Leong Chee Whye
Singapore
“To me, the emphasis must be on an extensive public education programme, to be mounted when the tax is implemented as otherwise what will arise will be the perception that this is another attempt by the Government to deliberately impose a tax on an item of daily necessity.”
“It should be a channel where the public could give feedback on bureaucratic processes or red tapes practised by various Government departments. And to be entirely objective, I think this Unit should be led by a supervisory panel consisting of Members of Parliament. Its role, however, must be distinguished from that of the Feedback Unit.”
“And I offer an example for your consideration: "Singapore as a people will put Nation before community and society above self. The family will be the building block of our society. We will respect and care for our fellow citizen, his work and his community.”
“In the past, as a civil servant, I tried my best too to understand and to work closer with private enterprises and citizens in order to further their interests. But there was always a gap that existed between us. Today, I believe I know why the gap exists. It is as if a rock wants to come closer to an egg.”
The complete record
Every one of 21 lines we hold for Leong Chee Whye, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account.
“To me, the emphasis must be on an extensive public education programme, to be mounted when the tax is implemented as otherwise what will arise will be the perception that this is another attempt by the Government to deliberately impose a tax on an item of daily necessity.”
“Sir, I must admit that I am aware of its rationale, but would like to appeal to the Minister to remind his officers to be careful in selecting the range of goods and services to be taxed. I make this appeal bearing in mind that what are deemed as necessities vary from year to year in a society of rising expectations like ours. In this connection, Sir, may I know whether the Ministry of Finance is prepared to withhold the implementation of this tax for so long as the Government enjoys a surplus budget or whether there is a time frame already set for its introduction? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I applaud the move to grant tax deduction for parents contributing to an Edusave account for their fourth child with effect from FY 1993. However, I feel further consideration should be given to extend the tax deduction beyond the fourth child since the contributors to the Edusave account will be the parents themselves. Lastly, Sir, I would like to touch on the water conservation tax for households consuming more than 20 cubic metres of water monthly. What matters to me here, is the impact this will have on the lower income section of our population. Although the House has been informed that about 60% of households are not affected, perhaps the Minister could enlighten us on the profile of the 40% of households whose consumption exceeds 20 cubic metres monthly. Since this tax will come into effect from 1st April 1991, I would like to know what steps the PUB will be taking to counsel or educate the excessive water users.”
“Despite the tragedy of the Gulf War that had preoccupied the world over the past two months and other uncertainties, it is a welcome relief for us to be presented with a healthy report card by the Minister for Finance on the state of our economy. It reflects once again the flexibility and adaptability of our Government's financial policy, aimed at maximising opportunities for economic growth. This will enable us to safeguard the standard of living thus far enjoyed by Singaporeans. 3.25 pm [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Boon Heng) in the Chair] Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in the Budget Statement, what is most gladdening to the general public is the 5% rebate on personal income tax. This is consistent with our exhortation over the past several years to every Singaporean worker to work harder and smarter and to increase productivity. In this regard, I would like to know whether our workers can look forward to yearly rebates as an incentive in recognition of their efforts subject, of course, to the constraints of our economy. Next, Sir, I would like to move on to the proposed Goods and Services Tax (GST). Whilst we await the details of the draft legislation to be announced, reaction from the public is still one of anxiety about its implications. Granted that this issue is not new and has been thoroughly debated way back in 1986, the concern is that this tax will hurt further the pockets of the ordinary citizens, in the light of a number of recent increases, such as the upward revision in public transportation rates. One may ask whether there is still a need to introduce the consumption tax as a revenue item when the Government has been enjoying a surplus budget since FY 1987 and this trend is expected to continue for FY 1991 and perhaps for many more years to come.”
