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 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.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 6 of 8.
“BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, I shall be brief. The Member has made a request. We are prepared to consider it.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head W be reduced by $10 in respect of Code WI 3100 of the Main Estimates. Sir, the Skills Development Fund was established in 1979 to provide incentive grants for the training of persons in employment and the retraining of retrenched or redundant workers. SDF grants are awarded only for employer-based training to ensure that training has the accountability of the workplace. The company must identify the training required to upgrade its employees and undertake to fully fund the training programmes. A shortcoming of this funding mechanism is that the employees from smaller local companies end up not being given the opportunities to go for training and upgrading. Realising the importance of higher skills for higher earning potential, the NTUC has been trying to reach out to such workers and also union members caught in this bind. Since 1986, the SDF has treated NTUC as a surrogate employer for courses. However, as a surrogate employer, it also means that the NTUC would have to bear a portion of course fees not supported by SDF funding. As more and more workers take advantage of this training support, NTUC's financial burden has also grown. NTUC is now at a stage where it would need financial assistance from the Government if it is to continue to play its role as a surrogate employer. Training of our workers is important for us as a nation, but certainly not a basic union responsibility. Hence, I would like to ask the Minister to consider getting the SDF to help the NTUC set up a Training Endowment Fund of about $4 million so that it can continue to perform the role of surrogate employer for workers. We estimate that the interest from this fund would be able to support about 2,200 training places per year.”
“Admission to the Singapore Open University should therefore take into consideration working experience. Bridging courses at the polytechnics should be organised for workers who do not qualify for the Open University. Such courses should be offered part-time and on a credit system, so that working people would be able to cope despite work and family pressures. Education is an expensive investment by the State. The higher the student moves up, the greater the investment. The more talented also enjoys greater financial support with scholarships, bursaries and special programmes for the gifted. Students who have made good in life should return to society the benefits they have enjoyed, very often over and above those given to the less able. If the graduates' only aim in life after starting work is to pursue career and wealth, then our education system has failed. Scholars should not shy away from serving in the public service. Those who have succeeded should set aside time to serve their alma mater, constituency organisations and other public non-profit bodies. They should offer a helping hand to those not so fortunate and talented. Only then will we be able to build greater cohesiveness among our people so that we can progress as a nation.”
“According to the 1990 Census of Population, we still have 215,000 workers without Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE), and another 400,000 workers with PSLE, but without GCE 'O' levels. The Government, unions and employers have initiated and implemented various programmes, such as the Basic Education for Skills Training (BEST), Worker Improvement through Secondary Education (WISE), Core Skills for Effectiveness & Change (COSEC), Information Technology (IT) programmes, Fast Forward and Training Initiative for Mature Employees (TIME) to help raise their trainability and skills, so that their earning potential can be enhanced. Although the response has been encouraging, I do not think we are even half way there. More can and should be done, especially for those who are willing to be trained, but presently face certain obstacles of time and financial support. Employers could increase their current training budget from 2.3% of total employment payroll to 4%. They could also set aside a specific number of working hours per year for the training of the employees. The Skills Development Fund (SDF) could extend direct SDF subsidy to individual workers to enable them to upgrade themselves up to diploma, or even a higher level. Workers do not have Edusave accounts. Perhaps, the Government could consider allowing them to use their CPF savings for part-time courses, especially at the polytechnics or the Singapore Open University. Studying, holding on to a job, and looking after a family at the same time is not easy. Those who have the grit, determination and the capability should be helped along the way. All workers who have missed out on their formal education should also be given the opportunity to realise their highest potential.”
“Accounting-wise, would it not be neater to have them put under the same scheme or the same head or account? In future, if the Government decides to vary the number or the amount of scholarships and grants, it would not be faced with the dilemma of which fund the money should be taken from. Let me conclude on this subject by reiterating that I am not advocating that the Government raises its funding for education or Edusave. Both funds of the Ministry of Education and Edusave come from the Government. I had mentioned, at the beginning of my speech, that an education budget of about 5% of GDP seems adequate. It is only a matter of presentation. What I would like to see is a form that would facilitate possible changes in the future. I think we all agree that substance is important, but increasingly, we cannot ignore the form of presentation as the people become more market-oriented, more informed and more demanding. As of now, the concept of levelling-up society using the Edusave fund is still hazy. Do we level up effectively by providing every school-going child, irrespective of home background, a fixed sum of money to be spent at his or her discretion? Or is it better that the Government decides how some of these funds should be spent to benefit the more able children? Sometimes, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Perhaps, the Government should take the opportunity to explain more clearly its concept of levelling up society in the area of education. Next, I would like to touch on the subject of continuing education. In focusing on educating every child to his highest potential, I am heartened to note that the Government has not forgotten the continuing education needs of our workers.”
“However, I would like to suggest that those who do not need the money should be allowed to contribute them to scholarship funds of the school or charitable and grassroots organisations. The latter can then use them for the benefit of less well-off students. I support the concept of scholarship to cover the fees of pupils enrolled in independent schools as well as non-independent secondary schools. The decision now is to award these scholarships only to the top 25% in independent schools regardless of financial means. Several questions come to mind. Firstly, would this be determined at the point of entry to the school? If so, then this may be unfair to students who do well in their studies in later years. If this is determined every year after the year-end results, then scholarship holders from poor families who lose their scholarships subsequently may find themselves unable to continue in the independent school. Secondly, would the scholarship amount vary from school to school, depending on the fees charged? If so, would this not encourage independent schools to raise their fees in order to take full advantage of the scheme? Thirdly, some students from wealthy families do not need such scholarships. Would they be allowed to decline the scholarships so that other more deserving students can benefit from the scheme? Let me say also that I endorse the giving of annual grants to all Government and Government-aided secondary schools to be spent at their discretion in order to improve the quality of their teaching. However, what is debatable is whether these scholarships and grants should be taken from the Edusave fund or the Ministry of Education budget. I understand that the Education Ministry has many other types of scholar- ships and grants already in existence.”
