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 8 of 17.
“Sir, linked to the Flood Alleviation Scheme in Bukit Timah are the other minor floods also in Bukit Timah which occur regularly. The mosquito menace and the minor floods on our roads are often caused by bad drainage, and obstruction of drains by leaves and heavy throw-aways from various sources, from households and from market stalls. The frequent mini-floods in certain parts of Bukit Timah Road and Dunearn Road are often due to such bad drainage and obstruction of rain water from flowing into the canal. Workers in construction sites often throw empty tins around the place and these breed mosquitoes. Perhaps more frequent inspections and checking of such construction sites will help cut down the mosquito menace. I hope the Minister will be able to do something about this this time since he could not do very much about this last year.”
“Sir, how does the Minister explain that in the Hill Street hawker centre, level 3 is completely empty, level 2 is half-empty, and many of these hawkers who had been having good business in Wayang Street and the Capitol car park have now given up the ghost?”
“All right, I will withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $1,809,485,200 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $300,000,000 for Head L ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head M -”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Code LG 3200 of the Main Estimates. Sir, tuition fees should be kept to a minimum if Government is serious about education and development of our people to their fullest potential. But over the last few years, Government has increased the tuition fees many times well beyond the ability and capacity of many parents to pay. Government has introduced more scholarships and bursaries, no doubt, and also loans for students. But those poorer students from the lower middle-income group still find it very difficult and many may be deterred by the high tuition fees from seeking places in the university. What I have said, Sir, sounds like repetition of what has been said repeatedly. But the Minister should also realise that complaints have not ceased to be made all the time. I hope, therefore, Sir, that in view of our huge surpluses year after year, the Minister will review the policy of tuition fees and reduce such fees for our undergraduates. 3.35 pm”
“I am finishing, Sir. If the Government should have doubts, let it carry out a real and proper study and survey of the educational needs of our people. I hope the Minister will take my suggestions seriously.”
“They must not forget that our people's attitude towards education is different from the attitude of US students towards education. Our students study hard and seriously, quite unlike some of the students in the United States. Moreover, necessary and suitable staff can always be recruited to ensure continuing high standards in the university. In our quest for excellence and in our march towards the status of a developed nation, let us not forget that the general level of education is one of the most important indicators. Yet, presently, the number of students enrolled in higher education as a percentage of population aged 20 to 40 years in Singapore lags far behind Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and the United States. We should not waste time to catch up. The higher the general level of education, the more will this benefit our country economically, socially, politically and culturally. In conclusion, Sir, as I have said, education is not merely a means to an end. Education is an end in itself, which is the development of our people to their fullest potential. Today, our parents and children are demanding that more and more facilities be provided for higher education. Already the Straits Times this morning reports that 16,000 school leavers have applied for 8,700 places in the three polytechnics. We have more than adequate funds. These funds should be put to good use for the benefit of our people.”
“And in matters of education, we should not be miserly in the use of our surplus funds. We spend too small an amount on education. As the Report has said, and I quote: " ... because Singapore is a small island with virtually no natural resources, its economy is more dependent on the skills and intelligence of its people than would be the case for many other countries ..." And that, Sir, means more funds for the education and training of our people. Though we have a small population, we could, like Denmark, still have our own Niels Bohr. We have sufficient manpower and the potential. Just think of the number of students who have been denied their university education because of the now suspended suitability certificates or of the students who have been barred in some way by the streaming of students. Our own Chia Thye Poh, Sir, was also a budding physicist. If he had been allowed to have full development of his potential, instead of having been incarcerated in our prisons for more than 23 years, how would we know that we do not also have our own Niels Bohr? The whole thrust of my argument, Sir, is that Government should not merely want to upgrade NTI into NTU today. It should not shelve plans for a third university. Instead, it should start preparations for the third university now and not wait and waste time. The Report fears that there may be a lowering of standards if we go too fast. The Report also states that, and I quote: "... when the percentage of the 18 year old age group entering higher education rises above the 15-20% band, then the graduation rate diminishes and the attrition rate may, as in the USA, rise to 50%." This may be over-cautious and over-alarmist.”
“Nantah, of course, should not have been scrapped at all. Nantah failed, not simply because its graduates were not as well recognized as the Singapore University graduates, but mainly because the PAP Government had not lived up to its promise to give equal treatment to the four streams of education. Following the merging of the two Universities into one, stringent measures were introduced to reduce the number of students seeking university education. This is in keeping with the PAP's policy of elitism. Hence, the Goh Keng Swee's Report with a new system of education and the introduction of streaming. The result of all this, Sir, is that large numbers of students have been denied opportunities to higher education, which in turn has contributed to a large exodus of students all going for higher studies overseas. The lack of facilities for higher education is one of the main reasons for our students going abroad, not because "their hearts are not in Singapore", as Encik Yatiman said. The Zaobao has said that in 1980 there were already 3,000 students leaving Singapore for higher education overseas. Today the number, as disclosed in the Report, has increased to 9,000. The Minister says that expansion is in line with the projection of manpower needs. But I say, Sir, that it is a grave mistake to base our national education expansion solely on the manpower needs of foreign MNCs which own most of the industries in Singapore. We should instead, Sir, base our projections on our own national needs to develop our people to their fullest potential. Education should not be seen as merely a means to an end. Education is indeed an end in itself, namely, the fullest development of our citizens as human beings.”
