Lim Boon Heng
Singapore
“On the first question on foreign domestic worker levy relief for single women who are looking after their aged parents, I think that question should be addressed to the Minister for Manpower and the Ministry of Finance.”
“I shall address the second point first. When it is clearly an item for a Ministry, a Member should address that question to that Ministry because that Ministry is also responsible for that even if it is related to ageing.”
“For those who wonder what the Fourth Age is, it is basically the last couple of years of your life when you are afflicted by, perhaps, chronic illnesses and therefore need to be cared for.”
“The Wellness Programme applies to all estates. In the pilot project, we deliberately chose 12 pilot sites to reflect different mixes. For example, we chose Ulu Pandan, which has a lot of private estates.”
“Maybe MCYS and the PMO could really look into these RC centres to see whether they could incorporate some of the needs of the elderly in these centres as well, like an extra area for karaoke or even mahjong. This area should be quiet and enclosed because the elderly sing loudly as they cannot hear very well.”
“The process has already started. We are already debating this issue in Parliament. The unions have taken up the issue with the management. I know and I am aware of that. So, let the process take its course.”
The complete record
Every one of 715 lines we hold for Lim Boon Heng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 15.
“May I ask the Member for Potong Pasir whether he would ask his Chairman to state very unequivocally the fact that he supports multi-racialism.”
“I hope this time it does not fall on deaf ears. Based on a proper and detailed study, the Government can then take appropriate measures to help the poor move up the economic ladder. I would urge the Government to act quickly and effectively so that every Singaporean can share in the Vision of 1999 and participate in the building of a Nation of Excellence. Sir, the credibility of the first generation of our political leaders was established when they implemented their vision which is spelt out in 1959 and in the early 60's. what we achieved in the Singapore of today is testimony to the credibility of the first generation leaders. The credibility of the next generation in this Vision would be established when we systematically apply ourselves to implementing the goals that we have set for ourselves. That is how we should look at the question of credibility, a matter which the Member for Potong Pasir had earlier raised. I would like to ask the Member for Potong Pasir about the credibility of the SDP. For example, I would like to ask him whether in his Party there are two standards, one for the Chairman and one for the Secretary-General, particularly with respect to the issue of multi-racialism, an issue which we consider to be fundamental to the success, the stability and the progress of Singapore. Would the Member for Potong Pasir announce unequivocally in this House whether his Party subscribes to the principles of multi-racialism and whether he has sorted out his differences with his Party Chairman.”
“So far the Government's approach to this problem, as stated by the First Deputy Prime Minister, is through high economic growth, universal education, skills training, smaller families, etc. I think these are right. But I believe that this macro-approach has not sufficiently reduced the problems of the lower income group. The question I would like to put to the First Deputy Prime Minister is what more can the Government do to help the less privileged in Singapore? They are caught in a vicious circle. The key question is how can we help them to break out of this vicious circle? How do we upgrade the low income earners to become higher income earners? I believe we must look more carefully at the special needs of the poor. Give them hope for their children. Do this through education. Government can provide more assistance for education at pre-primary, primary, secondary and tertiary levels. Education must be seen as a form of investment. Providing highly subsidized education to the poorer in our midst would not be too heavy a financial burden for the Government. Education is but one of the means to assist the less privileged in Singapore. Many other forms of support and assistance should also be considered. Like the Government, I believe it is better to give the less privileged a fishing rod and teach them the skill to fish than giving away free fish. This will allow the less privileged to be more resourceful and move ahead. The First Deputy Prime Minister has announced the formation of six advisory councils or committees for the promotion of arts, leisure and others. I would urge him to set up a 7th council, a task force to study the problems facing the poor and the less privileged. The Member for Chong Boon made a similar call in this House in March 1985.”