“However, Sir, case-by-case approvals involve very lengthy deliberations which can go on for months and require a large amount of paperwork. This puts the smaller and medium-sized Singapore companies at a disadvantage. Furthermore, the absence of clear published criteria for section 13(7) approvals also dissuades Singapore companies from applying for such arrangements. The irony of all this is that in any case, the Singapore company can in fact proceed to invest outside of Singapore and not be taxed by Singapore at all, provided the money is not brought back to Singapore. Thus, what this means is that given our present tax regime, whenever we call on Singapore companies to invest overseas for all practical purposes, we are telling them to keep their money outside and not bring it back home. I am sure this is a situation that we need to address. I feel strongly, Sir, that we can broaden the provisions of section 13(7) and the OHQ reliefs by moving it away from a case-by-case treatment to something that is more generally available. If Singapore companies can be certain of a favourable tax environment at home, they will be more willing to venture abroad and, more importantly, bring their wealth back when they have earned it. Mr Speaker, Sir, we can leave it to the ingenuity of company tax consultants and tax administrators to work out provisions which are acceptable, and which have safeguards for tax leakages. If we wish to help local businesses internationalise, we must take this large step forward to change our tax regime instead of making incremental small adjustments. Encik Zulkifli bin Mohammed (Eunos GRC)( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion in the name of the Minister for Finance.”
“In treaties where, for example, the underlying corporate tax is excluded from tax relief, part of the income from such treaty partners will still be subject to double taxation if it is to be distributed as dividend. We need, therefore, Sir, a more comprehensive solution to this problem. I request that the Minister consider a form of unilateral tax credit relief to be accorded on foreign income from all origins provided there is foreign tax paid equal to or greater than Singapore's tax structure. The foreign income net or foreign tax should be allowed as tax-exempt dividend. Then there are countries which offer tax rates lower than Singapore's corporate rate, particularly for specific and desirable activities. If income is brought back from such countries, Singapore would now raise the effective tax on this income up to 31%, or it will impose double taxation if there is no tax treaty. We need to re-examine this treatment if we want more overseas investments. Overseas investments involve a high level of business risk because it takes place in a culturally different environment, with political conditions that are far less familiar to Singapore investors. Except for tax haven situations, Singapore companies should be allowed to take advantage of lower tax structures elsewhere to tap and invest in their markets. Since such projects or investments do not make use of Singapore's domestic markets or our infrastructure, there is good reason for Singapore not to tax such foreign income. It could, however, be argued that these principles are already embodied in section 13(7) of the Income Tax Act as well as in the Overseas Headquarters (OHQ) incentive relief which grants preferential tax or tax-free treatment for foreign income on a case-by-case basis.”
“The relative unit labour cost index which measures our competitiveness has also declined against other newly industrialised economies. These are all factors which we should take into account. For the short term, we need to urge the Government not to bring on additional costs to wages this year and plead with unions for a moderate wage adjustment. But most important of all, we must look towards more flexible immigration policies so that we could ease the tightening labour market. A more liberal interpretation of the educational requirements for foreign workers and flexible approval for recruitment from non-traditional sources will go a long way to relieve the problem even if the quota ceilings for foreign labour are to remain. In the longer term, I urge the Government to reconsider and implement more liberal manpower policies which are necessary to maintain a non-inflationary long-term growth necessary for bringing us into the next lap. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I now turn to a second issue. To encourage Singapore companies to invest overseas and repatriate their profits, the Minister for Finance has proposed to exempt from tax, dividends paid out of foreign income for which there is insufficient franking credit due. This proposal, Sir, will partially remove a disincentive but it is incomplete because it applies primarily to tax treaty countries. This proposal, for example, will not include income from United States, or from, say, Burma, which are non-treaty countries in so far as Singapore is concerned. Secondly, some of our tax treaties do not allow all foreign tax payments to rank for foreign tax credit relief.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Finance. The Minister has presented a well-prepared budget that lays the foundations for tomorrow, with its emphasis on education, infrastructure development and improvements to our quality of life. I would like to offer some comments for the Minister's consideration. But before I do so, please allow me to declare my interest as a businessman and as a Cor- porate Manager because naturally business will benefit if the Minister lends us a sympathetic ear. There have been sentiments expressed against the 1% increase in CPF contributions by employers. The effect of this increase, I feel, will be washed away in the larger annual wage adjustment and we should not allow it to divert our attention from the greater underlying issue. My colleagues, speaking ahead of me, have addressed their concern about the rising wage cost in this tight labour market. My union colleagues have also had their say. Let me join in to point out that we should in fact not discuss this as a labour-employer issue. Rather the basic question is whether our small but rapidly expanding economy can afford to maintain a restrictive manpower supply policy. An important indicator, Sir, is the share of wages in nominal GDP that has risen from 42% in 1989 to 44% in 1990. You may say what is the significance of this. This development brings us uncomfortably close to the 48% share of the wage of GDP which burdened the economy in 1985, just before we plunged into recession. The question is whether we should read the current developments as a danger signal. There are other signs as well, Sir, that show that we have to be prudent in our labour market policies.”
