Lew Syn Pau
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the greatest problems SMEs are facing in this downturn is the sudden decline in orders and decline in revenue and, as a result, some SMEs are not able to get enough cash flow to service the interest.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply. We look forward to increases to come. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $29,360,000 for Head F ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $3,716,700 for Head F ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head P -”
“If you take a look at the Enterprise 50 companies, Sir, a lot of them have gotten to where they are today without financial support from the Government, and it has taken them a long time, many years. Some of them have been in operation for more than 10 years.”
“This is especially important for the design-and-build projects where the contractors take the lead in a construction team which even includes the appointment of a QP and the payment of his fees. This amendment Bill does not seem to address this concern.”
“Thus, the Government is not in favour of awarding prestige or acknowledgement scholarship without the scholar making a commitment to serve in the public service. There is already much flexibility in the treatment of Government scholars.”
“Sir, there have been a lot of discussions in the papers about compulsory acquisition of flats. Does the Minister not think that the compulsory acquisition of a HDB flat is a bit too severe, because it punishes the family members who are innocent, rather than the offender himself?”
The complete record
Every one of 352 lines we hold for Lew Syn Pau, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 8.
“However, to make this more convenient, there should be more taxi stands and the stands should be larger. Today, most taxi stands, as you can see in the city, cannot accommodate more than three taxis. These stands should also be sheltered and covered linkways should be built to connect them to the nearest building. With about 14,000 to 15,000 taxis plying on the roads today, perhaps even bigger waiting areas or holding areas may have to be built in strategic areas of the island if empty cruising becomes too expensive with the ERP. I am happy to note LTA's support for differential pricing of taxis to address the problem of supply-demand imbalance during peak hours, and also more flexibility for taxi operators to offer a variety of differentiated services to give commuters more choice according to their needs and pockets. In fact, I had suggested this several times before when I was with NTUC Comfort, but, unfortunately, I could not find support from the PTC then. I am glad the LTA understands the need for this now to meet the different needs of commuters. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the White Paper.”
“For non-motorists living in private housing estates (and there are quite a few, for example, the wives, school-going children and aged parents who do not have cars), their main problem is how to get to the nearest MRT station or the bus stop without working up too much of a sweat under the heat, or getting drenched from the rain. I have no easy immediate solution that is economically viable on its own to offer right now, but I would like to suggest that the LTA study this issue in greater detail. Perhaps, to begin with, the LTA could identify a central bus stop in every private housing estate to develop into a mini-hub and bicycle sheds could be constructed next to this bus stop, together with a taxi stand, to help provide some form of a seamless journey. Amenities like vending machines and public telephones should be installed to make waiting more comfortable. Proper waiting areas for cars could also be added for drivers to pick up their loved ones. Finally, before I close, a few words on taxis. Taxis are at the high end of the public transport spectrum, and like private cars, would be the most severely hit by the electronic road pricing system. I am grateful to note that the Government will phase in the ERP charges for taxis gradually over several years. In the White Paper, it is not very clear how this will be done. But in my view, for the system to work well, we have to find a way to have the ERP charges transmitted to the taxi meters straightaway so that taxi commuters can pay for them at the end of their journeys without dispute with the taxi drivers. ERP charges should rightfully be paid by commuters and not by taxi drivers, as for the ALS right now. With ERP, taxis should cruise less and be encouraged to wait at stands.”
“The same thing for the ARF which is 150%. This is also partly a wealth tax as purchasers of big cars end up paying more taxes even though they use the same road space. The ALS and the ERP will be a pure usage tax, as long as we do not make bigger capacity cars pay more for using the roads. The point I am making here is that since most of our transport policies are not based on pure economics, is there any need to be puritanical in the formulation of other transport polices? Hence, in my view, the decision to build the North-East MRT line should not be based purely on economics. Thirdly, I agree with the new sustainable policy on asset replacement, that is, for each generation to pay for the services and assets it consumes. With co-financing from the Government for the purchase of the second set of operating assets, fares can be kept lower for the commuters for a longer period of time. Here, again, this is an indirect decision of the Government to cross-subsidise MRT commuters because the Government revenue is really tax revenue, and the bulk of which, as we know, are paid by people who own cars and seldom use the MRT. Having said that, I am not suggesting that these higher income taxpayers begrudge those who enjoy the subsidy. On the contrary, the challenge for the Government would be to induce such car owners to leave their cars at home, or at/near MRT stations, and take the MRT to the city. The Government should seriously consider building multi-storey car parks at MRT stations, like the Newton Station, Buona Vista or Thomson/Novena stations and other suitable locations, to make it convenient for motorists to do so.”
“On page 63, it is stated that the PTC will approve fares based on a few principles, one of which is that the fare revision will be based on what PTC considers to be an acceptable rate of return to the public transport companies. I wonder how the PTC will be able to ascertain what this rate of return should be. Will the PTC make this public? What will they use? Return on assets or return on equity? What will be the rate of return? Is it 10% or 15%? Will these rates of return be different for different transport companies like taxi companies, bus companies or the MRT? Many transport operators, as we know today, are already public-listed and I am sure shareholders would be very interested to know. Next, I agree that public transport projects must at least cover operating cost. However, this should be taken at the level of the whole entity, and not route by route, for instance. Without requiring some cross-subsidy between routes, bus companies would abandon loss-making routes to lesser populated outlying areas and private housing estates and compete only along the major corridors. Hence, although I support the policy of minimum cross-subsidy in general, in some instances, economic hurdle rates should not be the only criterion. Other considerations should be taken into account. As far as I can see, and I stand corrected on this, there are few transport policies that have evolved purely out of economic consideration - many include a wealth tax or wealth redistribution element. For example, in the COE policy, we categorise COEs and we allocate less COEs for the luxury cars so that the lower and middle income will end up paying less for the COEs for small cars. If we were to charge purely for car ownership or road usage, there should be only one type of COE and one price.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I commend the LTA for a comprehensive, integrated White Paper on our land transport system. It is an integration of existing stated policies and measures, a reconsideration of some old ideas and suggestions, and further development of new ideas in greater depth, such as the ERP system, the integration of bus interchanges with taxi stands and MRT stations, and the more intensive developments around such MRT stations. The newest proposal which will probably have the greatest impact on all of us is the new financing framework and it is on this section that I will focus the bulk of my attention. Firstly, I support the concept of partnership in the financing policy of transport. The White Paper says that the Government provides the transport infrastructure, the commuters pay for the operating cost, while the operators extract efficiency dividends within the service standards and fare structure approved by the PTC. It is not very clear what is included under "transport infrastructure". The obvious items would be roads, MRT lines, tunnels, bus stops and taxi stands, and so on. In the White Paper on page 43, it is stated that the LTA will provide covered linkways and overhead pedestrian bridges between MRT stations and bus stops to the nearest building. This, I am sure, is good news for the Town Councils in HDB estates as most covered linkways are now built and paid for by Town Councils, or the CCCs with the support of the CIPC. My question is: what about the bus stops in private housing estates? Will linkways be built to connect them to the nearest common area? I also agree with the proposed principles of financing. Here again, I have a few clarifications to seek.”