“I am convinced that the change will be for the better and the results of the modified PSLE will show it. With the improvements, parents will have greater flexibility to choose a stream that maximises their children's potential. Parents should be patient and give the improved system a chance to work. I also support the introduction of Day Schools. It meets the special needs of parents both of whom are working. The Day Schools should continue to look into ways of making the students' long stay in school comfortable and productive without raising cost unnecessarily. Over the years, the Government is offering more choices and options to parents and children in the educational arena. This is a move in the right direction. Children come from different backgrounds, have different strengths and weaknesses, and learn at different paces. The new system will allow children to move at a pace and in the direction most suited to their background, their learning ability and career ambitions. The objective is every child achieving his highest potential with minimum wastage of educational resources. The education system must enable us to achieve this objective in the most efficient manner. Next, I would like to touch on the subject of Edusave. Let me say from the outset that I fully support the concept of the Edusave scheme. When the Prime Minister first announced it, I thought it was a very generous gesture by the Government to give every pupil, whether rich or poor, a helping hand in participating in special assistance and other enrichment programmes. The aim of the Government to maximise and equalise educational opportunities for all Singaporeans is laudable.”
“I support the Government's decision to withdraw gradually from its involvement in pre-primary education. In the next two years, however, the Government should quickly help private kindergartens and pre-school centres to replicate this preparatory year programme so that as many children as possible, especially those from not so well-to-do families, can be prepared for formal schooling. The present guidelines for admission to Primary One are complex and have also been a source of unhappiness to many parents. Many deem the scheme as elitist because priority is currently given to parents with higher educational qualifications as well as to those who supported the Government's population policies of the day. While I endorse fully the Government's population policies, I do not think it is necessary to link these policies to the admission criteria for Primary One. At the same time, I am also not advocating that we simply ballot for all Primary One places. I would like to recommend that in the review, priority should firstly be given to children whose siblings are already in the school, irrespective of the number. Subsequently, proximity of residence to schools should also be given consideration as this will cut down road congestion and busing problems. Next, the parents' record of public service, either in the school or grassroots, social or community organisations should also be recognised. The modifications to the primary education system starting from this year have also caused concern among parents. It should be noted that the old system has yielded impressive results. In fact, if you take a look at the results of the PSLE since 1980, when the system was introduced, you will notice that the percentage of passes has gone up over the years, from 84% in 1980 to 88% in 1990.”
“There is less wastage in education resources now as the percentage of Primary One cohort entering polytechnics and universities has gone up from 12% in 1980 to 36% in 1990. Our long-term goal is 60%. Obviously, we have some way to go. Some people have expressed concern that with such a large number of polytechnic and university graduates being churned out every year, there may not be enough good jobs to go round. This in turn may lead to disappointment, frustration, disillusionment, and eventually emigration out of Singapore. I do not share these sentiments. I believe that if we have a better educated, higher skilled workforce, industries that we attract here will be higher value-added, higher-tech ones that have the capacity to give our workers higher wages. Higher educated and better trained staff will be better placed to help our local companies go regional and even international. Being more mobile, they can become international workers too, without having to emigrate. They can work abroad, but leave their hearts in Singapore. To facilitate this, more Singapore international schools should be set up, when and where needed, to look after the educational needs of their children. Next, I would like to comment on the preparatory year programme for five-year olds, currently being tested in several primary schools. This programme has been extremely popular as indicated by the response from eager parents who go to see MPs to seek assistance to get their children into these few schools. However, now, there are probably more unhappy parents than happy ones who managed to find a place for their children. This unhappiness is to be expected. Those who have gained admission are deemed to have an unfair advantage in Primary One over those not so fortunate.”
“Let me caution here that these figures may not be entirely comparable because we have not gone behind the statistics to find out in detail what items have been included or excluded. Nevertheless, they do provide useful ballpark figures for comparison. It is evident from the figures that our Government is spending more on education every year. In the book The Next Lap, it is stated, and I quote: "The Government will raise its financial commitment to education from 4% to 5% of our GDP." Should we continue to increase Government expenditure on education or should we put a cap at an appropriate ceiling? We must remember that a dollar more for education is a dollar less for other public expenditure such as defence, health care or the building of public roads, all things being equal. The experiences of USA, UK and Japan, all developed nations, seem to suggest that an expenditure of 5% of GDP is adequate. As a society develops and matures, the people themselves, through their alma mater, grassroots organisations or corporate bodies should shoulder a share of this financial burden of providing quality education for the people. In the USA, for example, many reputable private universities are funded not just by school fees, but also contributions of old boys and girls and corporate donations. The setting up of independent schools is a step in this direction. Private foundations and companies can also play a greater role in extending a helping hand not only to independent schools and tertiary institutions but also to deserving students in Government and Government-aided schools through scholarships and bursaries. I am pleased to note that the investment we have made in our education system has yielded impressive results.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of Dr John Chen, Member for Hong Kah GRC. It was noted in the President's Address that sound Government policies have created a framework for sustained economic growth, and enabled Singaporeans to progress and prosper. One strong, sound pillar that has provided, and will continue to provide, a solid foundation for our people in the Next Lap is our education policy. I am pleased to note that the Government will continue to invest heavily in education and human resources so that our people will have the requisite knowledge and skills to increase their earning power. Education also gives us all a better quality of life, as it opens up new worlds in the appreciation of the arts and culture. Education is a pre-requisite to attaining the status of a cultivated society. What is the right amount a country should spend on the education of its people? It is an extremely difficult question to answer. A study of how much other countries spend on education may be instructive. Let us first take a look at developed countries. According to OECD sources, 1987 to 1988, the public expenditure on public education as a percentage of GDP varies from as low as 2.03% in Turkey to 7.5% in the case of Denmark. The figures are 4.77% for USA, 4.97% for UK and 4.98% for Japan. In newly industrialised economies and developing countries, the figures as given by the respective Ministries of Education are 3.3% for Hong Kong in 1991, 2.75% for Thailand in 1989, and 8.5% for Malaysia in 1991. Last year, Singapore spent 4.22% of its GDP on education, which is close to the norm of industrialised nations. Before that it was 3.15% in 1988, 3.1% in 1989 and 3.27% in 1990.”