“It should be a channel where the public could give feedback on bureaucratic processes or red tapes practised by various Government departments. And to be entirely objective, I think this Unit should be led by a supervisory panel consisting of Members of Parliament. Its role, however, must be distinguished from that of the Feedback Unit. Whilst the Feedback Unit concentrates on gathering feedback on the substance of Government policies, this Service Quality Improvement Unit should be concerned with getting feedback on the form or the implementation of these policies. In conclusion, Sir, the Government has done its part for the country. The necessary infrastructure has been laid and it will continue to be strengthened in the years ahead. It is now up to Singaporeans to come forward to play a more active role in the nation building process. Achieving Success for Singapore must be the collective efforts of everyone - all Singaporeans. Let us therefore work together to build, to expand and to upgrade Singapore in the next lap.”
“We have reached a stage of our development where we need to take stock of the outcome of these measures, review them and make them relevant in the 1990s. We have to be bold to introduce new measures. In particular, we may have to review our laws to allow existing workers to work longer overtime hours if they choose to, increase retirement age, even review our policy of discouraging civil servants, especially those in Divisions 3 and 4, to take on part-time jobs during the weekends. Allow them to work over the weekend in, say, the retail industry which is badly in need of workers. Sir, I believe the setting up of a Singapore International Foundation is most timely. It comes at a time of our economic development where we need to build up a positive image of Singapore internationally. It comes at a time when more Singaporeans are going abroad to work as Singapore companies spread their wings overseas. This Foundation will enable a network of friends of Singapore to be set up and it will help nurture a Singaporean consciousness among overseas Singaporeans. What is more important, it will help train them to be ambassadors of Singapore. While I agree this Foundation should be a non-government organisation, I think it should not be left purely to the private sector. The Government should take the lead by providing the necessary guidance and the basic finance to set up this organisation. The running of the Foundation could be left to private sector initiative. Sir, I welcome the idea of setting up a Service Quality Improvement Unit under the Prime Minister's Office. In my mind, I think this is long overdue. This Unit should not just be a complaint bureau for the quality of public services.”
“This is the price we have to pay with a more consultative style of government. But, Sir, I believe the benefits of a more consultative style of government far outweigh the cost. A more mature society is more demanding today. Singaporeans want to be consulted. They want their views heard. They want their inputs in the policy formation process. We have to accommodate this desire. And by getting more Singaporeans involved in the nation-building process, they will understand better the problems and issues confronting us. Only then will they appreciate the need for policy changes and support the new laws being passed, and only then will they identify themselves more closely with the Government and ultimately the success of Singapore. We have reached a stage of our development where doing the right thing alone is not good enough. We have to do the right thing right. This we can only do if we get more and more Singaporeans involved in the nation-building process. This is a tedious process, but it has got to be done if the government of the day is to continue to enjoy the support of the majority of Singaporeans. Sir, as we move to the next phase of our economic development, we are likely to continue to experience an increasingly tight labour market situation. To me, the biggest constraint to our growth in the 1990s is not the lack of vision or planning, capital or land, it is our scarce labour resources. In recent years, various measures have been introduced to try to overcome this problem. Increasing productivity growth, the globalisation of Singapore companies, the import of talents from abroad, allowing a controlled number of foreign workers into Singapore, encouraging housewives to work, increasing our population growth, these are but some of the measures.”
