in view of what he has said, I withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $8,540,500 for Head B ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $3,801,100 for Head B ordered to stand part of the Development Estamtes. Head C - The sum of $6,759,400 for Head C ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $203,000 for Head C ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head D - The sum of $443,800 for Head D ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. Head E -”
“Whether things like that will be interpreted as crusading depends on the views of the people who are being crusaded against, if I may use the same word. But then, Sir, these are universal principles upheld by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And in the circumstances, no one should be penalized if he should speak up on such principles.”
“Would the Minister then say that this principle is exclusive for the Singapore Government? At the present moment, there are protests already from the British government and, I suppose, more protests would come from Europe and other places. Prof. Jayakumar: This is not a principle which is peculiar or unique to Singapore. This is a principle which is universally recognized in the Commonwealth - a lawyer should not confuse his role as a lawyer; he must keep to the confines of representing the best interests of his client, of adducing the best arguments to the court in favour of his client's case and to persuade the court to listen to, and decide on, the legal arguments - not to crusade and be a propagandist outside the court.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, he has said that the QC threatened and intimidated the Singapore Government. I find it impossible to believe a thing like that happening. In fact, as far as I know, the Government intimidates other people instead. As regards the abuse of privilege, Sir, you must understand that a big principle is involved - the principle of upholding justice. In the circumstances, the upholding of justice may be allowed on anywhere in this world, not necessarily inside the court. And if the Government insists that the lawyers can only speak on the issue inside the court, then the principles involved will have to be completely swept aside. Sir, I think the courts of justice all over the world allow people to speak on issues like that, and I think the Government should not be harsh if somebody should speak up for lawyer Teo Soh Lung.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head B be reduced by $10 in respect of Code BA 1500 of the Main Estimates. Sir, $0.35 million is to meet legal fees for the engagement of a QC or QCs for the expenses incurred as a result of legal action taken by or against the Government. The Privy Council recently heard the appeal of Mr J B Jeyaretnam and I assume that the Government must have also engaged a QC to look after its interest in the Privy Council hearing. If so, would the Minister inform the House what these claims and costs were and, if not, would the Minister inform the House what the budgetted expenses are for and has any funds been used for claims and costs in 1988? I wonder if I may also bring in a small item which is connected with the Attorney-General's Office or the Government. It is the news items that was published in the newspapers this morning, namely, the decision to ban QC Anthony Lester from working in Singapore. This man, according to the newspapers, has been conducting political activity outside the court. I wonder if that is the real reason why he has been barred from coming to Singapore. If that is the reason then no lawyer should be allowed to carry on political activity outside the court. But I see many lawyers are doing that. So what reason is there for not allowing a QC to come to work in Singapore?”
“Perhaps that is why the Minister calls the budget a "good budget". In conclusion, Sir, I would like to stress that to make it a really good budget, the budget should benefit the majority of the people and not just a comparatively small number of people. The reliefs given for family formation and care for the aged and handicapped dependants, though hardly sufficient, are nevertheless welcome. But a large majority of people who need the help of the Government have yet to benefit in personal reliefs. Budget allocation, Sir, is a matter of priorities, and the Government has not got its priorities right. Singapore has had two good years with growth and substantial surpluses. Those in the low and middle income groups have suffered the most hardships when times were bad. Let them benefit a little now when times are better. Only thus can it be said to be a good budget.”
“In addition to road tax, diesel tax, increased levies on foreign workers and foreign maids, all of which the Government has conveniently imposed at various times of the year, in between budgets without even the benefit of a debate in Parliament beforehand, there is now the re-imposition of the 5% tax on PUB and telephone bills. This has been touched on by many speakers before me. And as admitted by the Minister, consumption taxes are regressive and inflationary. They hit at retail prices, exports and tourism and could encourage the people to go across the Causeway to do their shopping instead. I merely repeat what has already been said. Moreover, if Government intends to introduce consumption taxes in order to effectively - I must emphasize that - effectively "provide a steady source of revenue", as has been stated in the Budget Statement, then the tax in a country with such a small population like Singapore, must be widespread and not selective. The tax thus unavoidably hits hard those in the low and middle income groups and they are those who form the vast majority of the people in Singapore. Government should remember that the ruling party in Japan lost a safe seat to the opposition in a by-election on the issue of a 5% consumption tax two years ago and should learn a lesson from that. May be that is another reason for the recent amendments to laws to control processions and demonstrations of the people. Government should tax those who can afford to pay. Those with high incomes already have all sorts of benefits and loopholes, and many of them pay only a fraction of what they should really pay in income tax. Consumption taxes, I repeat, Sir, hit at the low and middle income groups. They do not hit at the rich.”