“Another supplementary question, Sir. From personal experience, if you have a passport which is only valid for, say, one year and you travel abroad, the foreign immigration officials do not know what the abbreviation "NSR" in the passport means. Sometimes, they view you with a lot of suspicion and may think that you are some undesirable character whose passport has been limited to just one or two years. Could MINDEF think of some way of making the abbreviation clearer or stating it clearly in the passport the status of the reservist?”
“Sir, is the Senior Minister of State aware that reservists are already required to inform their units when they travel overseas? If they travel for more than six months, they have to apply for an Exit Permit. Is this not enough to help MINDEF to maintain their operational readiness without having to put a limit of two years on the validity of the passport?”
“Question No. 1. Sir, I would like to declare my interest as a reservist.”
“I thank the Minister of State for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.”
“Sir, if this service is found not viable, would the Minister be prepared to review this condition in the future?”
“Sir, the Minister has not replied to my second question regarding why we have to run a taxi shuttle service for new taxi licences.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head U be reduced by $10 in respect of Code UC 1500 of the Main Estimates. The issue of car parks is related to the car quota problem, and it is an emotive one. Recently, the supply of car parks has been gradually shrinking, especially within the CBD. I have been told that when the supply is limited, drivers become aggressive and fight for space, and drivers of the fairer sex usually suffer. I would like to ask the Minister what is the long term strategic policy on the construction of car parks and how is it going to be related to the vehicle quota system. Secondly, is the Ministry s waiting bays at MRT stations are usually congested with private cars resulting in traffic jams, for example, at the Buona Vista MRT station. (I would like to declare my interest at this juncture.) Traffic enforcement at such places seems insufficient. Will the Ministry address the congestion problems at such MRT stations? Finally, will the Ministry consider erecting shelters for all taxi stands? This will make waiting for taxis much more pleasant, rain or shine.”
“The differential need not be too wide, say, 1-2% in favour of Singapore citizens. This is necessary, in my view, to convince non-citizens that there are advantages of being Singapore citizens. Right now, many permanent residents who have lived in Singapore for a long time are reluctant to take up Singapore citizenship as they feel that the obligations outweigh the perceived benefits. While the benefits are almost identical, they prefer to remain as permanent residents so that they can enjoy the best of both worlds, ie, their host country as well as their home country. This problem should be addressed so that Singaporeans will feel more appreciated and proud to be Singaporeans. I am pleased to note that a White Paper on the Goods and Services Tax (GST) will be released soon. I urge the Government to take the opportunity to do a comprehensive review of all income taxes when the GST is studied and the machinery put in place later. With these comments, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Government's financial policy for the year 1st April 1991 to 31st March 1992.”
“I would like to suggest that the Government states publicly the long-term tax rates, both corporate and personal, that it is striving to achieve, and also the time frame for achieving it. This will help companies, and even individuals, in their long-term planning. As for personal income taxes, most of the lower income earners were disappointed that the tax reliefs for the taxpayer and the family members have not been raised. With rising cost of living, especially in keeping children at school, lower income earners are shouldering relatively heavier tax burdens than before if these reliefs are not adjusted. Presently, the relief for the first, second and third child is $1,500 each, and for the fourth and fifth child born before 1st August 1973, it is $300. For the fourth child born on or after 1st January 1988, the relief is $1,500, but there is nothing for the fourth or subsequent child born between 1st August 1973 and 31st December 1987. I find this regulation inconsistent with our present population policy. I feel that the Government should simplify this tax relief to $1,500 for every dependent child under 16 years of age, or if over 16, still in school, college or university. Why do we keep penalising those parents who, on hindsight, have done a great service to the country with four or more children? Similarly, for contributions by parents to the fourth child's Edusave scheme, there seems to be no compelling reason why we should not allow tax relief for contributions for the fifth and subsequent child too. The amount involved is minimal, but the gesture would clarify the Government's population and education policies. There is also a case for the personal tax rates to be lower for Singaporeans than permanent residents or foreigners.”
“The business representatives were also disappointed that there was no reduction of the corporate tax rate. They disagreed with the Finance Minister's statement that our corporate tax rate is among the lowest in the world. They quoted corporate taxes being lower in Hong Kong and Taiwan. The long-term tax rate recommended by the Economic Committee is 25%. Based on the present tax rate of 31%, it appeared to them that we are still very far off from the long-term target rate of 25%. They had also expected property tax, which is presently higher than Hong Kong, Malaysia and Thailand, to be reduced further so that investments in property would become more attractive, especially in view of revaluations of property carried out by the Government. Overseas Earnings. The business representatives also felt that an across-the-board tax exemption could be given for overseas earnings repatriated to Singapore rather than on a case-by-case basis. In so doing, more funds would be remitted to Singapore for development purposes. At the same time, tax breaks could have been given for expenditure incurred by Singaporeans working overseas, eg, such as expenditure on housing rental. This type of incentives would encourage more Singaporeans to work abroad. I would now like to give my own views of this year's budget which I consider a cautious and conservative one. There has been a great expectation that the corporate tax rate would be reduced this year in view of the economic slowdown, because the Economic Committee had recommended a long-term corporate tax rate of 25%. It is not clear whether the Government has accepted that as the long-term tax rate to attain.”