“Sir, I wish to confine my remarks on one aspect of the Paper only, and in doing so I wish to concentrate more on the Action rather on the Agenda. Sir, I am very pleased to note that the Agenda recognizes the need to help the poor, the physically handicapped and the disabled. But I would like the Government to do more than that. In fact, more than just making this statement, I would urge the Government to explore more as to how to help the disadvantaged in our society than merely saying, "Let us give them all the support they need." I am referring to that section of our population who do not attend forums to speak up and who cannot write to the newspapers, those who have been lagging behind the mainstream of our economic progress all these years, because when we announced our economic growth figures, it has little or no meaning to this group of people. We have carefully designed a system that avoided a disastrous policy of unlimited subsidies. But how have we been able to help this pocket of the less advantaged, less well-off Singaporeans? Some estimates have been given that this group of people amount to 15%-20% and it belongs to the lower income group. Most of them work as odd job workers or casual labourers. The plight of these people is illustrated by the fact that they were among the first to be retrenched during the recession and they have found it most difficult to gain re-employment when the economy recovered. Because as the Ministry of Labour's survey of June 1987 showed, seven in 10 of those who were unemployed belonged to the lower income group without Primary Six education or less. I think we should do more for this group of people.”
“All Singaporeans regard themselves as Singaporeans and not Chinese, Malay, Indian or Eurasian. To those who think that all is well now and will forever be well, I ask them to look at the case of Lebanon. For many years, over a hundred years, Lebanon was a place of harmony, a place of vitality and a thriving tourist resort. After over a hundred years of this experience, Lebanon today is so sharply divided. Before the last war, would we imagine that in Lebanon we have a situation it is today. I think that lesson tells us that whilst all is well with us now in Singapore, there is no guarantee, unless we take steps to integrate our population, that this will remain forever so. For those parties that cannot accept multi-racialism, I think we have to ask them the question: are their parties based on race? Do they or do they not, like the rest of us in Singapore, accept multi-racialism as the basis or our society. Sir, on that note, I support the Bill. 2.20 pm”
“So all have contributed to the success of that team; all are duly elected as champions and not runners-up. The Team MP system will require serious-minded political parties to include multi-racialism as a principle of their organization. If all political parties are multi-racially based, then the foundation of our society will be strengthened and the fabric of our society will have stronger bonds. We are aiding the process of integration and not polarization. The Team MP system, therefore, offers us the best method of enshrining multi-racialism in our society. It is the best method of ensuring that Parliament will be multi-racial and no minority group will run the risk of political exclusion. There is, as the First Deputy Prime Minister said, a larger purpose, that is, to make all political parties multi-racial or multi-racially based, to make this a moderating influence on politics in Singapore. Then the question is, that being the wider objective, why do we not extend GRCs to all constituencies rather than limit it to less than 50%? Perhaps the reason may be that there may be over-representation of minority groups in Parliament. Any- way, I think that the multi-seat GRC system would dovetail in very conveniently with the implementation of town councils. We have operated town councils in Ang Mo Kio. I have direct experience. I think it is a good system. I hope that those constituencies that will not be considered as GRCs will get together to form town councils. Those political parties who argue against the Group Representation Constituency system either have leaders who cannot see the risks and dangers of racial division or are unable to accept multi-racialism as a fundamental principle of their organization. Some argue that the system has worked well, why change now?”
“Personally, I have weighed the pros and cons of each. Proportional representation will lead to racially-based political parties, and religious based political parties too. There are examples in other countries, both near and far. What it would mean is the polarization of racial and religious groups and this goes against our intention of building mutual tolerance and respect and down-playing race and religion. Furthermore, proportional representation as a system has been shown to paralyze governments even in developed Europe because of the inability of parties to win a majority in Parliament. Communal-based elections mean defining and allocating seats in Parliament based on racial groups. It means Chinese will vote for Chinese, Malays vote for Malays, Indians for Indians, and so on. This will forever enshrine racialism in politics. It is against what we want. The reserve ward system means that specific constituencies will have minority MPs only. But I do not think that voters in such constituencies, granted the spread of our electorate at the present moment, will be happy to be restricted in their choice. The nominated MP system, if an insufficient number of minority MPs are voted in, would give these minority MPs the status of runners-up MPs, or worse, labelled as second-class MPs. If we are to judge the reaction and the action of people to the non-constituency MPs system, we would conclude that the nominated MP system would be an unsatisfactory system. The runners-up minority candidates may not take their seats inParliament. The Group Representation Constituency system, or Team MP system, however, will pit one multi-racial team against another multi-racial team. Those who are elected would be endorsed by the electorate, by the people as the team of their choice.”