“In the next lap, we need to continue to strengthen and fine-tune these factors. By and large, our society has matured. This is exemplified by the positive response of Singaporeans to the call to raise funds for the needy at our 25th Anniversary Celebrations. The overwhelming response by Singaporeans resulted in $88 million being raised, well beyond the targeted $25 million. This shows that Singaporeans do care for the less fortunate in our society. The recent Gulf war is another development that demonstrates that we have matured. Without the usual call by Ministers, Singaporeans exercise thriftiness and prudence in their spending in response to the economic uncertainty in the months ahead. All these actions augur well for us in the future. They tell us one thing. They tell us that our society has come of age. In line with this transformation to a mature society, the Government has rightly adopted a more consultative style of government. And with this move, more Singaporeans will have a chance to participate in the nation-building process and when they do that, they would identify more closely with the Government and with the success of Singapore. Sir, a more consultative style of government, however, has its cost. The pace of legislation will be slower since there is now a need to consult a wider cross-section of Singaporeans on various national issues. In the process, there will be compromise. There will be amendments to proposed Bills tabled in Parliament. At the extreme, certain Bills may even have to be withdrawn. With this more tedious process of consultation and legislation, the Government will be slow to react to problems. Solutions compromised as a result of this consultation process may not be in the long-term interest of Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is rapidly advancing towards the 21st century with a great sense of confidence. We have a first class business environment with well-developed infrastructure, global communication links and a regional environment geared for growth. Yet, while we have business enterprises who are major players on world markets, there are local Singapore companies, especially the smaller ones, which operate under difficult conditions. Our domestic market is small and our open door policies mean that companies have to meet up to the high standards of international competition. Success in some economic sectors can even bring hardship to other sectors. For instance, the competitive edge of our export enterprise today is being eroded by high wage cost and rapid increases in the strength of our Singapore dollar. For the next lap, Singapore companies need the understanding and the support of all Government departments and agencies, not just the agencies involved in business promotion. The proposed Service Quality Improvement Unit to be set up under the Prime Minister's Office is a major step forward. We recognise that Government departments and agencies have to carry out regulatory responsibilities. But even as they do so, it can be made a part of their mission to help Singapore companies adapt, survive and prosper. All of us can play a part in helping the economy grow together. Mr Chew Heng Ching (Eunos GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion moved by Mr Davinder Singh, Member for Toa Payoh GRC. We have embarked on a new chapter in our history. As we enter the 1990s, we have at the helm a new Prime Minister and a new generation of leaders. We have built up a solid foundation. The fundamental factors for success are in place.”
“Many feel branded as monolingual or extended course students. I warmly welcome the changes announced by the President and the Minister for Education. The changes proposed are courageous and farsighted and they merit our support. While we treat education as an investment in human resources for the national good, let us not forget that these resources we talk about are our children, with different paces in learning, different capabilities and eventually different roles to play in our society. Academic competence does not equate to success and we should allow sufficient flexibility in our education policies to cater to differences among children. I believe the changes proposed will improve such flexibility. Over the years, our Government has transferred an increasing share of the cost of the health care system to the population and has successfully buffered much of this impact by the Medisave scheme. However, rising health cost is becoming a matter of concern, particularly to those who have old folks in their families. People are increasingly and unpleasantly being surprised by the high cost of medical bills which are not subsidised or only partially subsidised. I note that the Ministry of Health will be paying particular attention to control increases in health care cost through productivity improvements. The blow can be further softened if we educate the public on health care cost and show patients an estimate of the cost whenever they are admitted into the hospital. Counsel them on ways to reduce their bills. Educate people about the funds that they have to set aside for health care and medication when they grow old. This would serve to warn younger people not to use their Medisave funds indiscriminately or too early.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to join Mr Davinder Singh and my parliamentary colleagues in thanking the President for his Speech. I applaud the breadth and the scope of the vision in "The Next Lap" as it was presented by the President. Singaporeans have much to look forward to in the next decade. In his Speech, the President affirmed Government's intention to widen public participation on national issues. I strongly support this aim. However, when a new Bill is proposed today, it is accompanied only by a short explanatory note. Consideration of its legislative impact is hampered by the absence of substantial data. Furthermore, as it is often an enabling instrument, the underlying issues are also unclear until the Second Reading. There is a need for more timely and useful information. One way is to release the ministerial rationale and the supporting data for each proposed Bill at its First Reading rather than the Second Reading. Availability of relevant data on the issues involved would encourage more in-depth public discussion and would provide opportunities for Parliament to offer meaningful improvements and amendments to the proposed legislation. The Presidential statement also dwells substantially on the development of human resources. Much of what is good in our education policies is often forgotten in the heated emotional discussions because these policies affect our children, our most precious assets. In the past, education was a tool of population policies. This was as unjustifiable as it was unpopular. Today, we spend one-third more national resources on our slower children to make them pass the Primary 6 level. But neither parents nor pupils are happy because they have to spend eight years in the primary school, two years more than their peers.”