“As the recession in the US started last year, they expect that they will be hit by the recession in the second half of this year. They were hoping that the Government would introduce some measures to help them tide over this difficult period. At the same time, due to the strong Singapore dollar, their business cost has gone up even before the new tax increases. The manufacturing industry supports the Government's call to relocate operations to the neighbouring countries where labour cost is cheaper. However, they find that there is little incentive from the Government for them to do so. In fact, companies which have relocated part of their operations overseas face problems with the training of their workers. Companies which need to train the workers of their overseas plants or branches are presently required to pay the foreign workers levy for these workers when they send them here for training. At the same time, these workers also count towards the 40% quota on the total number of foreign workers for the company. They request that these foreign workers on training be exempted from the foreign workers levy and be excluded from the 40% quota. The Ministry of Labour could introduce regulations to prevent possible abuse by companies. Both the manufacturing and construction industries were also unhappy with the Government's policy of controlling the influx of foreign workers through both the foreign workers levy and the foreign-to-local-worker ratio of 40%. They felt that since the Government has already fixed the ceiling of foreign workers to determine the supply, there is no further necessity for the high foreign workers levy which only serves to raise the cost of doing business here. Corporate and Property Tax.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as a Member of the Feedback Unit Panel, I was privileged to chair the last Feedback Unit dialogue session on the budget last week. The session was attended by representatives of the chambers of commerce, trade associations, companies and the NTUC. I would like to take this opportunity to share with this House the main points of the feedback received, followed by my own personal views. Let me say from the outset that I do not necessarily agree with all the feedback received. Feedback Unit Dialogue Session Finance Industry The finance industry was generally happy with the budget and welcomed the incentives offered by the Government and is looking forward to the Government releasing more information on these incentives soon. Finance companies, however, would like to know whether they can be included for the tax deduction on general provisions as they are also required to maintain adequate reserves to cushion themselves against unforeseen losses in their loans. Manufacturing and Construction Industry Manufacturing companies, on the other hand, were disappointed with the budget. They felt that the budget did not address the two current problems faced by the industry, namely, high business costs and shortage of labour. They were unhappy with the 1% increase in employers' CPF contribution rate and the introduction of the water conservation tax. They feared that as a result of these increases, the manufacturing industry would soon lose its competitiveness. They wonder whether the Government has any long-term plan or strategy for the industry. And if it does, the Government should make clear its strategy for the industry. Manufacturing companies expect a slower growth this year.”
“The eight pages of acknowledgments in the book is clear testimony to the consultative and participa- tive style of the new Government that is already in place. Our response, to help translate all these ideas and programmes into reality, is to rally together and run the next lap with our Prime Minister.”
“The introduction of single-session schools will require major adjustments in the schedules of working parents. However, parents look forward to the fuller and more varied education their children will get under the new system. Singaporeans are also looking forward to the relaxation of censorship policies and the introduction of film classification this year. I also support the formation of public advisory groups to recommend standards for adoption by the community. It is consistent with the declared desire of the Government to have more participation by the people in the affairs of running the country. In the area of broadcasting, the Government should view satellite dishes and cable television networks favourably, especially in view of our objective of being a financial and business hub in this part of the world. Similarly, the progress we have made in the development of the Growth Triangle covering Johor, Singapore, Batam and the Riau Islands are exciting and welcome by both business and ordinary people. Singaporeans are looking forward to visiting these tourist resorts when they are ready. Sir, with the change in leadership at the helm of the Government in November last year, Singaporeans were looking forward to a more accommodating, consultative and participative style of Government. However, with so many exciting programmes planned for the next 20-30 years, in addition to the refreshing style of the new Government, the people are also not disappointed with the substance of the new Government. May I take this opportunity to commend the Government for a comprehensive, ambitious and exciting plan of action contained in the book entitled "Singapore: The Next Lap".”
“In this context, therefore, I congratulate the Government for initiating the setting up of a Singapore International Foundation (SIF) to build an overseas network of friends of Singapore. It is proposed to be a non-governmental organisation with an international advisory committee. However, in the initial stages, it may be necessary for the Government to take the lead both in helping to establish the network as well as financially. The Government already has a ready network of embassies, as well as offices under the Trade Development Board, Economic Development Board and the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board which the Foundation could use. Financially, the Government could also help to get the Foundation off the ground with a contribution or grant. There is also a case for an annual grant too as some of the functions of the Foundation, such as encouraging foreign talents to work in Singapore are, in my view, governmental. Domestically, the ideas and plans the Government has in the pipeline for all Singaporeans are also making Singaporeans proud of being Singaporeans. We are proud of our MRT and look forward to its extension to Woodlands, and eventually to Hougang and Punggol. We appreciate our congestion-free city. Thus far, the vehicle quota system has turned out to be much more successful than most people imagined. We hope the weekend car scheme, and later, the Electronic Road Pricing System will turn out to be equally successful. On the education front, the people wel- come the establishment of the Edusave Scheme. It signifies the importance the Government places on equal educational opportunities for all children, rich or poor. The schools must now follow up with tuition and other programmes to provide these opportunities.”
“Honouring and discharging our obligations should not be just confined to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the Government level. Our Parliament should begin to offer to host international parliamentary conferences, such as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) and the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) conferences in addition to regional conferences such as the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organisation (AIPO) conferences which we are already hosting. Our Telecom Authority, for example, should also play a more active role in hosting international telecommunication and postal conferences and exhibitions. Our Port of Singapore Authority, Science and Computer Boards, etc. should do likewise within their respective world communities. We should also increase our technical assistance programmes to developing countries. At the national level, it is time that we stopped asking ourselves all the time, what concrete benefits we will get out of all these activities, but start asking ourselves how, as a responsible member of the international community, we can contribute our share to promoting friendship and greater understanding among our friends and neighbours. Friendship is not easily measurable in dollars and cents, unlike the spin-offs from the tourism industry. But it is equally important and should be reflected as a desirable asset or goodwill in our books. Moreover, the attitude and the way in which our country conducts its relations with its friends and its neighbours will filter down to our people and influence the way individuals conduct their relations with one another, with society and the nation. Therefore, to be consistent with our set of Shared Values adopted by Parliament recently, the State should set a good example for the people to follow.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of Mr Davinder Singh, Member for Toa Payoh GRC. We are going through exciting, eventful times, both internationally and domestically. Internationally, the war in the Middle East, the internal problems in the Soviet Union, the sudden change in leadership in Thailand, to name but a few current events, are of great interest to Singaporeans because they have great impact on us, on our daily lives. The outcome of the conflict in the Persian Gulf will determine the long-term stability of the Gulf region and, of course, the price of oil at our petrol pumps. It also holds important lessons for Singapore on the security of small states, and perhaps also on how we should conduct our foreign policy. Singapore is small and vulnerable with limited resources. These limitations demand that we be outward looking in order to thrive and progress economically. As we progress and become a developed nation, we should also take a higher profile in international affairs. As we have benefited much from the global community, we should now be prepared to discharge our obligations to them. In this respect, I am pleased to note that we have started on a modest scale with a small peace-keeping force in Namibia, a rescue mission to the Philippines after an earthquake, and currently a medical group to Saudi Arabia during the Gulf war. These missions may not cost very much, but the gestures of support may mean a lot to our international friends. The goodwill generated will have multiplier effects on our commerce and industry. It enhances our international image and national spirit. It makes Singaporeans proud to be Singaporeans.”