“The experience of ract riots drove home the lesson that we must have a racial balance in political representation. Our older voters still remember, and they now constitute a counter-balancing force. In time, however, this counter-weight will be proportionately smaller. So far, this counter-weight, and the strength of PAP minority candidates, has been able to ensure us a multi-racial Parliament. Do we want to wait until the day when the counterweight is ineffective? Do we want to wait until the day comes when minority groups find themselves excluded from political expression in Parliament before we decide to address the issue? By then, the division may be deep and blood may be spilled once again on account of race. The sheer logic is compelling that we must enshrine in our Constitution and in our electoral laws the sacrosanctity of multi-racialism. If we believe in multi-racialism, then we must support the intent of the Bills, otherwise our words will ring hollow. At a time when all is well and calm, we Singaporeans can consider the intent of the legislation before us and I think all thinking Singaporeans will conclude that we should have multi-racial representation in Parliament. That we are born Chinese, Malay, Indian, Eurasian or others is determined by hereditary factors. We cannot help being born the way we are or the colour we wear. So how can we assure that the majority group does not, intentionally or unintentionally, exclude the minority groups from representation in Parliament? There are a few options: proportional representation, communal-based elections, reserved wards for specific ethnic groups, nominated MPs if an insufficient number of minority MPs are voted in, or the group representation constituency system.”
“Sir, the single-seat constituency, first-past-the-post system, bears a high risk of political exclusion of minority groups because of the natural affinity that goes with race and this natural affinity influences voting behaviour. We cannot deny that even in Singapore this is so and the risk rises when, in the passage of time, younger voters who have not experienced the race riots of the 1960s ignore the need to vote in minority candidates. Older generations of Singaporeans know that racial feelings are latent, easily aroused, and can be quicky fanned to dangerous emotional levels, if politicans take a wrong turn. And wrong turns have been taken. The evidence abounds. Ethnic problems plague many countries with multi-racial populations-Sri Lanka, Fiji, Guyana, Cyprus, Spain- just to name a few. There are countries with longer histories and higher levels of education than ourselves, but they are not free from ethnic problems because in spite of the higher level of education, it is still evident that blacks vote for blacks, and whites for whites a tendency noted even in an advanced country like the United States. Where in countries the race consciousness is lower, we find the main political groups do not use race as a means of obtaining the voters' support. But where racial tensions are high, political parties tend to be racially based. So far, we have a multi-racial Parliament because the PAP believes in multi- racialism. Since its inception, the PAP has consciously presented to the electorate a balanced mix of candidates at every general election, even from the first time the PAP contested in elections with only four candidates, the PAP presented a multi-racial slate to the people. In earlier years, there were constituencies for fielding minority race candidates.”