“Such pensioners who are living in private residential estates do not enjoy any rebates on the service and conservancy charges given to HDB dwellers. In contrast, they are paying higher property taxes with the revision of their property tax assessments on their houses over the years. I think the Government should look into some reliefs for this pool of pensioners. Perhaps, at the next review of pensions for retirees, some adjustment can be made for them to account for their GST payments. On water conservation, I would like to comment that the proposed increase in water conservation tax on domestic customers from 10% to 15% will again affect the lower income earners. The low income earners are usually very thrifty and therefore are careful not to waste water. In contrast, the high income households will not be badly hit in their pockets as they have the means to pay, and therefore may not be as water conservation conscious. Hence, I feel that a more effective approach is through education. There can be talks in schools and corporations. Campaigns can be organised every year to remind the people. I believe that education and reminders are more meaningful and effective. I also believe that Singaporeans are generally very responsible and responsive to such Government campaigns. Hence, I would like to urge the Government not to over-use the monetary punishments as they would be adversely received and are in fact regressive in taxing the poor more. Sir, I wish to conclude by commending the Minister for a comprehensive and well-meaning Budget. In particular, I would like to congratulate him for achieving a record budget surplus.”
“So those people who need money cannot touch the $200 that has been given by the Government as a handout. Similarly, for the $300 SOTUS scheme, the housewives, low-income earners and unemployed are also disadvantaged. These people may not earn enough to make an active $750 contribution into their CPF accounts. And to expect them to put in $750 cash may not be within their means either. One alternative suggested is that instead of these handouts of $200 and $300 each into the CPF accounts, the Government can consider creating a certain pool of funds to be targeted to help the poor families and under-privileged in the areas of education and medical costs. The funds to be allocated to these schemes need not be large and can be administered by the grassroots organisations of each constituency. For a start, we can consider allocating a block grant of, say, $250,000, per constituency. This amounts to only a total of $20 million for all the 81 constituencies in Singapore. This sum actually is very small compared to a total of $640 million provided for under the two CPF Top-Up Schemes. But it will be a very much appreciated gesture by the Government. If the Government can accept this idea in principle, I am sure the details and mechanism can be worked out. On relief for pensioners from the GST, with the introduction of the GST, I understand that there is a pool of people who have to pay GST and are not getting any reliefs. These are the Government pensioners who retired after 1978 and who are now living in small private houses. These pensioners do not enjoy the pension re-adjustment which affected only those who retired before 1978.”
“However, Sir, looking at these surpluses, I want to ask the Government the following questions: First, is the impact of the surpluses deflationary? That is, could we have achieved even better growth and create a stronger and more robust economy, if we had siphoned less money out of the system via budget surpluses? Second, are we not taking away too much of the private individuals' and corporations' initiatives in investment making, as surpluses are taken away from them? The above are two of the many implications that I feel the Government can consider. In addition, I thought the Government can also consider whether to do a comprehensive review of our taxation and non-tax revenue system. Are we over-taxing the system as to stifle initiatives and growth? Are the taxes and non-tax fees charged fairly spread and burdened by the different segments of the people? Are we over-taxing certain segments of the people? These are questions which I thought it would be useful for the Government to have answers. May I move on to comment about some specific budgetary measures. First, on the CPF Top-Up Scheme and the CPF Share Ownership Top-Up Scheme (SOTUS). These two contributions of $200 and $300 respectively for the two schemes are generally well received by the people. I am in support of these measures. However, I would like to raise a few comments that have been made to me by my grassroots leaders. One remark is that these payments do not help the very poor. On the other hand, the amounts are not that meaningful to the very rich either. For the poor, they cannot get hold of the $200 which is put into their CPF accounts, as they cannot draw out until they reach 55. As the Chinese saying goes, yuan shui jiu bu liao jin huo [ ] which means far away water cannot save near fire.”
“No economy is immune from recession. We should therefore save up as much as possible and invest wisely while the going is good. For the man-in-the-street, a good budget must offer opportunities for wealth creation and allow him to translate his hard earned income into greater purchasing power for him and his family. To achieve this, the Government must continue to attract investments to Singapore and, at the same time, create opportunities in the region. It must also redouble its efforts to contain the cost of food, housing and transportation, the three main components of household expenditure. If we succeed, the budget will continue to be a happy event and we can be assured of more good years to come. Sir, I support the financial policy for FY95. Mr Leong Horn Kee (Thomson GRC): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, one of the most striking features of this year's Budget is the substantial budget surplus attained. In fact, a standard positive feature of the Singapore Government's Annual Budgets is the consistent healthy budget surpluses achieved year after year. Just look at the last three years. The budget surpluses were: In 1992, the budget surplus before contributions to Medifund and Edusave was $4.9 billion. In 1993, it was $7 billion. In 1994, it was $9.2 billion. For financial year 1995, the Minister has budgeted for a $5.8 billion surplus, which is in spite of the huge provision of $18.5 billion for both Operating and Development Expenditures. This is a good $4.4 billion or 31% above the actual total budget achieved in FY94. Sir, we are proud to have a Government that could manage the economy very well, achieve high economic growth and, as a result, turn out routinely strong surpluses. We should compliment the Government for its capable handling of our economic affairs.”
“I would like to propose that the Government also consider setting aside a modest budget every year for the upgrading of older private housing estates, estate by estate, starting with the oldest ones. After all, if you look at the profile of the taxpayers of these private housing estates, I am sure they pay more than their fair share of income taxes. Goods and Services Tax Next, I would like to turn to revenue and tax changes. I would like to comment briefly now on the GST. I am happy to note that the GST was implemented successfully, and due to the high economic growth, the GST collection is now expected to be $1.5 billion. We have been told that the GST offset package has since been revised to $1.7 billion. I would like to ask the Minister how this offset package has been revised. Next, I welcome the incentives announced to further boost fund management, risk management and capital market activities in Singapore. These incentives, I am sure, will help to further enhance Singapore as a financial centre in this region. On income tax changes for individuals, I welcome the across-the-board one-off rebate of 10% for Year of Assessment 1995 and the rebates on HDB service and conservancy and rental charges for those who live in HDB flats and who probably pay little or no income taxes. The one-off rebates allow the Government to vary the amounts every year depending on the economic performance and our affordability. I also support the CPF Top-Up Scheme, the reduction in property tax and the increase in water conservation tax. We should all learn to conserve our precious water resource before it is too late. In conclusion, I would like to say that the FY95 Budget is probably one of our best budgets ever, with a budget surplus of $5.75 billion.”