“Sir, I speak on the Dainton's Report. The Government has accepted Lord Dainton's recommendations to build two universities. But from the reading of the Report, it would appear that Singapore needs, not two, but three universities. The simple reason is that more and more of our students are seeking university education. This is supported by: (1) "The growth of students who wish to have university education has been more rapid than foreshadowed in my report about 10 years' ago", says Lord Dainton. (2) About 9,000 Singapore students are currently studying overseas in institutions of higher education. (3) The Report refers to past postgraduate students and major students. (4) With the natural increase in Singapore's population, and I quote again, "the size of the 18-year-old age group would be significantly larger were Singapore's population to rise to 4 million". (5) Lord Dainton warns against over reliance on performance in 'A' level examinations. Therefore cautious liberalization of admission criteria will certainly increase the number of students seeking higher education. From all this, Sir, it can be seen that early in 1979 the projected number of students seeking higher education was already grossly underestimated in spite of the then prevailing "Stop at two" policy. The present 1989 projected number would certainly again be grossly underestimated, especially when the Government is presently pushing new procreation policies. In fact, it is already obvious that by the end of the 1970s there was already a four to five-fold upsurge in demand for university education. The problem was compounded by Government's decision to merge the Nanyang University with the then Univer- sity of Singapore to form a single National University of Singapore.”
“One last question, Sir. In order to justify what the Government has done, the Minister assumes a little too much. How could he know that negotiations had failed between the tenant and the old landlord? What evidence has he got?”
“Is this the way the Government hopes to make money out of the people?”
“I also know of buildings that have been acquired by the Government and nothing is being done by the Government. Since the original owners would like to buy back their own property, how is it that the Government does not allow them to buy their property back? Mr Dhanabalan: Sir, I think we can go round and round this question and not get anywhere. I have already explained that these are rent controlled properties near the MRT station. The site is meant for redevelopment and Government has acquired it. And we have not sold it. If the original owners want to buy it when the site is finally sold, they can make a bid for it just like anybody else.”
“So far as I know, and I have been a tenant there for quite sometime, a knock here, a knock there, a change of some old electric wires, maybe changing the flooring to a certain extent, a new coat of paint. That's all. That is Government's so-called conservation. But this is exactly what everybody does the moment he moves into a new place. So what sort of conservation is he talking about? That is the way how Government has very, very unfairly evicted many tenants without fair compensation. I wish the Minister will explain Government's action in all these evictions.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, much publicity has been given to conservation in Tanjong Pagar and the so-called revitalising of the Civic District. Many of the properties were originally requisitioned by Government for so-called urban renewal. The owners of the properties and tenants were paid very poor compensation. I wish now to refer to Eu Court where I was a tenant until recently, and therefore I wish to declare also my interest in the matter. But of course I also speak for all those owners of properties and other tenants who have been similarly affected and been paid very poor and unfair compensation by the Government or URA. Eu Court Building, Sir, was originally requisitioned by Government supposedly for road widening and was supposed to have been demolished. And that was at the time when we were negotiating some form of compensation with the original owner. But a second reason has been added in order to make it look fairer, and now plans have again been changed. Government has decided not to demolish Eu Court, as the Minister has said, which was built pre-war and rent-controlled and still had a few tenants. But new laws were passed to allow the landlord, that is, Government to recover possession of the premises for so-called preservation or conservation and restoration. Guidelines also were said to have been issued to infor, the owners how conservation should be carried out and, of course, how to evict tenants. The idea, Sir, was simple. It was to allow or legitimise eviction without adequate fair compensation. In Eu Court itself, what sort of conservation has been carried out?”
“I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Would the Minister care to explain what he means by using the land above the MRT for additional lanes? Does he mean tunnels or the road itself?”
“All along Hill Street. Mr Dhanabalan: All along Hill Street. Yes, then my answer would apply to all those houses.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Code TC 9853052 of the Development Estimates. Sir, the buildings along Hill Street have been requisitioned by the Government for road widening quite some time ago. Along Hill Street, Stamford House, Eu Court and other shophouses have all been requisi- tioned supposedly for road widening. Hill Street has been widened from Elgin Bridge to Coleman Street. Now the Minister has just told us that Victoria Street will also be widened to have eight lanes. But what about the plans for Hill Street itself from Coleman Street to Stamford Road? What are the plans for the houses lining Hill Street that have been requisitioned? If there should be road widening, one would have thought that those houses might have to be pulled down in some form or other. Would the Minister be kind enough to explain?”