“It is certainly an improvement over the existing system. But the question we have to ask ourselves is whether it is the best institution in the long term. I am pleased to note that this Bill will be referred to a Select Committee. I hope the Select Committee will continue to examine other options in greater depth. Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.00 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.36 pm until 3.00 pm Sitting resumed at 3.00 pm [Mr Speaker in the Chair] CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE (AMENDMENT NO. 3) BILL Debate resumed.”
“Dr Lau Teik Soon in his speech during the debate on the first White Paper in 1988 advocated the introduction of an upper legislative body such as an elected Senate to perform this custodial role. I feel that this suggestion has not been given enough serious consideration and study. If it has, then certainly the reasons for discarding other options have not been made known adequately to the public. An Upper House or Senate need not be too big, say, 10-20 members so that it can respond quickly when the need arises. I think it would not be too difficult to get candidates for this Upper House, as such Members need not shoulder the onerous task of looking after constituents. If their functions are mainly custodial as contained in the Bill, they need not meet as often as Parliament. I believe we have enough prominent politicians, senior civil servants and eminent professionals and businessmen who are capable and willing to discharge these functions with objectivity and dignity. In the long-term, I am not convinced as yet that 10-20 such distinguished members would be inferior to a lone custodian. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill before the House contains very important amendments to the Constitution which would affect our children and perhaps our children's children. We should therefore spend more time examining other possible options before proceeding. The issue before this House today is not one of ascertaining whether there is a need to have a second key to safeguard our financial reserves and integrity of the public services. That need has been ascertained and accepted. The issue that confronts us today is one of finding the best long-term institution to hold that second key. The Elected President is one such institution which may work very well in the near term.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this subject was first debated in August 1988 after the introduction of the White Paper on Constitutional Amendments to Safeguard Financial Assets and the Integrity of the Public Services. Since I was not in the House then, I spent some time reading the Hansard of 11th and 12th August 1988 in order to get a better idea of how far we have gone in this debate. Mr Lim Boon Heng who summed up the debate then said: 'In summary, I think we can say that the House agrees that there should be safeguards for our reserves and that we agree that there should be safeguards for the integrity of our civil service. We all agree that we should find some form of mechanism to build these safeguards into our Constitution. Most Members agree that an elected President is one method of achieving this objective whilst some may prefer to explore other means further.' The First Deputy Prime Minister, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill in the House yesterday, reiterated that the underlying philosophy or purpose of the Bill is to provide for the safeguarding of the financial reserves of Singapore and the integrity of the public services. He felt that the existing Constitution does not provide adequately for this purpose. All my parliamentary colleagues who have spoken before me have supported the underlying philosophy of the Bill. I support likewise. From the feedback I have from the public, I believe they too accept the need to provide for an institution to safeguard our financial reserves and integrity of the civil service. However, since August 1988, I have not seen enough information being released to convince the people that the Elected President is the best institution to achieve this.”
“Retention of seemingly little things in life, such as small traditions and shared experiences, was also suggested to help Singaporeans call Singapore home, and perhaps even to lure those who have gone away to come back to Singapore. Sir, apart from these main issues, Members also expressed their views and concerns, together with exhortations, on many other subjects which are equally good food for thought. For example, both Malay and non-Malay MPs alike have called on the Malay community to rally behind Yayasan Mendaki and help to get it going. Unfortunately, time does not permit me to mention them all here without giving you all indigestion. I am sure we will discuss some of these issues again in the future. Let me conclude by thanking all Members again for their contributions and support of the motion. I must also thank the Speaker, and you too, Mr Deputy Speaker, for presiding over this debate with great patience. Thank you. [Applause]. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:- "We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the Second Session of this Parliament." COMMITTEE OF SELECTION (Appointment of Members)”
“We should still remember the less fortunate financially or physically and make special attempts to pull them on board not only with aid or subsidies but also with training and education. The Government was also asked to be more forgiving of those who have erred or failed in the past and to give them a second chance to start anew. This tolerance of failures or mistakes will encourage greater creativity and risk-taking and help to build entrepreneurship in our people. On the economic front, MPs talked on a wide range of topics ranging from calls for development of local MNCs to forming strategic business alliances, and the formation of a northern growth triangle with Hongkong and Taiwan, in addition to the Johor-Batam-Singapore triangle for business and leisure. Others, however, felt that Singapore should go regional rather than plug in with certain countries so as to avoid misunderstanding with our neighbours. Ultimately, however, it seems to boil down to the issue of how we can exploit our critical success factors of loca- tion, political stability and our people in order to remain competitive and attractive to investors, of how we can increase our GNP further so that our workers, our people will have more good years ahead. This brings me to the old but difficult subject of how the Government can meet the challenge of making Singapore attractive to our people so that they will stay and help build a nation. Apart from meeting the basic economic needs, Members also urged the Government to meet the people's higher needs by giving them more choices in their life and their work, and in their leisure.”
“This brings me to the next issue of a consultative government and consensus building, which many MPs spoke on. Many Members saw the consultative and consensus building mechanisms established so far, such as the Feedback Unit, Select Committees, and GPCs, as a genuine attempt by the Government to be open and receptive. Unfortunately, some members of the public are still sceptical. More public relations exercises will therefore be necessary to get the remaining sceptics on board. Many of my parliamentary colleagues also dealt with the subject of education. Recognising that in land-scarce Singapore, developing our manpower resources to their fullest potential was the only way to ensure continued economic growth and prosperity, Members urged the Government to improve the quantity and quality of education so that none who qualify would be denied a place here. At the same time, our graduating children will not only be good at examinations but also become creative and more enterprising. Further investments in educational institutions were urged so that people would have much more flexibility and choice in the system. A few Members also spoke on the issue of shared values. Although it was felt that there was a need now to forge a Singaporean identity to unite the people despite differences in race, culture and religion, not all MPs thought that a formal statement on shared values would do the job. Much more will probably be said on this subject when this House debates the White Paper on shared values later on this year. Sir, let me now sum up the views on a compassionate society. It was felt that in our search for excellence and economic progress, we should not become intolerant and soulless.”