“Electing MPs in this way will ensure that there will always be minority representation in Parliament. It was the second time that evening that I had outlined the concept of Team MPs to my constituents. An hour earlier I had explained the concept in relation to Town Councils at an RC Senior Citizens' Club inauguration ceremony. The press were present at this Senior Citizen's function but not at the Prophet Mohammed's Birthday function. So the public heard of the Team MPs concept only in relation to Town Councils when the concept was first made public. It was not the negligence of the press. I had not intended my second speech that evening to be publicized. This was because our internal discussions within the People's Action Party had yet to reach a consensus. We were still debating whether Team MPs or GRCs is the best system to ensure minority representation. It was only about three months earlier that the Minister of State (Home Affairs) and I had discussed in his office the problem of Town Councils with MPs from different political parties. We discussed the multi-seat constituency idea and the Team MPs concept. We agreed that the concept provided a neat solution to keep Town Councils free from political teamsmanship. We both also agreed that more importantly the concept provides a solution to the problem of ensuring minority representation in Parliament, a problem that had been discussed within the PAP for several years. It was because of the overwhelming merit of the concept in respect of enshrining multi-racialism that this idea was further pursued.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the First Deputy Prime Minister asked us when we consider this Bill to ask ourselves the question whether we believe in taking steps to encourage multi-racial politics and to discourage extremist racial politics. I think in considering this Bill and the one to follow we should ask these questions perhaps also in different forms. First, do we believe that Parliament should reflect the multi-racial character of our society? Do we want to ensure that all the principal ethnic groups in our society are represented in Parliament? In particular, do we want to see that minority groups always have a voice in Parliament? These are questions we all have to ask ourselves when we examine the intent and the contents of the two Bills before us. These are questions which we have asked the people in the past year's National Agenda discussions. I think what the people have told us is that we want to have multi-racial representation in Parliament and these are also questions that I posed to more than 300 Muslims, mostly Malay Muslims, on 24th January 1987 at a function to celebrate Prophet Mohammad's Birthday. I told our Muslim friends that in our multi-racial, multi-religious society, all groups must be integrated into the mainstream of society. All groups must feel that they are active participants and not mere observers. To me, the highest level of participation is in Parliament. We need to ensure that there will always be minority representation in Parliament. To them, I outlined the concept of electing MPs in teams, say, of three, of which one must be from a minority group. All political parties should be required to compete on the basis of multi-racial slates and let the people choose the team most worthy of their support.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, with the record that the trade union movement has in Singapore these past few years, one would have thought that out of 89 cases of claiming for recognition, there ought to have been 89 cases without a contest rather than only 41. Nevertheless, I hope that with the Minister's support and advice to the employers, the situation will improve. And I assure the Minister that a letter will be coming his way this afternoon or tomorrow morning regarding the case I have just mentioned. I hope that if the management is proven to be anti-union in its attitude and activities, that if it goes to court, that this be made an example so as to administer the message to the employers who may have this kind of attitude. On that note, I wish to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The Chairman: Amendment (6)*, Mr Lim.”
“Whilst the union was being formed, some of the executives in the company told those workers that if a union was formed, then the company would close down. In other words, the strategy to be adopted by the company would be to close down the company just to avoid having a union in the company. I am told that 19 employees in this company have agreed to make statements on this point. Faced with this kind of action taken by employers, the Ministry of Labour must take a firm stand. In fact, it appears also that this particular company is taking steps to close down and in the process, to form other companies to take over the work that the company is currently performing. The partners of this private limited company have already interviewed some of their workers about the possible employment in the new companies to be set up, and word has gone around in this company that about one-third of the workers could be retrenched. Sir, I bring this case up to demonstrate that, notwithstanding all the work that our unions in Singapore have done towards helping the employers, we still have employers of this nature. I would appreciate if the Ministry of Labour would take a firm stand on this particular case. The trade unions in Singapore do not really want to take strike action. But if the Ministry of Labour can resolve this to the satisfaction of every one concerned, then such a course of action would be prevented.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, in view of the time constraint, I propose to skip Amendments (3) and (4)* and go on straight to No. (5)*. Sir I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead RD-01-1210 of the Main Estimates. Sir, last year, on the wage restraint policy, full cooperation was given by the trade unions and we were able to achieve a near wage standstill for 1986. I think most enlightened employers acknowledge the contribution of the labour movement and the workers of Singapore. One would think that with such a record, the employers would welcome the formation of unions at their enterprises. However, that is not the case. Another point which I want to make, Sir, is that if we want to carry out a policy of wage standstill in a company or even to effect a wage cut, then there ought to be equal sacrifice and it would be incumbent upon the management to ensure that there is equal sacrifice made. By and large, I think most employers follow that rule or principle. However, there are companies in Singapore that flout both the principle of equal sacrifice as well as adopt anti-union attitudes. I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to one particular case. Last year, one company decided to reduce the salaries of its employees by 10%. This company was not unionized. The employees complained, firstly, to the Ministry of Labour who ordered the company to restore the salary cut. As a result of this experience, the workers in that company felt that it was rather cumbersome for them individually to seek redress to their problems with the Ministry of Labour. So they decided to form a union and, in fact, the union was formed.”