“Public Housing The next subject I would like to touch upon is regarding housing. Our public housing programme is without doubt the best in the world today. 86% of our people today live in high quality public housing, especially in the newer public housing estates. The Government is spending enormous sums of money. In fact, the bulk of the capital subsidy of $719 million is for upgrading the older housing estates. The question that has often been asked, as I visit residents in private housing estates, is: what about the upgrading of the common areas in private housing estates? Should not the Government also set aside some funds to upgrade the public areas in private housing estates? Let me say that these residents are not begrudging what the Government is doing for the older public housing estates. They are happy for those who benefit from the upgrading schemes. Nevertheless, we should be aware that many private housing estates in Singapore are also more than 20 years old. The few common playgrounds and parks in some of these estates are run down and in need of major upgrading. Drainage in some estates is wanting, as flooding during sudden downpour still occurs. Estate roads, which were once considered adequate, are now too narrow and congested, as many areas have been rezoned to a higher plot ratio for medium and higher density housing. I have raised this issue before and I have been told that the various Ministries have already budgeted for the maintenance of roads, drainage, parks, etc. in their yearly budget. But these amounts budgeted are just enough for routine maintenance only, not major upgrading. Upgrading is expensive, and this is why we set aside separately almost three-quarters of a billion dollars on upgrading for FY95.”
“' From a psychological and emotional perspective, I believe Singaporeans who have been educated in Singapore at substantial Government subsidy are more likely to be proud of Singapore, and call Singapore their home, even though they may live and work overseas or elsewhere in the region. University life is a short but intense one, and one that all of us remember for the rest of our lives. So would you not prefer that they be in Singapore during this period of time than be overseas paying their own way? The demand for university education is further manifested by the success of the OUDP thus far. Other science courses are being planned by the OUDP. I hope the Government will continue to support the OUDP financially so that the fees will continue to remain affordable. I also support the relatively higher expenditure on independent schools, autonomous schools and the gifted education programme. As they have proven to be a success so far, I hope the number of places in these programmes will be expanded so that more of our students can benefit from them. Our talented young should be nurtured early so that our politicians, senior civil servants and captains of industry can stand shoulder to shoulder with the best in the world. As for Edusave, I am happy to note that another $500 million is budgeted for the Edusave Fund in FY95. If the economy performs well again, I would like to suggest that this amount be topped up to $1 billion. Secondly, we should continue to encourage our parents and students to make greater use of their Edusave funds. The Government may also wish to consider giving Edusave grants to primary schools so that they will be better off financially to provide all-round education to our young.”
“The Government has expressed concerns in the past about over producing graduates and the inability of the local labour market in absorbing them. If this happens, the Government fears that these graduates might be disenchanted, disillusioned and eventually emigrate, leading to a brain drain too. I believe the situation today is slightly altered. With the push for regionalisation, our labour market is no longer just the Singapore labour market, but that of the region. It is a much bigger market, with easy mobility for many entrepreneurs and professionals. With the Government's encouragement for each person to be educated to his or her highest potential, a polytechnic education for many is not enough. We have evidence of many polytechnic graduates competing for places in NTU and NUS. Those who have gained admission, I am told, do very well. Others who have gone overseas instead have done equally well, doing Singapore proud. My question is: should we restrict the number of places at our two universities to 20% of each cohort, knowing that the people's aspirations are rising, the demand for such places is increasing, and many can qualify and do well? I believe the budget is not the issue. We can afford to spend more on education. Perhaps it is even time to consider a third university to meet the needs of our young. Hence, I am heartened to note that the Minister thinks likewise. I quote from paragraph 25, Part 1, of his Budget Statement: `To cap the supply of university and polytechnic graduates is an unworkable and self-defeating alternative. It will slow growth and depress earnings for all, including the graduates, who will have few job opportunities in a stagnant economy.”
“Although I recognise the importance of defence, being an NSman myself, I would like to ask the Minister what accounts for the bulk of this increase and what measures do we have to account for the effectiveness of this higher expenditure. Next, on education. The education budget takes up 18.8% share and is the second largest. It is up 8% from FY94. At $3.71 billion, it is only 3.25% of GDP. Most countries spend between 3% and 5% of GDP on education. We have made great strides in the field of education, especially in the provision of tertiary education to our children. Our stated targets are places for 20% of each cohort for university and 40% for polytechnics. It is a vast improvement over having just NUS, NTU, Singapore and Ngee Ann Polytechnics not too long ago. Yet, frequent questions are still being raised on whether we are spending enough to increase the number of places at the two universities, NUS and NTU, to meet the needs and aspirations of our students who qualify. Too many students are still being turned away because of our stringent admission criteria, some because of the quota imposed as part of our overall manpower planning policy, and others because of the high cut-off points arising from keen competition. The more fortunate ones from wealthier families go overseas to UK, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand to get degrees of their choice. Some of them return home to Singapore after graduation, others do not. The question I have is whether we have assessed the extent of this brain drain on our manpower resources. Are we able to cost it, including the outflow of foreign exchange? Are we able to measure it against the cost and benefit of creating more places here for such students, without sacrificing quality and standard?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the economic performance for last year at 10.1% GDP growth was indeed creditable, probably better than many of us expected. Even more comforting was the fact that growth was broad-based, which augurs well for all sectors again this year. Moreover, inflation was kept at 3.6%, despite the introduction of the GST of 3%. This good performance, I believe, did not occur by chance, but is a result of sound economic and financial policies of the Government. I congratulate the Government for a job well done, especially the measures taken to ameliorate the impact of GST which became a non-event. The budget for the next financial year appears to be a cautious one in order to prevent overheating the economy, yet contains the essential elements of a good budget. It rewards one-off those who have contributed to our economic growth, and it carries measures to promote the further growth of our financial markets. It is prudent to be cautious in the face of greater uncertainty in the world, increased cost pressures and an expected lower growth rate of 7.5% to 8.5%. It is better to have financial policies that are long term and sustainable than to have populist ones that may have to be unravelled when the short term euphoria is ended. Let me now comment on some of these fiscal policies in greater detail. Expenditure Policy I support the Government's FY95 Budget's spending priorities on defence, education, infrastructure, healthcare and quality public housing. First, on defence. Defence takes up about 28.9% of the $19.5 billion budget and this is the largest share. It is up from 20% from FY94.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister, under the modified streaming system, how would the late developers at the PSLE examination be given an opportunity to move back into the main stream since the examination and gradings are now different and not quite comparable to the examination which the other PSLE students take. How would they be compared with the normal examination grades?”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Acting Minister, under the $30,000 grant to encourage children to live near their parents, would children whose parents live in private housing estates be eligible for this scheme? Because in Tanglin, for example, we have public housing right next to private housing.”