“And I offer an example for your consideration: "Singapore as a people will put Nation before community and society above self. The family will be the building block of our society. We will respect and care for our fellow citizen, his work and his community. Together in consensus, we will decide our destiny, living in racial and religious harmony." ADJOURNMENT OF DEBATE Resolved, "That the debate be now adjourned." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].”
“What I am trying to say is that the need to entertain creates an inherent bias in the mass media towards individualism and towards the enhancement of self-interest. And it is against this that we have to protect ourselves. As a small island state with Asian values, I agree with the Prime Minister and those who support the preparation of a statement on Shared Values that our competitiveness and our survival is best served if we can crystallise the essence of our shared values for ourselves and for coming generations of Singaporeans. Yet I find the White Paper inadequate in providing the proper balance between individual and national interests. The public concern that we have read about and Mr Chandra Das has spoken about today regarding "consensus instead of contention" is perhaps one aspect and perhaps only the shadow of this deeper question. The corresponding statement "Regard and community support for the individual" is too weak compared to the ringing call of "Nation before community and society above self". While the explanatory notes in the White Paper say very clearly that we as a nation do respect and care for the individual, yet somehow we appear to be reluctant to put this into a bold statement. Perhaps it is because we want to avoid any implication that Singapore is to be a welfare state. But surely such a clarification can be made elsewhere and it should not hamper the development of our core statement on Shared Values. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I share the concerns and I agree with the thrust of the White Paper. But let us strive for a better statement that would reach the people's heart, a statement that will integrate all the five values instead of prioritising them and show our deep concern for the citizens. It may do a better job.”
“Singaporeans have already demonstrated that under situations of national stress and where it concerns issues of national gravity, they are more than willing to answer the call to put society above self. A good example is the willingness of trade unions and workers to adopt wage restraint in the recession years in the mid-1980s. Then what is the concern? The concern among many people is that the call to put society above self must not be over-used. This vital instrument of state must not be perceived to be an instrument used simply to achieve administrative expediency. For example, everyone of us wants clean public toilets. Yet sometimes, when burdened with the worries and cares of living, we can forget to flush. To use legislation to make such minor lapses in social behaviour an act to be condemned makes people wonder whether we have already over-extended the proper balance between individual rights and national interests. It is on this type of legislation that foreigners and emigrants judge us to be over-regulated. It is not my intention to revive an old issue, perhaps one that looks even frivolous in the light of the very weighty matters that are in front of us today. It is rather to point out that such legislations leave lingering fears and uneasiness that colour the perceptions of many citizens. Many citizens would not even see the need for a national statement on Shared Values, but I disagree. As a nation, we are increasingly exposed to the global mass media. Unfortunately, it is always more entertaining to see handsome individuals and beautiful actresses having a party than to listen to exhortations from politicians on national issues.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I urge hon Members to look carefully into the White Paper on Shared Values before deciding on the Motion. This important document calls on Singapore citizens to place "Nation before community and society above self". In return, citizens can expect regard and community support. I have no doubt that in the minds of many Singaporeans, they will be wondering: Is this a balanced statement of Shared Values? Can we persuade people to identify with and to truly commit to this set of Shared Values? One way of looking at the issue before us is to consider a nation as a group of people living together under a tacit form of social contract within a geographic boundary. In coming together, they agree, tacitly, to give up some of their individual freedom and curb their behaviour in exchange for the benefits and protection in that society - the protection of the legal system and the benefits of the social order. Some societies emphasise the preservation of individual freedom, and we know what these societies are. Sometimes they exercise this to the point of gross excess with laws that appear to favour criminals rather than victims of their crimes. Carried to the extreme, we have a state of anarchy. On the other hand, there are societies that make the individual extremely subservient to the state, to the point that military force can be used to obtain political obedience. It is clear that we do not want to be at either extremes. The question is: Where is the balance? The Deputy Prime Minister, BG Lee, has discussed and explored this question before me. But does the White Paper give us the right answer?”