“Mr Chairman, before withdrawing, I would like to commend the Minister for standing firm on the implementation of the levy. I am glad that his Ministry is finalizing the long term rate of CPF with a view also to encouraging the employment of older workers. On that note, I would like to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“What the rate should be will take into consideration the basic objectives of CPF, the need to preserve jobs by keeping wage cost competitive, and the productive use of savings.' The Chairman: Order. Mr Lim, your time is up. Dr Ow Chin Hock.”
“But the unions in Singapore are prepared to accept this and explain to the Singapore worker that he is better off because he has savings in CPF and he can use his CPF savings for housing, hospitalization and his retirement. So, in my view, the levy scheme is fair to employers. Sir, now I turn to the long-term CPF rate. When the employers' contribution to CPF was cut from 25% to 10% last year, it was clearly stated that it would be restored when the economy recovers. The recommendation of the Economic Committee reads as follows: 'CPF. The problem of high wages should be tackled directly. As a large component of wage costs is CPF contributions, it recommends reducing the rate of employers' contributions to CPF by 15% points, from 25% to 10%, for two years in the first instance ... Meanwhile, the Government should study the appropriate long term rate of CPF contributions, one both adequate to meet the objectives of the CPF Scheme, and sustainable from the point of view of economic growth.' When the First Deputy Prime Minister spoke to Singapore Polytechnic students in January 1986, he said: 'When the economic situation improves we can reinstate the higher CPF rate, step by step, and without upsetting investors' confidence.' Then on the 26th February 1986, the First Deputy Prime Minister also disclosed, in this House, that a review was being made on the CPF scheme from a longer term perspective, "to decide on the appropriate long-term rate and structure of contributions that would meet the basic needs of the CPF scheme." He also gave an assurance to employers, and here I quote from Hansard Vol. 47, col. 240: 'When the employer's CPF rate can go up again will depend on the pace and strength of economic recovery.”
“Some employers advance the argument that the levy scheme is contradictory to the wage restraint policy. The unions' view is that it is wrong to use foreign workers to depress wages of Singapore workers. Singapore workers therefore see the levy scheme as a modification of the policy to phase out foreign workers. Foreign workers will not be phased out and there will be a revolving pool. The levy is seen as an instrument with which the Ministry of Labour can regulate the supply of foreign workers, to minimize the disadvantage to Singapore workers. Workers, especially those with lower incomes, are more concerned with their take-home pay. For this reason, I doubt that the employers' claim that the levy will raise the cost of foreign workers is valid. I now refer to the Table which has been circulated. It can be seen that at a basic salary of $400, the total wage cost to the employer is $440. The take-home pay to the worker on the CPF scheme is $300. And if we assume the same wage cost to the employer, with a levy of $140, the foreign worker also takes home $300. But if we take salaries higher than $400, let us say $500, and apply the same principle that the same wage cost to the employer is applied, then it can be seen from this Table very clearly that the take-home pay of Singapore workers will be lower as compared to foreign workers. I think the percentage of reduction in total package for the foreign worker will be less and less substantial as the wages go up. This fact that the Singapore worker on CPF scheme will take home less as compared to a foreign worker on the levy scheme will pose problems for the unions.”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman. I quite understand the Member for Ayer Rajah's point. But I believe these were his exact words. He said: 'However, in implementation the objective must be to help our businessmen to get foreign labour cheaply and easily in order that industries and services can flourish.' I do not want to debate the point but I think it cannot be Government's policy to ensure employers a ready supply of cheap labour. It should be Government's policy to see to it that there is a supply of skilled and productive workers whose wage costs are competitive. There is a subtle difference between cheap labour and labour at competitive prices. Have the employers actually harboured hopes that Government will abandon the policy to phase out foreign workers? Do they see the Government's acceptance of a revolving pool of foreign workers as a weakening of will? Are they therefore wanting to exert more pressure so that Government will give in? I must tell the Minister for Labour the workers' view on foreign workers, in case he is wavering and considering giving in to the pressure that is being exerted on him by employers. After all, in the past two years, the power of employers has been considerable. There has been a rumble of discontent among some workers that the ready availability of cheap foreign workers has depressed wage levels artificially, so that the lower income workers have suffered at low starting salaries. This complaint has been voiced from time to time in the past few years. Older workers, in particular, cannot compete with young foreign workers who are prepared to accept low salaries. Even when our older workers are prepared to accept the same low salaries, employers prefer younger workers.”