“They are assets which have all been slowly built up over the years by the State with taxpayers' money - let us not forget that - and should be treasured. Whatever dividends and profits earned by them should be transferred to the Government's Consolidated Fund, as has partly been done, to be spent for the benefit of all the people. Since these are established profitable monopolies, the private sector naturally would like to grab such non-risk highly profitable assets as going concerns. For Government to privatize these valuable assets today would merely mean giving away public funds to private individuals who can afford to buy the shares or to big business organizations which hope to reap huge profits. There is no good reason why this should be done. Privatization of such invaluable public assets is tantamount to betrayal of the trust that the people have placed in the Government. And we should be warned of the unhappy consequences - increased charges and poorer services - seen in the privatization of Telecoms in the UK. Let me touch, Sir, on the tax changes. The duty on tobacco and cigarettes would be a good tax as it is well known that cigarette smoking is a major cause of ill-health and premature death for many people in Singapore. But the taxes on tobacco and cigarettes do not, and I emphasize that, do not seem to be really designed to stop smokers from smoking. Smokers continue to smoke in spite of the taxes. The only change is that smokers now pay more taxes and, of course, the Government collects more revenue. To me, that seems to be the real idea behind the tax on tobacco and cigarettes.”
“But we are strongly opposed to privatization of statutory boards like the PSA, PUB, Telecoms or SIA. These GLCs, in fact, form part of the infrastructure which facilitate business in the private sector. Without them, the private sector will not be able to do business at all, much less make profits. Presently, these GLCs are well managed, efficient, very productive and highly profitable.”
“(2) For the third and fourth child, instead of a special bonus, give the couple outright cash grants of $3,000 to $5,000. (3) Cut down all the hospital maternity charges. Presently, Sir, maternity charges for the third child are $400, for the fourth child, $1,000, and for the fifth child, $1,300. I say, bring the hospital maternity charges for the third, four the and fith child down to the norm of $150 for the first child for Class B2, and $100 for Class C. (4) Give maternity leave for the third and fourth child - paid maternity leave. (5) Of course, the foreign maid levy should not be further increased. (6) If necessary, priority in schools and for HDB flats should be considered as long as that will not cause injustice to other parents. These, Sir, are the concrete steps I suggest as an alternative to proposals by the Minister. We have a serious problem of population decline. We must deal with it seriously and objectively without bringing in side issues like genetic social engineering on the quiet. The loss in revenue, Sir, is very small in comparison to the immeasurable gains the whole nation will have. I hope Government will give serious consideration to what I have said. The Minister has said that the public sector be "contained and gradually reduced in favour of the private sector". He has spoken of privatization on TV. He says that it is going well, meaning I suppose the Government is making good progress in selling off our national assets. I have just heard how much has been sold-off. Sir, we are not in total opposition to privatization. We agree that many Government-linked companies (GLCs) that are doing businesses that the private sector can do, and usually do, should be left to the private sector to run and manage.”
“It is unlikely that these procreation bonuses will succeed in inducing many high income couples to have a third and a fourth child. Moreover, many from this group marry late and also have children rather late. Therefore, it would appear that these special procreation bonuses will probably not succeed in fully reversing the declining population that has been brought about by wrong past population policies of the Government. How then can Government help to really promote procreation and larger families, and truly reverse the population downward trend? The answer is: spread the tax benefits, not selectively to a comparatively small number of people, but as widely as possible to all the people. I stress, Sir, all the people. As an alternative to what the Minister has proposed, I suggest the following: (1) In addition to personal reliefs for handicapped dependants, aged parents, children, etc., Government should also increase personal allowances of taxpayers from $2,000 to $3,000 or even $4,000; and of the wife from $1,000 to $2,000 or even $3,000. If husband and wife together can claim personal allowances of $7,000, that, Sir, is only what a couple in Malaysia has been getting for some years. The trouble is that the Minister wants to tax as many people as possible. The previous speaker also says that. The Minister says that a $1,000 increase in the personal income tax relief would have reduced the base of taxpayers by 60,000 or 7% of all taxpayers. But I suggest that the Minister is guided by the wrong principle of taxation. Instead of taxing those who can ill-afford to pay, he should tax those best able to pay, those who can afford it, and those who do not feel it.”