“Sir, Government has increased the parking charges again and again on the slightest excuse and car owners of HDB estates have complained very much about the charges raised by Government. Has Government any intention to reduce some of the charges? If so, it might as well inform the House right now. Another thing which I want to raise is that the Annual Report of the Housing and Development Board the financial statement of 1988-89 shows that the revenue of parking charges comes to more than $100 million a year. But I also see that the total expenditure is $108 million, making a deficit for the car parks activity section. What I would like to know, Sir, is what sort of interest has been paid; and to whom. What loans have been given to the Car Park Division, earmarked for the Car Park Division, and by whom? What sort of depreciation can there be? Can car parks depreciate? And what are "other expenses" that are there? Other expenses come to $9-odd million. No details are given. I wonder whether the Minister will be able to enlighten the House on all this. As we know, statistics can lie. According to some Members in the House, certain people keep three sets of books. I do not know whether the HDB also adopts the same system. We should be informed as to how the car parks have incurred a loss, according to the books. But as far as we know, it has made a lot of money.”
“To say that there is irreparable damage done is untrue. As for Switzerland taking only 19 weeks for national service and Germany 15 months, as I have pointed out, our situation is completely different. The Swiss work on a territorial defence system, surrounded by Western Europe. We are in Southeast Asia, at peace and friendly with our neighbours in ASEAN but in an altogether more turbulent part of the world. Vietnam is peaceful, says Mr Chiam. Has he been reading the news in Cambodia? Who are the soldiers who are fighting the non-communist resistance and the Khmer Rouge and, from time to time, scoring victories over them? Are they the PRK? Are they Vietnamese soldiers in PRK uniform? Or are they Vietnamese soldiers secretly in Cambodia? Does he know? Has he heard? Is he in a position to say that peace has broken up? The simple counter argument is this: If all this were true and indeed the millennium is at hand, why is no other ASEAN Government in the region disarming, demobilising and distributing a peace dividend? How is that? The Thais are buying F16s. The Indonesians have bought F16s. The Malaysians are talking about Tornadoes, which are more sophisticated aeroplanes costing twice as much a piece than F16s. How is it they, who presumably are not subject to the same illogical biases of a PAP Government, have not decided to save their money?”
“I will speak very little, anyway, because it has already been touched on by many other speakers before me. As everybody knows, national service interrupts the studies of our students. It could also deter our young men from getting married early and having children early. I mentioned that the last time and I do not need repeat on it again. But if we could only cut down our national service period, it would, as somebody has already said, contribute positively to helping our economy and our students to progress more quickly in their studies. That would be a great relief to the parents of the students. That will also help cut down the heavy defence expenditure which we are all so very much against. There are also people who object --- The Chairman: Dr Lee, I think we have only two minutes left. Perhaps you will allow the Minister to give a quick reply. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, the points raised by Mr Chiam and Dr Lee are not new. In fact, they were specifically answered in the previous sitting of Parliament in response to Oral Questions from the two of them, and I suggest they refer back to the answers. If I may deal with the individual arguments raised. There is no evidence at all that national service disrupts the studies of young men. In fact, the two-year break during national service gives them a chance to grow up and mature and take on additional responsibilities, so that by the time they do go to university, aged 21-odd years, they are more ready to receive what the university has to offer. We have done studies, and found that nobody has dropped out from his studies because of his national service. The university assures us repeatedly that they are very happy that the men go in a little bit older. It gives them a definite edge.”
“Sir, do that. And if it should be proven necessary that we have to spend so much money on defence, maybe that will get Government wider support. May I also touch on national service a little? It is just next door.”