“That it is Government's responsibility to ensure a ready supply of cheap labour.”
“They seem to take it for granted that it is Government's responsibility to ensure a ready supply of cheap labour. Indeed, I was amazed to hear in this House a few days ago the Member for Ayer Rajah saying that it is Government's responsibility to ensure a ready supply of cheap labour.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead RA-01-1100 of the Main Estimates*. Sir, the Government Parliamentary Committee on Labour does not consider that its role is just to articulate the views of workers. It must express the spectrum of opinion of both employers and employees, if it is to reflect the full picture. We are agreed that labour policies must reflect the proper balance between the interests of employers and employees. We are also agreed that we should take care of the interests of Singapore workers, especially those of the lower income. We may not, however, agree unanimously on all matters. As such, the GPC members have been encouraged to speak their minds freely. Sir, I wish to raise three issues for discussion. (1) There is a need for us to settle the question of the long term rate of CPF contribution. (2) Progress on raising the retirement age has been very slow, almost stagnant. More has to be done for us to achieve this very desirable goal. (3) The foreign workers' levy that was recently announced. Sir, I propose to take the third item first, and for that I would appreciate if the Clerk would distribute a Table which I have prepared for Members' reference. Sir, I have read with concern the press reports that some employers are unhappy with the new policy on foreign workers who have up to now been employed on the CPF scheme. The main complaint is that the $140 levy will raise wage cost for foreign workers. I must express my unhappiness over this attitude of the employers. The Government's policy to reduce dependence on foreign workers was announced several years ago. Yet employers who have depended heavily on foreign workers have not taken concrete steps to wind down their dependence.”
“I think that the earlier a sinking fund is established for HDB flats, the better it would be for the residents because we should plan from as early a stage as possible. The problem which the Member for Leng Kee is worried about is: who pays for the kinds of expenses that may be expected of the older housing estates, and where would that money come from? If a town council is established, say, in Toa Payoh or Queenstown, then that is a question that has to be answered because the flats are about 20 years old now and also whether a sinking fund has been established for that purpose. Unfortunately, with the manner in which HDB has been operating all these years, the question of the sinking fund has not arisen in the past and that has not been a part of the HDB's normal planning process. But to be fair to those MPs in the older housing estates who may be faced with the possible implementation of town councils in their constituencies, I think this is a question that has to be thoroughly discussed and solutions found. I would just like to say that apart from the organizational aspects in terms of setting up town council structures, I think the far more important fact is: how do we get the residents themselves to be involved? Because if we want to carry out work like replacing the plumbing system, invariably you would have to have the full cooperation of all the residents in the same block. Without the full cooperation, the work would be difficult, if not impossible, to be carried out. So I think with the establishment of town councils, it presents us with an excellent opportunity to organize the residents for their own mutual benefit and for the upkeep of their flats and the long-term maintenance of the value of their flats.”