“For instance, if we enact this Bill, should we then also not pass a law to make basic education in schools compulsory in order to protect the few unfortunate children whose ignorant parents have denied them an equal starting point in life, and to reduce the drop-out rate in schools, which as of now is still quite low? But I think it is still higher than the number of parents neglected by their children. In another case in point, I remember not too long ago, the unions were pushing for the retirement age of workers to be raised to 60. Many more workers were affected. Yet the Government's initial response was not to legislate straightaway, but to give the employers three years to raise the retirement age voluntarily before introducing legislation. Applying the same precedent, the Government should use public education and counselling to resolve this issue before attempting legislation. In conclusion, I firmly believe that the solution at this point in time is not in having legislation to promote filial piety, but to set up a department in the Ministry of Community Development to provide advice to neglected aged parents and counselling services to the wayward children. The circumstances of each family are different and hence individual counselling in private may be more effective, and certainly a kinder approach to all parties involved. Let us use more education and moral suasion to promote filial piety, not more legislation and litigation.”
“Older parents who were not as well educated as many of us today are less well prepared for retirement and need money from children for sustenance. Younger parents today are better educated and better prepared for retirement and hence do not expect financial support from their children when they grow old. In fact, with the prices of houses and cars at such astronomical prices today, many of us worry whether they can fend for themselves and their families, let alone support their parents and parents-in-law. We should not treat children as investments from whom we hope to extract a return when we are old. What should we do with the few genuine cases of neglect of aged parents by their children? I contend that the Maintenance of Parents Bill is not the solution now. Firstly, parents are reluctant to bring their children to court; and in the process, have all the dirty family linen washed in public. Secondly, such affected parents are unlikely to be able to afford the legal fees which might add up to more than the maintenance allowance they will ever get in a year. At the end of it all, the lawyers might be the only persons laughing all the way to the bank. Singapore has never been a litigious society and we should never encourage it to be one. Many of us would not even think of suing our doctors, dentists, or teachers even if they do a bad job, let alone our children. Having to sue our children is an indictment of ourselves, that we brought them up badly in the first place. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon also said that if this law helps even one poor person, it is worth the effort. I beg to disagree. If we pursue that argument to its logical conclusion, then Parliament will be sitting very often to pass all kinds of laws to protect the interest of the vocal minority.”
“The temptation is for Government to work out in fine detail, how each and every one of us is to husband his CPF so as to last his lifetime. I think that would be a bad mistake. When you stop a person taking out his CPF savings at 55, or 60, or at whatever age, you are saying to him, "You can't be trusted to manage your own money. So we will manage it for you.".' And further on, he continued: `People will be put off by the Government's well meaning efforts. They will be cynical and grumbling and, ironically, do not expect thanks from those who do need Government's help to plan for their future. They will equally resent what they see as Government's patronising attitude.' Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon seems inconsistent in his views. On the one hand, he wants the Government to treat the people as independent and intelligent, and in almost the same breath, he wants the Government to legislate the maintenance of parents by children. Surely, this is a prime example of over-regulation, and of patronising our people. This is a piece of legislation we can do without. Just as Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon advocates that the Government should treat the people as intelligent and capable of investing their own CPF funds, so should he advocate that the Government treat the people as decent and moral, totally capable of looking after their old folks. The few bad hats who neglect their parents for whatever reason do not justify the introduction of such a law. It is like using a sledgehammer to kill a fly. Most Singaporeans I know of look after their parents within their economic means. The recent Straits Times survey revealed that 86% of parents aged 50 and above receive money from their children at least once a month. This finding is heartening and speaks well of our strong family ties.”
“Walter Woon shared my views when he spoke in March this year during the debate in this House. I quote from the Hansard of 8th March 1994, Volume 62, No. 8, excerpts from columns 628 to 631 in which he said: `The problem is that the Government is always tempted to intervene in people's lives, not just in the economic sphere but also in other matters. In the past, we have been told how many children to have, when to have them, when to marry, who to marry, how long to keep our hair, and even for those with long memories, to eat more wheat. Then people complained that Singaporeans lack initiative. Even the Government Ministers complained that Singaporeans expect the Government to do everything for them. I find this strange, if not, a little ironic.' I find it strange too, if not ironic, that he should now want the Government to intervene in something so private as filial piety and families. Then he continued later, I quote again: `If there is a lesson to be learned from the woes of the welfare states of the West it is that governments which create a dependency syndrome in their people are courting disaster eventually. And the dependency syndrome is not created only by welfare. It can also be created where the state takes over basic decision-making and refuses to let the people exercise their minds.' Will the Maintenance of Parents Bill now not create a dependency syndrome in our old people, the very syndrome that Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon spoke strongly against not too long ago? And further on in his speech, he added: `People are living longer, they should set aside more for old age. But should they be compelled to do so by Government? That is the question. Or should they be left to make their own provision?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not support the Maintenance of Parents Bill. And this is certainly not because I do not think that aged parents ought not to be supported by their children. On the contrary, I believe all children should look after their aged parents financially with whatever limited resources they can muster. And most children are already doing so. Hence, there is no need for Government intervention through legislation at this point in time. It is my personal belief that the Government's role should be to create an environment conducive to business and to individual freedom and self-reliance. It should only intervene when the free market fails, when the public good must be balanced against private interest. I have made similar points during the debate on the President's Address in January this year. To a very large extent, the Singapore Government is already promulgating these values. From a young age, the children in the schools are taught to be independent and self-reliant. During working life, the Government reinforces this philosophy with our Central Provident Fund scheme, and not the welfare scheme of the West. From the day we are economically active, we start to save for our housing, our medical needs and our old age. We come up with the Minimum Sum Scheme and raise this sum from time to time to ensure that we have enough stashed away for life after retirement. We are continuously inculcating in our people this spirit of self-reliance and independence. The enactment of the Maintenance of Parents Bill will send a wrong signal to them. It will confuse them and dilute the efforts of the Government in raising the CPF Minimum Sum Scheme to help everyone prepare better for his or her old age. I had thought that NMP Assoc. Prof.”