“So why should we keep on spending so much money on our security when spending much less would suffice? What is more important, as recent incidents have shown, is that our heavy expenditure on defence could also cause misunderstandings with our neighbours. And constant boast of our high technology, sophisticated weaponry, especially emphasized in advertisements for which we have to pay so much money, and about our military preparedness, could get us into trouble with our neighbours. Instead of peace and friendship we could have unnecessary anxiety and tension. Sir, we must put our priorities right. I mentioned that in my main speech on the budget. At the present moment, I feel that the Government is not putting its priorities right. If there should be any doubts as to how much we should spend on defence, why don't we have a commission to investigate into our military defence expenditure instead of just leaving it to just a couple of Ministers and their own backroom boys?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, much of what I have wanted to say has already been said by other Members and I do not want to repeat. What I want to say is that we have been spending huge chunks of our budget on things which are not really necessary. Take for instance the weapons that we have to buy. The Minister was referring to AMX-13 tanks. These have to be refurbished. But how often or how many times can they be refurbished? Ultimately, you have to have new ones and that means more money. Similarly, with the Tiger-2s and Skyhawks. Now we already have F-16s. In future, I do not know what we are going to have. You keep on buying new weapons all the time and there is going to be no end. Similarly, with the missiles. We need modern missiles and all that yes. But we have to keep spending on these weapons, and all the time our money is taken away. The point I want to stress is this. Modern equipment and weapons are modern only today. They become obsolescent tomorrow and will be totally obsolete day after tomorrow. So what is the point of buying so many of all those things? Government encourages us to be productive. But what sort of Government productivity do we get? How productive is firing a cannon into the air? $1,500 for every cannon shot, all up in smoke. Sir, if we should spend less on defence, we could spend so much more on education, on health, on community development. And are we anticipating any way or any form of friction with other countries that might lead to war? We have friends all around us. Government always claims to be very friendly with all our neighbours. Now, we have friends even in Myanmar. So what is there to be worried about? We have the Seventh Fleet. We have US planes in our own airports here. Everything is good, we are well protected.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I saw in the newspapers recently that Lt-General Winston Choo has gone to visit Myanmar. I am just wondering whether any joint operation will be carried out also with the soldiers in Myanmar or are we getting our NS soldiers to undergo training in Myanmar. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, we have no plans, either to carry out any joint operations with Myanmar, or to train our soldiers there. May I add, Sir, that when we look at defence relations, we should bear in mind that our defence relations with our neighbours are derivative, and not primary. They are determined by the state of our overall bilateral relations. They do not by themselves determine our bilateral relations with neighbours, although of course they add something to it. When bilateral relations are good, naturally defence relations also prosper. But when from time to time, overall relations run into problems for other reasons, which inevitably happens, then defence relations too naturally will become more distant, although they should still be correct. Provided in the longer run overall relations recover, which is in the rational interest of both sides, then defence relations will in due course pick up again.”
“Sir, can I seek some clarification before he goes to the next subject?”
“Let the Government show that support in a referendum. Let Government show it.”
“Sir, even if denial of the two-thirds of seats to the PAP was campaigned for by one of the Opposition parties, it does not mean that everyone in the Opposition had campaigned for the same thing. I wish that the Government Ministers do not become infected with the same kiasu syndrome that they themselves have advised other people against. Therefore, if the Government really has confidence of the support of the people, after all it had 60% of popular votes, go ahead! Take courage! Let the people see how good our Government is! And if more people should support the Government on the issue in a referendum, I certainly would acknowledge that the Government has that support. Otherwise, the Government cannot claim that it has got the support.”
“PAP leaders should not be afraid since they are so confident that the people will support them. They have stressed so very much on the need for consensus. Let them test this consensus, and we will see how many people really support the Government on this issue. If the Government should hold a referendum, well, the Government need have no fear. Even if it should lose the referendum, it still would not fall. It will still continue to be the Government. That is the whole idea of a referendum for many people. The Government is safe.”
“Sir, the PAP has always tried to use different arguments to suit the occasion. At one time when it suited them they said elections. At another time, when it suited them they said referendum. As he already been said on another occasion, a referendum is carried out to determine whether or not the people really support any single issue. In an election there are a multitude of issues. I said the elected President issue was one of the hotly debated issues in the last election but not the only issue. Therefore, the First Deputy Prime Minister should not seize on the PAP's election victory to get away from the need to hold a referendum. In other countries, Sir, whenever there are important constitutional issues, a referendum is always being held - in Switzerland, in Australia, everywhere in fact, to decide on the single issue. But in an election, so many issues are brought in. If somebody is corrupt, there you are, that could influence the result of an election. If other issues crop in, like the town council, people can be divided as to how they should vote. Therefore, the First Deputy Prime Minister should be specific. The Presidential issue is a very important issue. If the Government has confidence of support, it should not fear to hold a referendum. Hold it and see whether or not the people support the Government. The PAP had only 60% of the popular votes. But, because of the manner the electoral districts have been arranged, it managed to gain 80 of the 81 seats. But that does not mean to say the PAP has the support of the majority of the people. I just want to stress that it has to hold a referendum before the Government can claim that it has the support of the people on the elected President issue.”
“We therefore joined issues in the last election on the elected President. We, on the one hand, were seeking the people's mandate for the proposal. The Opposition parties, on the other hand, combined to try and deny the PAP a two-thirds majority in the House so that we would not be able to proceed. We won all but one seat. Is there a need for a referendum? I think the answer is quite clear.”