“The relief enjoyed to the full by the average low and middle couple is the increased normal child relief of $1,500 per child. Nothing much to crow about, as the amount is not even sufficient for the upkeep of a child for more than a few months. It is more or less the same story with the $20,000 special tax rebate for the 4th child. The Minister says that in 1988, last year, only 1,100 couples have benefited from the $20,000 3rd child bonus. And most of these 1,100 couples cannot benefit by more than a mere fraction of the $20,000. This year, the Straits Times says that 2,000 couples will benefit. Again a comparatively small number, not even 0.5% of taxpayers. Only those with high incomes of $6,000 per month will be able to claim the full rebate and they are those who do not really need the money. How many people have incomes of $6,000 per month? The low and middle income couples who really need such 3rd and 4th child bonuses can only benefit in a very small way. The same situation applies, Sir, to the additional rebate equivalent to the 15% of the wife's income in lieu of maternity leave. Only high income working women (they must be working too) will benefit most and there are again not many of them in Singapore. Thus, all in all, the new tax reliefs will benefit only a comparatively small number of taxpayers who are well-off, people like the Ministers. But will these special bonuses induce many married couples to have more children? Since they are targetted at couples with better and higher incomes, it does not look as if the bonuses will achieve the stated objective of increasing the population of Singapore as a whole. They will succeed at best in pushing Government's policy of genetic social engineering to a certain extent.”
“So why limit salary increases to top civil servants and Ministers? Are those in the lower division of no consequence? Don't they help those at the top to bring in results? Sir, a number of reliefs have been given in support of family formation and Government's call to families to care for their aged and handicapped dependants. These reliefs though welcome will, however, benefit only some but not all the people. And one suspects that some of those reliefs have been proposed merely to fit in with the Government policy of genetic social engineering. For instance, the enhanced child relief is available only to a woman with at least 3 GCE "O" level passes. This precondition effectively debars mothers with lower educational levels from the scheme. This is unfair and discriminatory, especially when it is well-known that most of the lowly educated mothers belong to the low and middle income groups of bread winners. Is there any good reason to limit the age of children to below 12? Is the Government expecting children a little over 12 to work and earn a living? After all, normal child relief is given up to 16 years or over 16 if the child is still studying in higher institutions or if he is incapacitated in any way. As pointed out by the Straits Times on the 4th March, the tax saving varies from person to person. And I quote: 'For a married person having an annual income of $50,000 and a non-working wife, 2 children and a dependant parent, the tax saving works out to $850 [a very small sum] and not many people can earn $50,000 a year.' It is therefore clear, Sir, that very few people will be able to enjoy the full amount of the advertised enhanced child relief of $15,000 for the third child. Only those with high salaries will benefit.”
“Many people have already been hit. Sir, for most people the car is not a luxury, neither is it a symbol of success. They need the car to earn their livelihood and these car taxes have hit them very hard. Expenditure on Education, Sir, gets only a very slight increase, and that on Health suffers a drop of 5.3% from the revised 1988 expenditure, while the expenditure for Defence goes up by 11.1% to the tune of $2.91 billion or 23% of the whole budget. Such high Defence expenditure takes away budget allocations that should have been spent on social services. This also does not benefit the people. Then there is the proposal to increase again the already high salaries for top civil servants and Ministers. While it may sound fair to revise salaries for those who carry heavy responsibilities in Government work, it is not possible to match salaries in the public sector with those in the private sector. And it is wrong to do so. Civil servants are compensated by perks and job security, not enjoyed by top men in the private sector. Ministers enjoy great political power and prestige. There is really no comparison between the two sectors. If salary increases are to be carried out, as indeed they will be, then they must be accompanied by similar salary and wage increases for those in the lower divisions as well. This has already been advocated by a few of the speakers before me. Sir, those people in the lower divisions are those who really need the salary increases, more than those at the top. Moreover, in principle, Sir, Government should try to close the salary gap between those at the top and those at the bottom, not widen it. Government must be fair to all. We have huge surpluses and the Minister has said: "we can afford it".”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, like businessmen who have expressed their views on the budget in the press outside the House, speakers here so far have all praised the budget as "sound", "well-balanced", "painless", "happy", "good budget". They have good reasons to say this, I am sure, because business is provided with tax cuts, tax exemptions, tax deductions and faster depreciation allowances, though the small and medium enterprises benefit much less than big business. Industrialists call for an exten- sion of property tax rebate and they have got what they want. In addition, the property tax rate will be reduced further to 16% of annual value next year, though as has already been indicated, how many of the tenants will enjoy the benefit has yet to be seen. All the non-HDB owner-occupied residential properties will have property tax reduced to 4%, though some people say that this may not really mean a tax reduction in every case. Personal income tax enjoys a 1% tax cut and there are other tax reliefs. Married couples are given special procreation bonuses in this much-acclaimed budget for the family. Sir, instead of taxes, the budget seems to have something for everyone. It is a budget designed to buy political support, to catch votes the Government has lost. I myself, when I first heard, it, was tempted to give it my full support. But a closer study, Sir, shows that the people who have really benefited from this so-called good budget are very few. Moreover, the budget is also not right in many of its priorities. For instance, increasingly heavy taxes have been imposed on motor vehicles. Though euphemistically classified as a non-tax revenue, such taxes will come to quite a huge sum, $1.28 billion this year, and they may yet be increased again in future.”