“And linking the two, the desire for participation and the need to preserve the value of homes, I think it is beyond doubt that the setting up of town councils will provide us with that solution. There is also an important area which we have to look at with respect to estate management. And I think that the point which the Member for Leng Kee raised is a valid one. He refers to one. He refers to the older HDB housing estates like Toa Payoh, Queenstown and elsewhere where the state of the blocks is not as good as newer housing estates. This highlights a very important factor in estate management and that is the requirement for planning for long-term maintenance of HDB housing estates. Some people think that in the management of HDB estates, the role of town councils would be that of sweeping the floors, keeping the common areas clean, collecting and removing refuse. I think that is, of necessity, one essential aspect of the work of town councils. But the greater long-term and more important job of town councils is to see to it that the long-term maintenance work is carried out and that there are sufficient funds for that purpose. And such kinds of long-term repairs and maintenance work will include, say, the 5-year repairs and redecorations, ie, the repainting of the blocks; the 10-year re-treatment of the roof; the replacement of the lift cage also about once every 10 years; the replcement of the lift machinery perhaps once every 20-25 years. In addition to that we have got the question of rewiring of the housing blocks and also the replacement of the plumbing system. And to do this kind of work, we must have the funds and we must be able to plan, set aside a sum of money for that purpose. With the establishment of the town councils, we have got the sinking fund.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I raise this amendment because I anticipated that the subject of town councils could possibly be raised by other Members of the House, and I wanted the opportunity to be able to contribute to the discussion. Sir, I think the first question that we should ask ourselves with respect to town councils is: do we want to have town councils? What are the reasons for wanting to have town councils Very simply, my answer to that is that, with a rising educational level among our people, there is an increasing desire on the part of our people to participate in activities, in the setting of policies which affect them. And one of the areas which affects them is the living environment. Since 86% of the people in Singapore live in HDB flats, then this presents, I think, an excellent opportunity for the people to participate in deciding how to upkeep their environment. The next question I think we should ask is whether the subject of estate management is an important subject. I think the answer to that must be yes, because the HDB flat represents the largest single investment of our people. I think, for most Singaporeans, that is their largest single investment and invariably it also may mean that it is the life-long savings of the people concerned, particularly when we allow the use of CPF for the purchase of homes, and now with the question of the withdrawal age of CPF settled at 55 with the provision that if a person owns a property in excess of the Minimum Sum value, then that person can withdraw his entire CPF savings at the age of 55. Therefore, it is very important that we see to it that the HDB apartment blocks are properly maintained. So I think this is an important subject.”
“I think it is morally right that we examine the restoration of the CPF once the economy recovers. We can agree to allow the CPF rate to rise at the pace that the economy can afford. We can also discuss the long-term CPF contribution rate but in principle there must be a restoration of the CPF rate. I think, in principle, the contribution rate for workers and employers should be the same. So whatever is the final contribution rate, whether it is 35%, 40% or even 50% to meet housing, medical and retirement requirements, whatever the figure is, the principle ought to be that the contribution rate of employers and employees should be the same.”
“And because we had kept wages low, we were not getting the high technology industries that we ought to have got and which other countries obtained because they had allowed wages to float with the market. But after the corrective wage policy, I think this is how I interpret the Minister for Finance's statement when he said, "From 1980 to 1984, wage increases in Singapore far outstripped productivity growth." So it is because of the second part, after the corrective wage policy that we have run into problems with high wage cost and it is this particular problem that we are addressing. I think it is because between 1979 and 1981 the Government had recommended a corrective wage policy that had given our Singapore workers the wages which Government felt was due to them, that Government had the moral authority in 1985-86 and this year to talk about wage restraint to be exercised by workers in Singapore. Finally, the Minister for Finance has stressed that wage increases must lag behind productivity growth. I have no objections to that principle. I think our workers will be prepared to follow this guideline if only management would pay serious attention to productivity. But at the moment management appears to be befuddled by the word and quite clearly more needs to be done to get them to put their minds to bear on this matter. Mr Speaker, Sir, since the subject of the CPF contribution rate has been raised, I just wish to make a point and leave a greater discussion on this to take place during the Committee of Supply. When Government announced the policy of reducing the employer's CPF contribution, it was stated that it was a temporary measure. It is on that basis that the workers in Singapore accepted this reduction to their wage package.”