“If the civil service's integrity is not protected, ways can be found by a profligate government to quietly raid the reserves and deplete the reserves which belong to the people, both in the Treasury as well as the CPF reserves. Both Dr Lee Siew-Choh and Mr Chiam asked: when would elections be held? They would like to know the time frame of the plan that we have. But, first, let me say that the question of the elected President was in fact part of the President's Address. Please refer to the President's Address and you will discover that this item is part of the agenda which we intend to fulfil in this session of Parliament. The question is timing. When do we intend to introduce legislation? We have taken some time to clear the more important matters of Government and, after this budget, we do intend to table before this House legislation on the elected President. It will be done before the end of this year. The Bill will be debated in Parliament and we intend to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. Thereafter, whether we have an election or not, I think it is purely one which we will decide nearer the time. Hence, the provision for a possible election in the coming year. Mr Chiam argues that the matter should be put before the people in a referendum. I do not believe in boiling an egg twice. It was an election issue. To quote Dr Lee Siew-Choh, "the most hotly debated issue in the last election." We went out to the people to tell them that we intended to implement this proposal after the election and we were seeking the people's mandate for us to proceed. Both Dr Lee and Mr Chiam and other Opposition parties combined to campaign against the issue and they combined to deny the PAP two-thirds of the seats in Parliament.”
“Would the First Deputy Prime Minister enlighten the House and answer the points both Mr Chiam and I have raised? The First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Sir, Mr Chiam has made a number of inaccurate statements. So first let me put him right. He said that we promised to have the President elected before 30th December. I do not remember that we had made such a promise. I assume he meant 30th December, 1988. Secondly, he alleged that the elected President was an election ploy. It was not an election ploy at all. We believe that this issue was of a fundamental nature and we therefore decided that it should be put before the people so that we clearly could have the mandate to proceed with the implementation after the elections. Mr Chiam seems to have forgotten that it was he who in fact asked that the matter be put before the people at the 1988 elections. He held a rally at the Ang Mo Kio Sports Complex sometime in August 1988. He specifically said that the elected Presi- dent should be made an issue at the coming polls. That was exactly what the PAP did. In case Mr Chiam has forgotten what he said on 7th August, 1988, he should refer to the Sunday Times, a copy of which is in my hand. The issue of an elected President is a very important issue and for that reason we have taken our time for people to understand the importance of this issue so that when we come to a debate on the legislation, the people are prepared for it. Briefly, to recapitulate, there are two objectives in the proposal. The first objective is to protect the national reserves, including those which members have in the CPF. The second objective, which is part of the first objective, is to ensure that the integrity of the civil service is protected.”
“Has the time-table been pushed forward suddenly and a Presidential election will soon be held this year? Until today, Sir, the people have not been informed what Government plans really are, nor how Government intends to carry out these plans. Important issues like the elected President should not be sprung as a surprise on the people. To elect an elected President, amendments have to be made to the Constitution, as has already been stressed by Mr Chiam. Are there going to be amendments to the Constitution soon? Do we have enough time to discuss the matter before the Government pushes ahead with the plan? Another thing that comes to mind is that the present President of Singapore, Mr Wee Kim Wee, was elected to office only one year ago. Does this mean that he is to be retired soon? Only after one year? What is the hurry? Whatever it may be, the Constitution has first to be amended. How is that to be done? Merely by means of a simple parliamentary majority? There was a big controversy over the issue. The PAP, let us not forget, had only 60% of popular votes in the last election. Nearly 40% of popular votes had opposed the PAP. Therefore, as already stressed by Mr Chiam, should we not first hold a referendum on the issue? The First Deputy Prime Minister has said that he will hold a referendum to find out whether or not the people want an elected President as envisaged in the White Paper. Is the provision of $1.65 million meant for holding a referendum? Would the First Deputy Prime Minister please explain? We certainly cannot hold an election before the Constitution is amended and before a referendum is held on the issue. If elections are held first, that would be putting the cart before the horse. First things must come first.”
“Sir, I endorse what Mr Chiam has just said. The issue of the elected President was easily the most hotly debated issue in the 1988 general election. There was even a special TV forum with Government Ministers and Opposition party representatives taking part. Sir, I believe that, with hardly any exception, all of us agree that our national financial assets and the integrity of the public service should be safeguarded. But there are many features in the proposal in the White Paper on the elected President which are most undesirable and completely unacceptable to many, many people. Of course, it was widely interpreted that the post of the elected President has been specially created for our Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, so that he could happily resign from his post as Prime Minister and still control events in Singapore. Our Prime Minister has said on many occasions, that he would soon step down to allow a new generation of PAP leaders to take charge of government in Singapore. But, unfortunately, for PAP's plans, the elected President issue has come into very strong widespread opposition. Thus, the implementation of the scheme has to be put aside for a while. Since the 1988 elections, no mention has been made of the issue of the elected President. Now we suddenly see that provision has been made in the 1990 budget for a possible Presidential election this year. Is it because the Prime Minister has confirmed that he will step down as Prime Minister this year? But he has also publicly said that he will not be the first elected President. So what are the plans ahead? Is the proposed post of the Senior Minister in the Cabinet merely a temporary stop gap? Otherwise, why the provision for a "possible Presidential election" in the budget?”