“Sir, since we are running out of time, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head L of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code LG 3200. Teachers should spend their time teaching and not fund-raising. Unfortunately, many independent schools spend a lot of time organising many fund-raising activities, together with the help of the Old Boys' or the Old Girls' Associations and management committees, to help to raise money for extra sports and other social facilities, enrichment programmes, or even to keep the school fees at affordable levels for as long as possible. Some fund-raising is okay as it helps to make parents, old boys or girls, community leaders and other well-wishers feel a part of the school. However, too much of it detracts the school from its main mission of providing a good all-round education for the students. In this respect, I would like to ask the Minister to consider giving independent schools the same level of subsidy we give to autonomous schools, so that the amount of fund-raising in independent schools can be kept within reasonable limits.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“I believe the Ministry of Education has a responsibility to adopt proper measures to correct the present bad conduct of our students. The schools should not open one eye and close the other, but rather it should take appropriate measures. At the same time, the Ministry of Information and the Arts should also do something to stop the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation from airing unhealthy programmes which may have bad influence on the students. Otherwise, the students will continue to abuse their freedom and learn the mischievous deeds from the programmes. Sir, I do not object to our students being given certain freedom. But when freedom turns to mischief, it should be stopped immediately. If they are not put under control, it could happen one day with our Ministers and MPs ending up with a cream cake in their faces and champagne being poured over them as a gesture of "respect" from our people, during their ministerial walkabouts or house-to-house visits. This might well happen. Do you want this to happen? Sir, our Senior Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, once said that the leaders of some developed countries such as the United States of America and the United Kingdom have begun to realise that the old, strict and well-organised educational system was much better and more effective than the present liberal laissez-faire education system. Therefore, we must adhere to our traditional education system. The traditional value of respecting the teachers should be preserved, instead of being replaced by freedom and laissez-faire attitude. Otherwise, it will be pathetic. I hope the Ministry of Education and MITA will take appropriate actions to correct the situation.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head L of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code LC 1500. The Gifted Education Programme has been around for about 10 years now. I would like to ask the Minister how much we are spending on this programme, both in absolute quantum and also on a per student basis. What concrete results have we achieved and is the Ministry happy with the results? What is the ratio of boys and girls in this programme? And are we going to continue with this Gifted Education Programme indefinitely? Mr Peh Chin Hua( In Mandarin): Sir, according to the Shin Min daily news of 3rd September 1992, some students had seized the opportunity to make a fool or sabotage their teacher during Teachers' Day. There was an editorial advocating a restriction on freedom for students. Because the students took the opportunity to create trouble for the teachers, such as luring the teacher to the classroom and smashing a cake into his face. Another group of students drenched the teacher with six bottles of champagne. The school authority can give its students some freedom. But if the freedom is abused, then the school should immediately curb it. According to a source from the educational profession, incidents of abuse of freedom have been on the increase since 1992. It is worrying to see such mischievous acts during the birthday parties of students and even at the Teachers' Day celebrations. Sir, is this the way to transmit the message of freedom to our future leaders of Singapore? Could it be that the adverse western influences have seeped into our sacred educational institutions under the guise of freedom? In the past, whenever we met our teachers we had to bow and salute our teachers with dignity. What has become of it now?”
“Sir, I thank the Minister and the Minister of State for their replies. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The Chairman: Order. I propose to take the break now. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.”
“Officers in the Ministry of Education should also try their best to avoid giving teachers undue pressure, because this will discourage youngsters who aspire to become teachers from doing so. Mr R. Sinnakaruppan (Kampong Glam GRC): Sir, I too welcome the Government's $500 million grant to Edusave in this year's Budget. As the Minister of State has already answered most of the queries on Edusave, I just have two questions. (1) Will all primary schools be allocated $100,000 from the Edusave grant, as is the case with the secondary schools? If not, why not? (2) Will the Ministry consider giving Edusave grants to students in ITE in the future?”
“But work attitude, interest in the job and personal conduct should also be included as the criteria of selection. A good teacher might not be a student with the best academic results. At the same time, a good principal might not be selected from a pool of the best teachers. Therefore, it is possible that a teacher can help to nurture future PhD holders, but he might not be a PhD holder himself. I read with interest in the papers about a lady who was not a qualified teacher and yet she was voted the best teacher. Her name is Madam Chai Chu Suan. She is, in fact, an employee of the Singapore Association of the Deaf and seconded to Upper Serangoon Technical School. She revealed to reporters of Lianhe Zaobao and Shin Min daily news that her ambition was to become a teacher when she graduated from the National University of Singapore in 1990. However, she was not successful in her application for the teaching post. This is indeed ironical and a mockery of the criteria of the selection by NIE. I hope that NIE will not gauge a person's capability to be a teacher on the basis of external appearance and examination results alone. I was touched by the report. It is qualities such as a caring heart, a self sacrificing spirit and dedication to the teaching profession that we are looking for in a teacher. However, the NIE rejected her application. Furthermore, a good teacher might not be a good administrator. We should not make administrative capability as a condition for promotion. Because not every good teacher will be a good administrator. As long as they have got the necessary qualifications and teach well they should be promoted, otherwise this will lead to lower morale among the teachers and it will deter young people from taking up teaching as a profession.”
“They should have carefully planned and trained up a team of specialist teachers to teach students in this new course. But the Ministry of Education has not done so. All the Ministry did was to organise a 2-day seminar, only two days, to give the existing teachers and principals a brief idea of the curriculum of this new course. As a result, when the present teachers take on this group of students, they face many problems. So our teachers have to face additional stress. If the Ministry of Education had thoroughly planned and prepared properly, then the teachers would not have to face all this unnecessary stress. Education is very important to the development of the nation. However, if we do not have enough teachers, then the quality of our education will surely be affected. Many people do not like to take up teaching as a profession because teachers have to face tremendous stress. The Ministry of Education should study this problem. At the same time, when they are making and implementing a new policy, they should have more careful planning and preparation in order to save our teachers from all this unnecessary stress. Mr Peh Chin Hua( In Mandarin): Sir, at the opening ceremony of the National Conference of School Principals in September last year, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong mentioned that in the past three years, an average of 450 teachers resigned from the teaching service each year. Apart from the stress faced by teachers, I think there are some other problems that require the Ministry's attention. There are many young people who apply for the teaching course at the NIE. They are rejected. This is because their school results are not up to the expectations of the NIE. As a teacher, it is important to have good results.”