“The debate we had just last year after the Opening of the First Session of the Seventh Parliament by the President centred on three main areas: the National Ideology, multi-racial and multi-religious harmony, and our style of government. The debate which has just concluded today focused on many issues, mainly leadership transition, a consultative government and consensus building, education, shared values, a compassionate society, economic growth, and emigration. On the issue of leadership transition, all Members agree that this would be a watershed year in our political development as the Prime Minister hands over the reins of leadership to Mr Goh Chok Tong, First Deputy Prime Minister, before the end of the year. The fact that it was planned for a long time speaks well of the incumbent, of his far-sightedness, and his selflessness. I think I would not be too far wrong if I were to say that most Members view the Prime Minister's departure with regret, but are happy that he would stay on in the Cabinet as a Senior Minister. The younger MPs, like myself, from the last batch in 1988 have not had the same privilege as our older parliamentary colleagues of listening to him in Parliament and learning from him the cut and thrust that sharpen debating skills. However, we have learned in other ways from his speeches elsewhere and other informal contacts. And I am sure we will continue to learn from him in the future. At the same time, Members are greeting Mr Goh Chok Tong's assumption of leadership with confidence - confidence in the knowledge that he will maintain his open, participative and consensual style of leadership but at the same time remain decisive and firm. Members have also expressed support to rally behind him and his new team.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in the last three days, more than 40 Members have spoken on the Motion of Thanks to the President which I had the honour and privilege of moving on Monday. All who spoke supported the motion except Mr Chiam See Tong, the Member for Potong Pasir, and Dr Lee Siew-Choh, the NCMP. In fact, even Mr Chiam supported the Motion when he first spoke yesterday. However, he decided to change horses mid-stream. This indecisiveness or fickle mindedness only reflects on himself. Before I sum up the debate, I think I would be failing in my duty if I did not correct an allegation by Mr Chiam See Tong yesterday and Dr Lee Siew-Choh today when they said that the average worker's life has not improved. Mr Chiam did not support this with any data, but merely talked about fees going up - school fees in independent schools, hospital fees, the cost of private cars and long working hours. Dr Lee used labour statistics to claim that Singaporean workers are not better off today. In so doing, he has not given the entire picture. The data I have from the same sources, however, have shown otherwise. Between 1980 and 1989, a period of nine years, the median monthly income of workers almost doubled from $409 to $764. The source is the Labour Force Survey of Singapore, 1989. The average pay per worker more than doubled over the same period, from $692 to $1,427. The source: the Yearbook of Statistics 1989. Inflation rate was low during the entire decade, having risen only 17.7% over the same period. Hence, workers enjoyed a real increase in income, and this real increase in income is a proper measure of purchasing power and, hence, living standards. Therefore, our workers and our people are certainly better off today than 10 years ago.”
“The Prime Minister has recently proposed that we review it so that we can keep our Singaporean women in Singapore and, hopefully, their foreign spouses too. I hope the Minister for Law and Home Affairs will look into the matter. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are standing on the threshold of a new and exciting decade. When Vision 1999 was announced as the PAP's election promise during the 1984 general elections, a lot of Singaporeans could not quite imagine what it would be like as it was still many years away. Many had not been to Switzerland and seen how the people lived. The mention of Switzerland probably conjured up visions of snow-capped mountains and white swans in blue lakes. Now, although we are not quite half way there yet, we have come round the bend and onto the long home stretch with a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel. The reins of leadership will be changed this year, but we are safely on course. Our basic physiological and safety needs have been met. We must now work towards satisfying the people's higher needs and help them to find self-esteem and self-fulfilment. The people are looking forward with confidence and excitement. Question proposed.”
“The people of Singapore are very pleased to see special efforts being expended in this direction to uplift the lower income group and certain communities that may lag behind. Many were surprised by the generous contribution of $10 million by the Government to start off the MENDAKI Fund to subsidise the fees of Malay students in tertiary institutions. The non-Malays are happy for them because they realise that Singapore cannot continue to progress and prosper rapidly and achieve our Vision for 1999 if certain sections of society or communities are lagging behind. A developed society should also be a compassionate one. In this regard, I think we still have work to be done, especially Government bureaucracies which deal with the lower income people and other disadvantaged. The Immigration Department, for example, has come across as extremely heartless to the people. Let me give you an illustration. A young Indian lady of Singapore citizenship came to see me just about a month ago, looking distressed, because the Immigration Department wanted to deport her two-year old son, born in India, back to India. Her husband, an Indian citizen, was away working in Saudi Arabia. Having no other relatives in India, she is now back in Singapore working and naturally she wants to be with her children. Her elder daughter was fortunately born in Singapore and not subject to the same threat by the Immigration Department. I cannot imagine how you could send the two-year old son back to India on his own. I have written in on her behalf and I hope the Immigration Department will review the case compassionately. This illustration is just one of many cases of Singaporean women being discriminated against by our Immigration law.”
“For others, it may mean continuing education through BEST, WISE and eventually a part-time degree in university. If we are to be a centre of excellence and a society of distinction, our people must be able to find outlets to fulfil these self-actualization needs. It makes for happier and psychologically better adjusted people. Although many Singaporeans have their physiological and safety needs adequately met, there is still a group among the lower income whose needs may still only be partially met. I am pleased to note that the Government has pledged to help improve their living standards, increase their assets through HDB upgrading and provide for their children's education as well as subsidize their medical fees. Some of these lower income groups are living in one- or two-room HDB rental flats which are in the process of being demolished. However, HDB's relocation programme spreads over many years, prolonging the agony of these people who have to put up with lower quality maintenance as the blocks they live in gradually become half vacant. The common problems encountered include infestation by rats and mosquitoes. In addition, their safety needs are greatly increased as more and more of their neighbours move away. I would like to urge the HDB to consider expediting these relocation programmes so as not to prolong the inconvenience of the lower income groups affected. Let me now turn to the issue of the different rates of progress of different races in Singapore. This has resulted in the Malays having different needs as the other races. Fortunately, the Government has been very supportive of these schemes, such as MENDAKI, by the Malay community to uplift itself, as long as they want it and support these programmes too.”