“In addition, three women died of medical causes within 42 days of delivery, but their deaths were not in any way related to the pregnancy or delivery. The maternal mortality rate for Singapore has ranged from 0.05 to 0.2 per thousand live and still births since 1976. The 1988 rate of 0.15 compares favourably with an overall rate of 0.3 per thousand births for the developed countries and 4.5 per thousand births for the developing countries. All maternal deaths are investigated thoroughly at hospital and Ministry levels. Corrective actions where necessary, are taken immediately to ensure that we continue to have a high standard of obstetric practice. Mr Chng Hee Kok (Tiong Bahru GRC): Sir, will the Minister confirm that he is not alarmed and that medical facilities are adequate now that we are promoting more births in Singapore?”
“Sir, has the Government any plans for more divestment this year? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: The Government's policy on divestment has been stated. It has not changed. Divestments will continue in the future. The precise timing of these divestments will depend upon market conditions and detailed studies being undertaken right now. PRIVATIZATION OF PARTLY GOVERNMENT-OWNED COMPANIES 5. Dr Lee Siew-Choh asked the Minister for Finance if he will state the partly Government owned companies in which the Government has given up its shareholding and the amount received in each case. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo (for the Minister for Finance): Mr Speaker, Sir, from November 1985 to January 1989, the Government has divested its shareholdings in 24 first and second tier companies which were partly Government-owned. Of the 24 companies, 17 were fully privatized and 7 partially privatized. The total sales proceeds from these divestments amounted to $430 million. MATERNAL MORTALITY FOR 1988 (Particulars) 6. Mr Chng Hee Kok asked the Acting Minister for Health if he will give the maternal mortality figure for 1988 and what steps he is taking to redress the situation. The Acting Minister for Health (Mr Yeo Cheow Tong): Mr Speaker, Sir, a maternal death is defined as the death of a woman while pregnant or during delivery or within 42 days of delivery or termination of pregnancy, from any cause related to or aggravated by pregnancy. The maternal mortality rate refers to the number of such deaths per thousand live and still births. In 1988, there were 8 maternal deaths, giving an estimated maternal mortality rate of 0.15 per thousand live and still births.”
“Although it was disproved, Sir, nevertheless he had been hauled up because he said something about disquiet concerning the transfer of a District Judge and it is all connected, Sir. It is not unconnected at all.”
“I have seen the TV version and I have also read parts of the Report that he referred to. But would the Minister agree that this "disquiet" is the same word used by the Privy Council and therefore the allegation by Mr Jeyaretnam was not that frivolous after all?”
“Would the Minister agree that Mr Jeyaretnam was hauled up because of the so-called allegation of disquiet?”
“If it is, therefore, is it wrong of any officer or any Minister to give views contrary to the judgment? We are speaking of the judgment. We are not talking about the details of the case itself.”
“The Government says that it is not legally bound. But does it agree that today, in Singapore, the Privy Council is the highest court that looks after judiciary matters?”
“Does he agree, Sir, that the Privy Council had allowed the appeal because the Privy Council thought that Mr Jeyaretnam was wrongly convicted?”
“Would the Minister be able to tell us what reason it was that the Privy Council allowed the appeal of Mr Jeyaretnam?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister said something about the CPIB taking up wih the Attorney-General's Chambers for clarification of the reading of the Bill. Since there is some doubt at the present time when the Bill is being introduced, why can't the Minister now ensure that there be clarity and that there be no doubts whatsoever as to what our intentions really are?”