“Therefore, with effect from 1994, most of the secondary schools would have three different streams of students - Express, Normal (Academic) and Normal (Technical). This arrangement by the Ministry of Education would enable the vast majority of our students to be promoted from the primary schools to the secondary schools and to complete 10 years of basic education, thereby enhancing the quality of education of our people and this would be of great help to the economic construction, cultural development and social development of our nation. We should give active support to this policy. However, when dealing with this matter, the Ministry of Education appears to have failed to make adequate preparation. First of all, with the establishment of this new course, the cohort of Secondary 1 students will be increased by approximately 15,000. According to the present ratio, we would need about 400 teachers to teach these students. The existing number of teachers in our secondary schools is already inadequate and many schools have no choice but to engage relief teachers. However, most of these relief teachers are inexperienced and they have not been trained. Under their teaching, the progress of our students will surely be affected. Now we need an additional 400 teachers. I would like to ask the Ministry of Education how they are going to resolve this problem. Two years ago, when the Ministry of Education proposed this policy, did they carefully look into this problem? As our schools are understaffed, the volume of work of our teachers must necessarily be increased. Will this add on more stress to our teachers? 3.30 pm Secondly, the Ministry of Education made this decision two years ago.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head L of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code LA 1500. According to published data, we have about 20,000 teachers in primary/secondary schools, pre-university centres and junior colleges. And out of these 20,000, 69% of them are females. These data may not sound too alarming until you break them down by years of service. For the older teachers with more than 30 years of service, the ratio of male to female teachers is about 50:50. But for those with 20 to 24 years of service, it is about 31:69, ie, 31% males. But new teachers with less than five years of service the ratio is 18:82, ie, about 18% male teachers only. So if this trend continues, we may soon have only one male teacher in every 10 teachers. I have nothing against having more female teachers. I am sure they all make very good, diligent and patient teachers. However, the boys in schools do need some, in fact, more good male role models to follow after, especially if we are to prepare them well for National Service. I would like to ask the Minister whether action has been taken to correct this imbalance and, if so, what are they. Perhaps, the Minister for Defence may wish to consider allowing some young men, especially those who are not combat-fit, to serve in the teaching service as part of their National Service. Mr Chin Harn Tong (Aljunied GRC)( In Mandarin): Sir, in 1992, the Ministry of Education informed all the secondary school principals in Singapore that, with effect from 1994, a new course would be introduced for Secondary 1 classes, that is, the Normal (Technical) course.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister and the Ministers of State for their replies. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“In view of the very good response to the OUDP, will the Government consider increasing its grant to the Singapore Institute of Management so that it can increase its intake and even venture into other areas of study? There is a backlog of potential applicants. And given their mature age and busy work schedules which will probably get busier as they become more senior in the company and as they grow older, we should create the opportunities to allow them to be educated to the highest potential as early as possible. My second question is on the level of subsidy the Government should give. If this group of people have entered University directly from `A' levels, they would have enjoyed the same kind of subsidy, that is, about 80% that our University students now enjoy. Should the Government not also give this group of people the same subsidy, even though they do their tertiary studies later? The fact that they are working now and making money should not be relevant because they also pay taxes when they make money. So I hope the Minister will look into this.”
“Sir, the Government has stated that the long-term target for admission to tertiary institutions for each cohort is as follows: 20% for universities and 40% for polytechnics. I believe that these planning norms were established before Singapore embarked on its regionalisation drive. With more and more Singapore industrial parks and joint-venture companies being set up overseas in China, India and, possibly, even Vietnam, more and more skilled workers and professionals will be required to spearhead our drive overseas. Hence, we will need more and more graduates from our tertiary institutions. In view of this, firstly, will the targets of 20% for universities and 40% for polytechnics be reviewed? Secondly, will the increase in intake for the universities and polytechnics be expedited? I understand right now that the two universities only have places for about 15%. We have half of the 15,000 `A' school leavers who apply being turned away each year because of the limited number of places. Eventually, many of these rejected will go overseas to study and we have now about 11,000 such overseas students, enough to form a third university. This seems to be a drain on foreign exchange and perhaps even talent, as many educated overseas this way may not return home to Singapore. Would the Minister consider increasing our intake to universities and polytechnics in order to meet the urgent demand for professionals in view of our regionalisation drive? Sir, I would like to move on to the next cut on Open University Degree Programme (OUDP). This subject is related to my earlier discussion on the shortage of graduates and professionals.”
“Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar GRC)( In Mandarin): Sir, the present educational system does not encourage retention of pupils in the same class. It is only confined to Primary 5 pupils with various restrictions to be observed by the school. This is very rigid and inexplicable. Maybe, as Mr Lew and Mr Umar have already said, our school dropouts have exceeded 3,000. I think this is due to the lack of a "repeat" system. In Singapore, many successful people have experienced retention in the same class in the early days of their school. And from there, they started to work hard and finally made the grade. So retention is not a shame, especially for young people. Some pupils are rather slow in learning, and coupled with their playful character, they normally treat studies very lightly especially when their parents are too busy and cannot guide them. With the inability to cope with their lessons and poor results, they tend to lose interest in their study. They fail in Primary 1, they are still promoted automatically to Primary 2. Lessons become harder and harder. With all the backlog accumulating, they find that they cannot cope with the lessons and become disinterested in their studies. As a result, they begin to have behavioral problems due to frustrations and they have no more interest to study. Even counselling does not help. Therefore, I hope that the Ministry of Education would reconsider the retention system and give the principal and teachers the discretion to retain students as and when the need arises. The Ministry should not intervene in this. Especially in primary 1, they are too young and the lessons are quite simple. So it is easy to remedy. If they can be allowed to repeat their lessons, then those who are not doing well will be able to catch up. 4.45 pm”
“Even in the local universities, NUS and NTU, the examination scripts are marked by local lecturers. Recently, in the area of law, we have also just severed our links with the Privy Council in UK. Is it therefore not time for us to review the need to send our `O' and `A' level examination scripts to UK for marking? I recognise that many parents still value the name or the brand name "Cambridge". We can get around this by having the scripts marked locally in Singapore but get an external examiner from Cambridge to check on the standards. I hope the Minister will consider my suggestion. Moving on to the next cut on Edusave, first of all, I would like to commend the Government for contributing another $500 million to the Edusave fund for fiscal year 1993 and another $500 million for fiscal year 1994 in view of our healthy budget surplus. Although the amount is still quite small for students at $100 per year, I am sure it still helps those from the lower income to provide some enrichment programmes for their children. I would like to ask the Minister regarding the progress of the usage of Edusave funds in our schools. Are they being utilised and on what programmes? What about the Edusave grant of about $100,000 per year to the secondary schools? What are the schools spending the money on? Finally, I would like to ask the Minister to reconsider extending the Edusave fund to the fourth and subsequent children. How much more would this cost if we were to do that? I strongly believe that every child should have the opportunity to start school on a level playing field. So why should a child be denied help from Edusave simply because he was born number fourth or later in a family through no fault of his own?”