“The choices available for the people in telecommunications are also varied and fascinating. However, many choices are still not affordable to the man-in-the-street. The Government's role in this respect is to encourage privatisation and greater competition. The greater efficiency and higher productivity that result should be translated into lower costs for consumers. In the area of broadcasting, however, the choices do not appear to be as wide. Allowing the use of personal satellite dishes would increase our people's choices tremendously. The Government's concern over the undesirable consequences of unrestricted external influence may be genuine but unfounded. Besides, our people travel so frequently abroad that any attempt to censor information may be futile. As technology advances and the satellite dishes become smaller and smaller, the cost of enforcement may also become prohibitive. The censorship of films should also be modified and relaxed to allow our people a better and fuller appreciation of the arts. One way would be to classify films into various categories suitable for viewing by different groups of audience, as in many developed countries. In the leisure arena, Singaporeans are enthused by the many new recreational facilities and activities available, from more golf courses, to theme parks and marinas. The proposed Singapore-Johor-Batam triangle opens up new possibilities not only in business, but also in leisure. Recognising that Singapore is limited in size, a triangle as proposed effectively enlarges not only our business prospects but also our recreational choices. Finally, a better life for all Singaporeans includes fulfilling their self-actualization needs. For some, this may mean engaging in cultural programmes and activities.”
“Another example where self-esteem can be enhanced is the issue of passports for reservists. The restriction on the validity of such passports to two years (formerly just one year) for reservists gives rise to feelings of discrimination, unfairness and resentment which the Government should resolve. As we progress and become more developed, the people would also want more choices in the area of education, both for themselves and for their children. Independent schools is one step in this direction. The establishment of a third polytechnic and the upgrading of the Nanyang Technological Institute into a comprehensive university next year are other moves in this direction. Right now, too many parents, some of whom can barely afford it, are sending their children overseas for further education, some because vacancies were not available, others because the courses of their choice were not available. Some parents do it in the belief that their children would get a more rounded education. We should therefore continue to upgrade both the number of places in educational institutions at all levels as well as the quality of our educational system so that parents need not spend their hard-earned retirement savings in order to give their children the right start in life. Singaporeans are also pleased with the many choices they have now in the area of land transportation, from more expensive private cars to taxis, buses and the MRT. The Government should work on providing the people with the choice of using bicycles, for example, from their housing estates to the MRT stations, by building bicycle sheds at or near the stations. Since the concept of a weekend car was mooted, the people are waiting in anticipation. The Government should expedite its study on the proposal.”
“The scheme is meant to give independent, non-partisan views to Parliament, and help improve our debates through the contributions of people with different experiences and perspectives. In this respect, the choice of the candidates is extremely important. The candidates have a heavy responsibility to live up to the basic objectives of the scheme. Hence, the Government would do well in this regard by getting Parliament involved in the nominations. Self-esteem and the esteem of others can also find expression in strength, achievements, adequacy, confidence in the face of the world, independence and freedom. These needs can be met not only through greater political participation but also participation in the fields of education, sports, culture and the arts. The Government should give greater recognition, attention, importance or appreciation to participants in all fields of endeavour. The satisfaction of the self-esteem needs can be and should be enhanced through less regulation and giving people more choices and options in life. One example where less regulation can give people more utility is the issue of sunken bars in swimming pools. I am told that in Singapore, this is not allowed because the Ministry of the Environment regulates the distance where preparation of food and beverages must be kept away from the edge of the pool. It even regulates the distance flora can be planted from the edge of the pool. The end result of all these regulations is that Singaporeans who want to enjoy sunken bars in swimming pools (and I can assure you that they are quite enjoyable) must visit our neighbouring countries or other developed countries whose standards of hygiene cannot be said to be inferior to ours.”
“In addition to the Feedback Unit's dialogue sessions, public hearings at Select Committees have also provided opportunities for interested Singaporeans to debate, give their views and attempt to influence Government policies before their formulation. Not everybody, however, will have their views accepted and incorporated in the final policy decisions. But they would have been heard and their submissions and views documented. The Feedback Unit sessions and Select Committee hearings have been well received and are seen by the people as a genuine attempt by the younger generation of leaders to listen. Our political democracy, after all, is about representation of the people by the people. During the last debate on the nominated MPs' Bill in Parliament, the First Deputy Prime Minister's concession to incorporate a self-destruct clause in the Bill is an excellent example in accommodation and consensus building. That act of compromise had great impact not only among MPs within this Chamber but also far-reaching ripple effect outside the House. The people outside saw how their future Prime Minister would lead and forge consensus in the face of controversy and conflict. It is an encouraging example which I hope other Ministers will follow under his leadership. We should continue to encourage participation on all important issues that affect the people's lives. We know we have succeeded when such participation becomes spontaneous and people speak up candidly, without fear, not with personal vested interest, but because they care about what happens to us and our future. In the next few months, Parliament will also see the first few nominated MPs.”
“According to Maslow, if both the physiological and safety needs are fairly well gratified, then there will emerge the needs for love, affection and belongingness. The Government has met most of the material wants of a large proportion of Singaporeans. Not too long ago, the Government even ventured into helping to meet the love needs of our young people by setting up match-making agencies, such as the Social Development Unit, the Social Development Section, the Social Interaction Unit and the Social Promotion Section. I am pleased to note that these activities have met with enthusiastic response. In our society, the thwarting of these needs has often resulted in cases of maladjustment and more severe psychopathology. The Government can meet the people's needs for self-esteem by being less paternalistic and giving them a greater say in running the country. The President has highlighted the importance of this issue when he addressed it at the Opening of the First Session as well as this Second Session of the Seventh Parliament. I am pleased to note that we have made further progress in this area in the last 18 months. The Feedback Unit has diligently sought the views of the public as well as special interest groups on most major Government policies announced. The Unit has also used these occasions to explain Government policies in order to help the people understand them better. Unfortunately, these good intentions have not always been fully recognised and appreciated by the people. There still exists scepticism on the feedback channel being more form than substance. More effort may have to be expended to dispel the remaining doubts of the sceptics and cynics.”