“If we continue to raise expenditure on the wrong things and neglect to spend appropriate funds to carry out policies that serve the people well, we will all be losers in the end. No wonder thousands of our best brains leave Singapore for other countries every year. One of the main reasons why people emigrate is that they can no longer tolerate the policies pursued by our insensitive and uncaring Government. Let me summarise, Sir. The budget proposes more give-aways to big business. It has also proposed a few goodies to the people but these have not really helped those most in need of Government's assistance. At the same time, Government has continued tax policies that shift tax burdens more onto the shoulders of the poor, low and middle-income groups. It has thus widened the gap between the rich and the poor. The budget has all its priorities wrong, and it is certainly not a fair budget for the vast majority of the people of Singapore. I hope the Minister will reply to the points I have raised. 3.25 pm”
“At one time, the PAP had claimed that it was playing the role of Robin Hood in taking from the rich to subsidise the poor in low-cost housing. We can see from the servicing of our public debt alone that the PAP is no Robin Hood at all. In fact, it is the very opposite, a Robin Hood in reverse. It takes taxes from the people in order to pay vast sums of interest to the rich and super-rich, including foreigners. The budget provides for more loans to be raised this year. Do we really need to raise loans and more new loans when we have such huge surpluses and such huge foreign reserves? And what about defence? The provision for defence amounts to $3.2 billion, another huge chunk of our budget. And if we add also the Development Estimates, the amount adds up to $3.5 billion, more than one and a half times the amount budgeted for education, nearly six times the amount budgeted for health and 15 times the amount budgeted for community development. Sir, we have been told that we should increase productivity. Then do we really need to spend so much on something which is totally unproductive? When the whole world is cutting back on defence expenditure, and the US has said that its reduction in forces in Asia will not affect security in any way, do we need to increase our expenditure on defence by 19% over the 1989 expenditure, and thus take away funds which could be better spent on education, health and community development for the betterment of our people? Sir, we need to be realistic in our assessment of the political and military situation in and around South East Asia. We need to put our priorities right. We do not need to spend billions of dollars on defence in order to safeguard the security of Singa- pore when a much smaller sum would suffice.”
“And how are our taxes to be used? Revenue collected by Government should be channelled to meet the needs of all the people in the country, not just for the benefit of the privileged and those already sitting pretty at the top. Thus adequate funds either in the form of grants or subventions should be made available to ensure equal opportunities for education for our children to develop to the best of their potential all the way to the top. Similarly, more funds should be made available to ensure good, affordable medical care for the people and especially for the aged, and to generally improve the quality of life for all Singaporeans. But it would appear that in all these aspects the Government has not shouldered its rightful responsibilities to the people. Let us see how Government proposes to spend some of our revenue in 1990. The biggest expenditure is reserved for the servicing of public debt. In 1989, the amount was more than $5 billion. In 1990, the amount will be increased to more than $6 billion. Interest payments alone will come to $1.8 billion, enough to build, I do not know, how many schools, Sir. Who are those who benefit from receipt of such huge amounts of interest? They are those who can afford to buy Government bonds and Treasury Bills. They are not the low, middle, or even the moderately high income groups, but the finan- cial institutions and the very rich. Who are those who contribute towards payment of the interest on these Government bonds and Treasury bills? The people of Singapore, the common man-in-the-street. This is one of the most unfair and inequitable ways in which the budget has been used to redistribute wealth in Singapore, from the comparatively poor to the rich.”
“Therefore, such consumption taxes should not be imposed. It is a tax that is most unfair and inequitable for the low and middle income groups, more than 70% of our population. Sir, further unfairness in the PAP's scheme of taxation is the fact that, despite widespread appeal from the people of all walks of life, the Government has still turned a deaf ear to the call for an increase in personal income tax relief. In 1959, before the PAP came to power, personal relief was $3,000 for a taxpayer and $2,000 for the spouse, ie, $5,000 for a married couple. But very quickly in 1960, the PAP reduced personal relief to $2,000 for a taxpayer and $1,000 for the spouse, ie, $3,000 for a couple. This reduced personal tax relief from $5,000 to $3,000 per couple has remained unchanged for 30 years. As the Minister himself well knows, school fees, bus fares, radio and TV licences, housing, PUB bills, hospital fees and charges, other fees and levies, household expenditures have all gone up. Yet, the personal tax relief remains the same, and the low-income groups are made to pay income tax when they should have been exempted. I am sure the Minister cannot honestly maintain that making those with low incomes pay income tax is fair and equitable. In the circumstances, the only decent thing for the Minister to do is to raise the personal tax reliefs immediately from $3,000 per couple to $5,000 per couple, to begin with, ie, to the pre-PAP 1959 level. In Malaysia, the personal income tax relief per couple is $7,000. Why cannot our personal reliefs be harmonised? After all, taxes should be paid by those best able to pay them, not by those who can hardly make ends meet. With such miserly personal reliefs, the income tax rates clearly are most unfair and inequitable.”