“In the past, as a civil servant, I tried my best too to understand and to work closer with private enterprises and citizens in order to further their interests. But there was always a gap that existed between us. Today, I believe I know why the gap exists. It is as if a rock wants to come closer to an egg. Can a rock truly understand the fragility of an egg? Sir, we already have today one of the world's best operating environments for business. If we are to progress we may need a rethinking of the fundamentals to carry us to new heights. In the words of George Shaheen, world-wide managing partner of Andersen Consulting: "Breaking down walls ... reshape the very boundaries of a business. An organisation is a living, evolving entity. All the parts must be aligned to support a clear corporate vision. If we manage any of these elements in isolation, that effort is bound to be, at best, disappointing, and possibly disastrous."”
“Yet, in spite of this, and perhaps because of this, I would urge the Minister to consider whether it is in fact better to give greater transparency to the kind of internal regulations that are available now in the Government Ministries by writing them into the Bills and then making exceptions so that public officers, where it is necessary, can be treated differently. Why do I press for a more uniform system of handling for the same profession even though I feel that it is possible that you will get more inconveniences within the Ministry and perhaps even more internal cost? But there are benefits to a more equitable system that we should consider. A more even-handed system of regulation within the same profession will be in the public interest as well as in the interest of the profession, particularly since it is Government's intention to equate pay and compensation of the private sector with the public sector. It allows people in the same profession to sit down together and consider their common aspirations, their common problems, sympathetically. Hopefully, the results of such an exercise would be better understanding, better laws for the future, lower costs for buildings in both the public sector as well as the private sector. Sir, we are moving into a very challenging decade and to maintain our competitiveness, we must require that the public sector work hand in hand with the private sector. Therefore, it is imperative that we should try our utmost to break down any walls that exist between the two sectors. I know that today our regulators and public servants are doing their best to reach out and understand, but allow me to share with you my experiences.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would appreciate very much if the Minister for National Development could comment on the merits and demerits of a system of regulation and licensing that separates the private sector members from the public sector members of the same profession. Sir, clause 3(1) of the Architects Bill and, for that matter, if I may refer also to clause 3 of the Professional Engineers Bill, exempt specifically acts and omissions of Government, including acts and omissions of public officers, from the provisions of the Bills. I am aware that the existing Acts which these new Bills intend to replace also carry the same clauses. But in the eyes of a layman, it would appear strange that the same people in the same profession, doing comparable jobs, should be treated differently, perhaps even discriminatingly. Whether a building or a structure is built by Government or by the private sector, it should have the same professional standards, not just for the submission of plans but for the entire professional practice. Of course, we are aware that there are differences between Government buildings and Government practices compared to the private sector. Government organisations do not carry the same liabilities as those in the private sector. Correspondingly, public officers carry a lower risk and therefore the reward considerations are different. At the same time, we are also aware that public officers in fact do apply themselves to obtain the same high professional standards that are set out in the Bills but they do so voluntarily, not compulsorily. There is also no doubt that Government itself has good internal disciplines and standards that ensure the practices for the public sector are unquestionably high.”