“Although I have nothing against soccer, I read with concern because this kind of attitude towards work, as if it was a hobby or a pastime, is undesirable, and which we cannot afford as a nation searching for excellence. It must be kept in check, otherwise the entire work ethos which we have been trying so hard to build will be slowly eroded. Indulgent parents who have succeeded economically are very much to blame for the poor work ethics of many of our youth. Parents should inculcate in their children from young the importance of working hard for a living and not relying on parental or state financial support, except as a last resort. These concepts should also be promulgated in our schools during moral and civics education. The temptation for parents to shower upon their children what they were once denied in their childhood is great, but should be resisted. The situation is aggravated by fewer children parents have today. The danger comes when a younger generation grows up taking many of the luxuries of life for granted; worse still, our economic success for granted. Parents at home and teachers in schools should continue to imbibe in our youth the values of hard work, and set good examples themselves for their children to follow, otherwise we might never attain our Vision for 1999. A better life for all Singaporeans is not just giving people higher wages, better housing and greater comforts of life. As we move up Maslow's hierarchy of needs, creating a better life for all Singaporeans is not just providing the people with their basic physiological needs, such as food, or their safety needs, such as housing and CPF, it is also meeting their needs for love, self-esteem and self-actualization.”
“Our workers are generally better educated than before. In 1989, 51.1% of the workforce had at least secondary education compared to 41.5% in 1980. To-date, 134,000 workers have completed the Basic Education for Skills Training (BEST) while another 22,500 finished the Workers' Improvement through Secondary Education (WISE) programme. These improvements, however, are inadequate to help us attain the status of a developed nation. Of even greater concern is the declining enrolment at our BEST classes. To reverse the trend, the Government should play a more active role in promoting training, increasing training opportunities through part-time studies in educational institutions and self-learning programmes, giving greater recognition to workers who have succeeded and providing greater financial incentives. In this respect, I am pleased to see the Skills Development Fund setting aside $20 million a year for the next three years to develop better training programmes and facilities. Unfortunately, current tight labour market and high labour turnover have made it increasingly costly for employers to spend on workers' training. Nevertheless, employers should still proceed as the nation as a whole will still benefit as long as all the workers remain in Singapore. Positive work attitude has been identified as one of the key factors of higher productivity. Recently, I read in the newspapers with disbelief the case of an architect who resigned from his job so that he could concentrate on watching the World Cup matches. Many others took annual vacation to watch the entire series.”
“With another 1 1/2% increase in July this year, the employers' share of CPF would have been restored to 16 1/2%, still 3 1/2% short of its long-term goal of 20%. If the economic growth continues to be robust in the next few years, the Government should restore it to 20% quickly. In this respect, the Government should be congratulated for having kept faith with the workers. Although the restoration has taken many years and is still not complete, it is moving in the right direction. The Government's action in this area will help to further strengthen the existing trust between the Government and the people. Trust, like glass, is very brittle and takes time to forge but can be shattered in an instant. This bond of trust and understanding between the Government and the people should not be taken for granted, but should continue to be treasured and nurtured. The challenge that we face today is how to maintain our impressive economic growth for the rest of this decade. In order to do so, Singapore must remain attractive to investors. We have been given 1A ratings by BERI as a very attractive place for investments together with countries like Japan, Switzerland, Germany, Taiwan and the Netherlands. In another report on world competitiveness by IMEDE in July 1989, we were rated first out of 10 NIEs. The important key factors taken into account are political stability, Government policies and a good labour force. Although our workforce has been rated the overall best in the world by BERI for 11 successive years, the Singapore worker still lags behind his counterpart in Japan, Switzerland and Taiwan for work attitude, and ranked 14th for technical skills. These two areas have also been identified by NPB's Productivity 2000 initiative as two of five main areas to focus on.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indeed honoured to be given the opportunity to move the Motion of Thanks to the President. Sir, I beg to move, That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:- "We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the Second Session of this Parliament.". The First Session of the Seventh Parliament was a relatively short but busy one. In his Address to Parliament then, the President had stated that his Govern- ment's goal was to create a better life for all Singaporeans. A better life meant not just having material needs met but also enjoying meaningful and fulfilling lives. In Maslow's hierarchy of needs, this would mean not just having our physiological and safety needs met but also our needs for love, self-esteem and the esteem of others, and self-fulfilment. In the last 18 months, in the words of the President, "We have completed a substantial part of this programme." As we begin our Second Session now, it is useful for us to take stock of our progress and ask ourselves whether we are moving nearer towards our Vision for 1999, ie, attaining the standard of living of the Swiss, and becoming a city of excellence, a society of distinction. Economically, we have done well for the last three years, the average growth rate having exceeded 9%. More importantly, labour has been given its fair share of the economic growth. Nominal and real earnings went up by 10.3% and 7.9% respectively. The employers' share of CPF contribution has also been restored gradually.”
“Since SNCF is the apex body representing the co-operative movement in Singapore, I would like to request the Minister to consider giving the SNCF greater say over the administration of the CCF for funding SNCF programmes and activities. Secondly, apart from funding the SNCF, I feel that the CCF should also play a more active role in achieving the objectives of the Fund.”
“The NTUC co-operatives, therefore, welcome this move as it serves to institutionalise what is already common practice among us. For the non-NTUC co-operatives with surpluses above $500,000, it may mean a greater financial contribution in the future. The Singapore Labour Foundation, however, may wish to consider extending benefits to members of such co-operative societies in order to attract them to opt to contribute 20% of their surplus to the Singapore Labour Foundation rather than the CCF. I support the contributions to the SLF as its objectives are much broader in scope, catering to all workers in Singapore, and not just members of co-operative societies or members of trade unions only. From the major projects undertaken in the past, the Singapore Labour Foundation has also shown that it is better placed to utilise these contributions from such surpluses. I would also like to take this opportunity to talk about the Central Co-operative Fund. The uses for the CCF are spelt out in section 71(4) of the Co-operative Societies Act as follows: 'The Central Co-operative Fund shall be used to further co-operative education, training, research, audit and for the general development of the co-operative movement in Singapore.' Presently, it collects about $1.6 million in contributions from all co-operative societies every year, and disburses only about $500,000 to fund the Singapore National Co-operative Federation. In my view, considering the contributions collected, not enough is being done by the CCF to promote co-operative education, training and research, apart from that done by the SNCF.”