“Add a few years for national service and studies for a higher degree - FRCS, MRCP, whatever - he would be well over 30 years old, well past the 28-year target for the incentive before he can decide to get married. Similarly, a dental surgeon or an architect will be nearing 30 years old when he enters the professional market, so to speak. How then will such graduate professionals benefit from the present procreation incentives? Has the Minister done his homework well enough? The relief for foreign maid levy extended to divorced women and widows with children is also welcome. Government should realise that any levy on foreign maids means unnecessary hardships for working mothers who need domestic help and yet may not be able to afford extra levies. After all, no household would incur extra expenses to engage foreign maids unless absolutely necessary. Moreover, such a levy somewhat runs counter to the policy to promote procreation and early establishment of a family for young working couples. Government should therefore do away with levies on foreign maids for working mothers altogether. As against all these concessions, there is, however, the promised future imposition of consumption tax. The Minister has said that legislation on a comprehensive goods and services tax will be introduced this year. As is well known, consumption tax is a regressive tax. The tax burden is heavier for the low-income groups and it is certainly inflationary. It can also adversely affect the retail trade as well as tourism. Of course, we already have various indirect taxes which are in fact all consumption taxes. The PAP merely wants to further increase the category of taxes. This can only mean an increase of the tax burden for those with low incomes.”
“Should not Government give more generous tax reliefs to them? Procreation incentives. Special tax rebates to encourage families to have their second child earlier is to be welcomed, especially when the new rebate, together with existing rebates for the third and fourth child, will be allowed to be claimed over an extended period of 21 years. I must congratulate the ingenuity of those who have thought of such a proposal, and I believe a good number of families will certainly be influenced to have their families earlier. An estimated 10,500 women will benefit, according to the Business Times. It is unfortunate, however, that this proposal, like the existing third and fourth child rebates, is aimed mainly at the higher-educated and better-off parents. It is therefore somewhat unfair and discriminatory to other women who are not so qualified. Therefore, to be fair and equitable, in addition to the present scheme of tax rebates, let Government also give less well-off families outright grants of, say, $3,000 to $5,000 for each child who is born. In this way, Sir, all will benefit and none will be left out. That would certainly help correct the present population decline, and put right the disastrous consequences of the many years of the erroneous population policy of the past. Yet another point which should not be forgotten is that certain categories of university graduates will not easily benefit from the new procreation incentive unless they get married while they are still undergraduates. In the medical discipline, for example, assuming that the student enters the university at age 19, he will be at least 25 years old before he passes out as a full-fledged doctor.”
“For instance, a taxpayer who pays an income tax of $100 will get a rebate of $5 (not even enough for a plate of mee), whereas a taxpayer who pays an income tax of $10,000 will get a rebate of $500. And of course a taxpayer who pays an income tax of $50,000 will get a rebate of $2,500. How is that fair and equitable? The Minister will have to answer us. Let us consider some of the Government's concessions in the Budget. Tax reliefs for aged parents and handicapped dependants, increased from $2,500 to $3,500, are certainly welcome. However, this also exposes the double standards employed by Government in its dealings towards the rich and towards the low-income groups. In rationalising give-aways in tax rebates and rate reductions to big business, the Minister says that Government should not be miserly. But does he show any charity when it comes to giving urgently needed relief to those who have financial difficulties in looking after aged parents and handicapped dependants? The Minister allows, rather grudgingly I think, only $1,000 extra this year. Calling this "miserliness" on the part of the Minister would be charitable and euphemistic. Some people would say that the Minister is insensitive and uncaring. As is well-known, looking after the aged and handicapped dependants these days would each require a minimum of $600 to $800 a month. This works out to a total of $7,000 to $10,000 a year. The number of taxpayers looking after the aged and the dependants is not very large. Therefore, total expenditure in this instance is very small compared to the millions and billions of dollars given away to big business. Millions of dollars have also been unnecessarily spent on all sorts of PAP celebrations. Need Government be so uncaring towards those in need?”