“Sir, can the Minister say whether this applies to Phey Yew Kok?”
“But the explanatory statement says that the Bill will apply, except for those who are "deemed to have been convicted before the commencement of the proposed law". Maybe there is a difference; maybe there is not. But to my mind, when a person is deemed to be convicted, it does not necessarily mean that he has been convicted in court. Of course the Minister could explain, because I like to know whether such a clause would apply to people like Phey Yew Kok. Sir, clause 23 says that only assets acquired within six years before death may be confiscated. As I have already indicated, Sir, corrupt practices might have been going on for more than six years without being suspected or discoverd. Today, the Income Tax Department investigates people going back to 12 years. So why cannot the same apply to cases of corrupt practices? As much of the ill-gotten gains should be returned to the State or to the people, I suggest that the figure "6" should be changed to "12" years.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to give my full support also to the Government for the introduction of this Bill. Though rather late in the day, nevertheless it is better late than never. The press frequently gives publicity to cases of corrupt practices by those holding high office who are already drawing high salaries, very handsome salaries, and by those in high society who are already fabulously rich, like bankers and tycoons. These are the people, Sir, who are insatiable in their craving for money. For them, it would appear that the more they have, the more they want. From this, it can be seen also, Sir, that high salaries and high incomes do not necessarily make a person honest. The difficulty connected with corruption of course, Sir, is detection. As is well-known, corrupt practices are often not discovered or, if they are discovered, they may be discovered only after a long long time. Nevertheless, the provisions in the Bill should serve as a fairly strong disincentive to the would be corrupt or to those who are tempted to enrich themselves or further enrich themselves through corrupt practices to think again. Such a Bill might have been effective enough, Sir, I think to keep people like Phey Yew Kok and Teh Cheang Wan to the straight and narrow path. I, Sir, have not had the benefit of reading the Select Committee Report because I never knew about it and I never knew about the previous arguments in this House. I am a bit puzzled, Sir, by clause 3 and the explanatory statement given at the and of the Bill. Clause 3(1) says "convicted by a court before the commencement of this Act", at line 10. In other words, this Bill will apply to all the people, except those who were convicted in a court before the commencement of this Act. That is how I understand it, Sir.”
“I feel that the Bill is very appropriate and timely so that certain areas which have historical buildings and of cultural value may be preserved. The Bill, on implementation, will give new life to such areas. It will also affect many people, including owners of properties and old tenants and occupants of such properties. I would like to ask the Minister two questions: (1) What measures would the Government take to prevent owners from taking advantage of the Bill to drive away old tenants? How is the Government to ensure that these tenants can get appropriate compensation? (2) What special measures of assistance would the Government give to the affected tenants whose landlords wish to develop the houses, particularly in those old areas like Kreta Ayer where, I believe, there are many single old people who have been staying in rent-controlled houses for many years? To such people, would the Government give them special care and assistance so that they would not become homeless?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I asked a few questions a little while ago and the Minister has answered only one. May I repeat the questions just in case? I asked: in owner-occupied premises, will the owner be allowed to renovate within his means? He has already answered that. The next question is: in premises recently acquired by the URA where the sitting tenant is the past owner, will the URA release back to the past owner the acquired premises and allow him to carry out renovations according to URA guidelines? On the question of rentals, if rentals are increased as a result of some renovation, will rentals be reasonable and affordable to sitting tenants and not be raised to so-called market rate levels? If there are rental increases, should not rental increases bear some relation to expenditure incurred in renovation? If disputes arise as regards the quantum of the increase in rentals, should the Rent Conciliation Board be given powers to determine a fair increase in rentals? On the matter of eviction and compensation, the present compensation paid to existing business premises is woefully inadequate. Will compensation therefore be considerably increased in such instances, especially where the buildings have been acquired by the URA and the tenant has lost potentially higher compensation from the old private owner? On the matter of notices to quit, if forced to quit, will adequate and even extended time be given, say, one or two years, to tenants to look for alternative suitable business premises? Dr Koh Lip Lin (Nee Soon South)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, as a member of the Government Parliamentary Committee on National Development and Housing, I support this Bill.”
“Yes, Controlled Premises Bill, the last one?”
“So do you want me to repeat or carry on? Mr Speaker: I think the Minister has indicated that he would prefer you to bring this up later.”
“I am in a way. But I have cut off quite a lot of things because they may be redundant.”