“Currently, only the top 10% of our pupils are permitted to take the second language at a higher level, that is, the Higher Chinese (HCL), Higher Malay (HML), or Higher Tamil (HTL). With the regionalisation drive overseas to the Asia Pacific region, Malaysia, Indonesia, China and India, a good command of a second language, like Malay, Chinese, or Tamil would become more important. Should we, therefore, not allow more of our good students who are able and interested to take HCL, HML, or HTL? I would like to move on to the next question on `O' and `A' level examination scripts. Recently, many parents were very concerned about the loss of more than 200 examination scripts sent to Cambridge University for marking. Although we are told that this is the first time that this has happened, I think it is once too often. Imagine the inconvenience of the students concerned who have to study and re-sit these papers if they were not happy with their preliminary examination grades for those papers. I would like to ask the Minister what measures are being taken to ensure that this does not recur. This leads me to a more fundamental question. Is there a need to continue to send our `O' and `A' level examination scripts to Cambridge for marking? The British gave us internal independence since 1959. In the early days of independence, it was necessary to retain our historical heritage and links as not many in the international arena knew about Singapore then, her people and her educational standards. Today, after more than 30 years, we have established ourselves as a centre for educational excellence in the region. Our students have gone to top universities in the world and have left their marks as men of substance.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head L of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. The problem of school dropouts was raised last year by the Prime Minister at the National Day Rally. It is estimated that there were about 3,000 dropouts in 1992, down from 5,000 early school leavers in 1988. Of the 1984 cohort, we were told that there were 620 dropouts at primary level and 970 at secondary level. The main reasons given for dropping out were disinterest in studies, attraction of readily available jobs and family problems. Although 3,000 dropouts are small compared to the 500,000 student population, it is 3,000 too many given our grave shortage of skilled labour in Singapore. I would like to ask the Minister, since the problem has been highlighted, what measures have been taken to further reduce our school dropout rate. Making education compulsory has been suggested from time to time as a possible measure to alleviate the problem, especially in cases where children are victims of their parents' or guardians' ignorance or abuse. Compulsory education can save these children, however small their numbers, from a life time of regret for the learning opportunities lost. This proposal has been turned down before based on the reasoning that the children cannot be forced to go to school and that they cannot be forced to learn. Would the Minister reconsider this suggestion so that the Government can bring to task parents who wilfully deny their children of an opportunity to an equal start in life through proper education? It has also been reported that the Ministry is working with several community self-help groups in an effort to cut further the dropout rate. May I ask the Minister regarding the progress of this collaborative effort so far?”
“If even Members of Parliament could not understand the details of the civil servants' medical benefits scheme, how can we expect our grassroots leaders, trade union leaders and some other people, including members of the press, to understand these policies. Therefore, when we explain any Government policy, we must focus on the broad concept rather than going into the details. Finally, the people have to be fully and sincerely convinced ( ). We may have won a debate, but if the people are not genuinely convinced, then the policy is of no use. No matter how much time and effort you have spent to explain the policy, it is useless. We should recall that in the 1960s, and even the early 1970s, the educational level of our people was not high. Why was it that most of the people at that time had so much trust in our first generation leaders? This is a very important question! The most important thing is the people's confidence in the government. "Confidence" ( ) is the word! Just as it is said, "We can rest assured that whatever you do, it will be all right." This is all we need to achieve. The rest will be just a matter of details.”
“At the same time, once they have formed an impression or even misconception of a certain policy or measure, it is not easy to persuade them to change their views, even if you place all the facts and figures in front of them. However, I would like to encourage Mr Lim Boon Heng and the other younger Ministers that although it is difficult to explain the policies, we have to continue to do so. I have some suggestions to make. Firstly, before any major policy is introduced, we should present the broad outline of the said policy in the form of a White Paper, a report, or in any other manner which would enable the Government to discuss with the relevant groups and to obtain their views or, at least, to hear what the public or neutral parties have to say about the intended policy. Secondly, we have to pay attention to the scheduling of major policies in order to avoid introducing too many major policies in one year. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am sure you understand what I am trying to say. In 1993 alone, we introduced so many major policies and measures. It is not easy for the people to digest them, all at the same time. Thirdly, when we introduce any of these policies, we should focus on the broad concepts rather than the details. Just now, taking the civil servants' medical benefits scheme as an example, Mr Lim Boon Heng asked how many of our Backbenchers in this House had understood the details of the scheme. Likewise, I would ask the Members on the other side, how many of them have fully understood all the details of the scheme.”
“If we have lost the proper moral values, if we are unable to deal with the short-term problems which are affecting the daily lives of our people, such as cost of living, cost of doing business, medical cost, COE and GST problems, etc., and if we are unable to narrow the differences of perceptions between our people and the Government, then the cohesiveness of our people will be eroded. At the same time, if we are unable to attract and retain a group of dedicated elites from our society to run the nation, then the quality of the team of Government leaders will gradually deteriorate. These will result in our not being able to maintain the advantage based on our collective organisational ability to compete with the rest of the world. This is the real underlying worry of our nation. Originally, I have wanted to make my speech short. But I heard our Minister without Portfolio, Mr Lim Boon Heng, sighing with emotion, on the difficulty of explaining Government policies to the people. I fully sympathise with him because I have spent almost a year with him, discussing problems relating to the cost of living. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 3.25 pm Let me make one observation. As our people become better educated, it would be more difficult for them to accept our explanations on policies right away. First, they want to digest what they have been told and come to their own conclusions before accepting these policies. Most people, including the educated ones, would only be concerned with Government policies or measures only when these policies or measures affect them personally.”
“Apart from their economic gains, they should value the harmony of family lives, the image of Singaporeans overseas, and protect the national interest of Singapore. Fourthly, in this era of scientific and technological advancement, consumerism and rapid environmental changes, we should reaffirm our sense of dedication and sense of mission. Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps I am a product of the "Dinosaur Age". I am still a firm believer that we should have a sense of dedication and a sense of mission. Only when we reaffirm the values of a sense of dedication and a sense of mission can we motivate the elites in our society to take up the noble responsibility to rule the nation. Of course, we cannot overlook the reality of "high growth, high rewards". But, at the same time, we should also emphasise the lofty ideals of our personal lives. When the world is tuned to higher and better material enjoyment, the sense of dedication and sense of mission of the elites are even more important. In fact, in our society, we still have a large number of community leaders, social workers, and volunteers in the educational and arts fields who are silently ploughing and weeding, holding on to their respective posts to serve society, and pursuing an ideal other than money. Mr Speaker Sir, our long-term policy is to ensure that when we march into the next century, we can still maintain our competitive edge. Our advantage comes from our collective organisational ability. This strength comes from two sources. First, the cohesiveness of our people and, second, the quality of our national leaders.”