“In our city-state in which poverty still exists in the midst of plenty, and confirmed by the PAP itself in the 1990 Party Convention recently, one would have thought that the Government might still remember its early PAP party aims and promises, have some considerations for the poor, the low and middle income groups, and perhaps help relieve some of their tax burdens, sufferings and hardships. Government statistics have shown that the cost of living has gone up, that daily necessities are more expensive, that the dollar can buy less and less, and that many families have found it more and more difficult to make ends meet. We do not expect the PAP to emulate President Suharto and similarly issue a call to tycoons: "Share your wealth". But does the Budget make provisions to help the poor? In this 25th year of the PAP rule? Let us see what the 1990 Budget brings to the people of Singapore. Government asserts that "our existing personal income tax rates remain fair and equitable". Are they really fair and equitable? For whom? The Minister proposes "to give an across-the-board once-off rebate of 5% personal income tax for Year of Assessment 1990". "The estimated revenue loss is $60 million", he adds, in order to show how magnanimous the PAP is. Of course, this could create the impression that everyone of our taxpayers will get a real bonus. But who are those who will benefit from this largesse of $60 million? As is well known, Sir, across-the-board rebates benefit only those who have high incomes and naturally pay higher income taxes. It benefits the lower and the middle income groups very little.”
“And we want to know how Government uses the budget to redistribute income and wealth among the people. In the Budget, Government has announced a string of goodies to benefit the corporations - income tax cuts, stamp duty exemptions, concessionary tax cuts and incentives for offshore transactions, and a further extension of post-pioneer tax-free status from five to 10 years. From this, it would seem that Government is fearful that MNCs do not make enough profits, and is anxious to ensure that they make more and still more super-profits year after year. Many have said that the PAP Government is a government of MNCs and for MNCs. What of our small and medium enterprises? Don't they also benefit? Yes, Sir. A good number of SMEs do benefit. But they benefit only marginally. And some SMEs hardly benefit at all. The PAP believes in pampering the MNCs, not the local entrepreneurs. And what of the people of Singapore, 70% of whom earn less than $1,000 per month? Have they also benefited? Yes, in a way. They do not have to bear new taxes this time, which is a consolation. But only until the next round of PAP's inter-budgetary taxes. To the people, the PAP means pay-and-pay, and we have been paying and paying all the time. Nevertheless, we have had three good years with billions of dollars in surpluses each year, and we have also billions of dollars in foreign reserves. And our Ministers and top civil servants have given themselves huge salary increases, making them the highest paid Ministers and top civil servants in the world.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Straits Times has called the Budget a "Celebration Budget". Its editorial on 5th March describes it as "all honey and no sting". The International Chamber of Commerce, the Singapore Manufacturers Association and the Indian Chamber of Commerce have all acclaimed it in different fashions. And PAP Backbenchers, not to be outdone, have also labelled the Budget as "painless", "happy", "no minuses, all pluses", and so on. Of course, business and especially big business corporations have good reasons to be happy. They have benefited immensely from Government give-aways. As disclosed by the Minister for Finance, over the years, Government has channelled to business and especially big business since 1980, through tax rebates and rate reductions, more than $1 billion a year. In the 1990 Budget, MNCs will again benefit by another $100 million, maybe very much more. To avoid unfavourable public reactions, the PAP has regularly imposed taxes, not during presentation of the yearly budgets, but in the months between budgets. These taxes are imposed by decree, and without even a parliamentary debate. All of us will remember, Sir, the sudden hefty increases in diesel taxes, in parking fees, in levies on foreign workers and foreign maids, in taxes on motor vehicles, including motor import duties, road taxes and additional registration fees, in additional hospital fees and charges, and in other fees and charges on goods and services by Government departments over the last few years. All these are not painless but painful taxes. They are not honey but stings, and they have given the people in Singapore no cheer and no cause for celebration whatsoever. To appraise a budget, Sir, we need to see further than taxes. We need to see how revenue is spent.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head S be reduced by $10 in respect of Code 2000. Sir, as in the question I asked previously, I would like to know the details, for example, what rate has been paid, to whom and why they have been paid?”
“Sir, in view of the explanation, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $889,300 for Head E ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Main Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April 1989 to 31st March 1990. The sums stated for Heads I, P and Q as they appear in the schedule on page 3 of Paper Cmd. 4 of 1990 ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Main Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April 1989 to 31st March 1990. Head S -”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head E be reduced by $10 in respect of Code 2000. This is merely to seek information from the Minister as to what the details are. I would like the Minister to enlighten the House as to what the "higher than anticipated expenditure on legal fees" are and I would like the Minister to elaborate on all of them.”
“Yes, Sir, I am coming to it now. Therefore, if it is going to be a matter of tendering, let the tenders be put in. But in order to be fair to all, why not ballot the tenders? Everybody will realise then that he has an even chance. Otherwise, only those who are better off will have the advantage. That won't be fair at all, Sir.”
“To be fair, why not fix the sum for the quota premium, instead of allowing people to bid for it? Because if you bid for it, you will bid it on the basis of price. Last time, during the debate, I suggested a quota on the bases of need, but no answer was given to that suggestion, whatsoever. Even today he has not mentioned it at all. Therefore, if --- Mr Speaker: Dr Lee, do you have any more questions?”