“We must realize that "Man does not live on bread and butter alone", and that "Money alone cannot build up the natural bonds and ethical relationships between members of a family" ( ). To an individual, his personal values reflect his character ( ). To a nation, its collective values represent its national spirit ( ). In fact, moral values are relevant to several issues mentioned in the President's Address. Let me elaborate. Firstly, if we have a strong family concept, everybody in the family lives harmoniously with one another, and all the children regard the looking after of their parents as their natural duty, then this will provide good security and protection for the elder citizens, in addition to the CPF Minimum Sum Scheme. On the other hand, if our young parents attach more importance to their family lives, then they would spend more time and effort in looking after and bringing up their children, instead of leaving them to the care of foreign maids or relying on television as baby-sitters. This would prevent the children from over-indulging in materialistic enjoyment, without self-discipline. Secondly, maintaining the spirit of diligence, commitment and job loyalty and the search for excellence, will correspondingly discourage people from gambling and speculating in the stock and property markets to the extent of neglecting their proper work and cultivating a "get rich quick" mentality which would well develop into a "casino syndrome" in our society. Thirdly, in venturing overseas, we cannot grudge our investors and businessmen for resorting to various business tactics to cope with the local situations. However, they should exercise great care to avoid yielding to desirable temptations.”
“These are some of the views brought up by the participants in the Feedback Unit's dialogue session. My personal view is that given the present trend of emphasizing economic development, placing the focus on venturing abroad, upgrading the domestic economy and distributing wealth to enable our people to share the fruits of Singapore's success is only natural and correct. Venturing abroad will give us greater economic space; it enables us to make use of the ample labour supply, vast land area and rich natural resources of other countries to help us overcome the constraints of a small population size, limited land area and no natural resources. Furthermore, in the face of increasingly keen competition, we have to improve our productivity, to raise our technological level, and to move towards knowledge-intensive and technology-intensive economic activities. We must first be able to create wealth before we can distribute wealth. However, we must not concentrate on economic issues and neglect other issues. The cultivation of correct moral values should form an integral component of our long term policy. However, we find no mention of such issues in the Presidential Address itself, nor the Addenda on the various Government ministries, except the Addendum on the Ministry of Community Development which mentioned about the importance of "strengthening family". This is the first Address by our first Elected President, and this is the "International Year of the Family". If we fail to incorporate the cultivation of family concept and moral values into our long term policy, then people may misunderstand and feel that we are too enthusiastic on the construction of materialistic well-being ( ) and are neglecting the construction of our spiritual well-being ( ).”
“Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of Mr Loh Meng See. On 12th January, 1994, the Feedback Unit conducted a dialogue session on the Presidential Address. I spent more than three hours discussing the substance and form of the Presidential Address with some 30-odd grassroots leaders, unionists and professionals. The notes of the dialogue session have been sent to the Prime Minister with a copy to the Acting Minister for Community Development. There are three important points raised at the dialogue which I feel deserve special mention in this House for the reference of our parliamentary colleagues here. Firstly, the vast majority of participants supported the raising of the CPF Minimum Sum. Some suggestions were also raised by the participants, such as the introduction of reverse mortgage, purchase of annuity for the younger CPF members, and higher interest rates for CPF Minimum Sum deposits. These, in conjunction with the raising of the CPF Minimum Sum, will enable the people to meet at least the basic cost of living upon retirement. Secondly, most participants also agreed with the Government's asset enhancement programme. However, a good number of them feared that the "Invest Singapore" campaign might bring about some undesirable social trends, such as encouraging people to "get rich quick", to involve in speculation and gambling, thus resulting in some of them being unable to concentrate on their work or studies. Thirdly, some participants felt that the Presidential Address placed too much emphasis on economics and neglected the non-materialistic issues such as family concept, personal moral values and culture.”
“The people should be mature enough to decide for themselves where they would like to have their chicken rice and not expect the Government to bring all chicken rice down to the same price. This is the free market at work. I do not think the people in Hong Kong, for example, expect the Government to intervene just because prices at the corner shop have risen, whatever the cause. They are very independent and learn to fend for themselves. They have been brought up that way. Singaporeans too should learn to be self-reliant. The Government should not encourage this crutch mentality with too much intervention, otherwise, how can we compete and succeed overseas on our own? As our society matures and people become more educated, there should be less of Government in our lives, not more. The Government's role in a free market is not to control prices, threatening enterprise, but to ensure market competition through regulation of supply, and to facilitate perfect market information through education and efficient communication. This spirit of self-reliance and independence should be inculcated in our children early in schools. They should be taught to think for themselves and not rely too much on rote-learning and spoon-feeding by teachers, tutors and even parents. Transforming the mindset of our people is a long term problem which we should start working on now so that our people and our children will be more confident and self-reliant. With an increasingly borderless world, our people must independently compete with the best in the world. I firmly believe that the environment in which we nurture our people in plays an important part in whether they will succeed on their own. And as a first step, the Government can help by staying less visible and less pervasive in our lives.”
“In the area of public housing, the Government should concentrate on the lower and middle income housing, and not on executive housing which should be left to the private sector. What has disturbed me recently are incidents of people pressuring the Government to intervene even in situations where free market can and should be left to operate freely, eg, the COE tender prices and the share and property markets. The crutch mentality of the people seems to be: the free market is fine as long as the end results are to their liking. The volatility of these markets is, in my view, a mark of immaturity in our people. They seem not to be focusing on fundamentals that are sustainable in the long term, but appear to be driven by rumours and greed. They over-react. When things go well, they reap the benefits and take the credit for themselves, but when things turn sour, they expect the Government to step in and salvage the situation. On Friday, even Mr Chiam See Tong here was asking the Government to restore confidence in the stock market through verbal reassurance by some Government Ministers. The rise in prices in that cup of coffee or bowl of noodles at the hawker centres is another case in point. People seem to expect the Government to step in and control the prices. If the Government does so, should it not also control the prices at coffee houses and restaurants? Such expectation of Government intervention is totally undesirable. The retail situation is very competitive in Singapore. Even at the best or worst of times, without any impending GST, there would be some chicken rice costing $1.50 at hawker centres and others $15 at coffee houses in hotels.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of Mr Loh Meng See, Member for Kampong Glam GRC. Singapore has done well last year, chalking up an impressive economic growth of 9.8% despite weak economic performance of the developed countries. Many companies improved their profits significantly; some, a result of having ventured abroad in the region. Workers had good wage increases and bonuses as a result. The people had their assets enhanced through HDB Upgrading Programmes and the privatisation of State-owned business entities. The success of the companies and the people has been due in no small part to the visible hand of the Government. I would have been much happier if we had achieved the same degree of success with less Government support and intervention. It would be a signal that our people have matured, are independent and self reliant, and are able to compete here and abroad even without Government help. Let me clarify that I am not against Government support or intervention per se. Government intervention is necessary only when the free market fails, when the public good must be balanced against private interest. In the fields of education, health care, environment, defence, community development, Government involvement is necessary to ensure that the long-term interest of the country is taken into consideration. But within each of these areas can be found niches where private enterprise can and should be allowed to flourish. Hence, private schools, hospitals, clinics and homes for the aged should be encouraged and allowed to thrive to cater to the higher segment of the consumer market.”