“No CPF. So we would have to take account of the competition of technology that is developed by countries such as Japan. Whilst our emphasis is on attracting new investments, at the same time we must value what we have here in Singapore. In other words, we must maintain a competitive environment that would make it attractive for those who have already invested in Singapore to continue doing their business here. It is with this in mind, to keep investments already here to stay and to attract new investments, in other words, to enhance the security of jobs, that we have supported the cost-cutting measures and the wage standstill policy of last year. Fortunately because of the explanations that have been given and the practical examples of hardship caused to those who have been retrenched, workers have understood this need and they have given their support. The question is, for how long? One more year or two more years, as the Member for Clementi suggested earlier? I think we also have to ask ourselves the question: what about the aspirations of our workers? For how long can aspirations be put on hold? For this year, yes but with a lot of explanations on the part of union leaders, managements and political leaders. Next year, I think we should leave our options open. It is not desirable to put workers' aspirations on hold for too long nor should it be Government policy to do so. I think it is not Government policy to do this. And here let me turn again to what the Member for Potong Pasir earlier said. He described it as an error of policy on the part of the Government because from 1979 to 1984 we had corrective wage policy and he attributes the recession to this high wage policy. The fact is that for several years before 1979 we had kept wages low.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, his policy is to leave things alone but build child care centres and, hey presto, the child care centres will be filled. I think this subject, as he said, is more complex than that and requires, I think, greater thinking on his part.”
“May I ask the Member for Potong Pasir what his opinion is then?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I was inclined to leave the subject of procreation to the other Members of the House until I heard the remarks of some of the preceding Members of this House, in particular the Member for Potong Pasir. His policy for solving the anticipated shortfall in our population is not to interfere and to let nature take its course. If we follow that policy, then where is our country heading? So I think that the Member for Potong Pasir ought to look at the problem in greater depth rather than to follow his natural inclination to leave things alone.”
“" But the Member for Potong Pasir must know that the previous Member for Anson lost his right to the seat and this penalty does not arise any more. Mr Chiam See Tong rose -”
“As a member of the Committee, I recall that the hon. Member for Potong Pasir did, during the Committee hearings, express his views on the question of penalty. But on the rest of the Report, including paragraph 32, where there is a finding of guilt by the Committee, the Member for Potong Pasir did not express dissent nor did he ask for a division. I would take it that this afternoon he is not really disagreeing with the finding of guilt. If so, I think he should make it very clear. Secondly, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, he spoke about the opportunity to be heard. The fact is that the Committee did invite Mr Jeyaretnam to give his views on the complaint of the Leader of the House. He did send in his written representations and these were considered by the Committee. Finally, Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir suggested that the most appropriate penalty would be not a fine but for Mr Jeyaretnam to be reprimanded under the provisions of the Act. If one looks at section 20 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, as amended, section 20 provides for four different types of penalties. First, committal to prison. Second, a fine not exceeding $50,000. Third, suspension. I think that if Mr Jeyaretnam was still a Member of the House, the Committee may well have taken the view that these contempts were so serious as to even warrant consideration of a penalty of suspension. But he was no longer a Member of the House. That is why the Committee considered a fine to be appropriate. As regards reprimand, section 20(1)(d) says that Parliament may "direct that he be reprimanded or admonished in his place (ie, in his place in this Chamber) by the Speaker.”
“I liken the brand of politics as practised by the Opposition to that of the modern Pak Pandir. Why do I say that this is the brand of politics of the modern Pak Pandir? If Mr Jeyaretnam is a person of modern politics, certainly we must have heard from him cogent arguments. If he represents a man of modern politics, he must possess rational thinking. Again, if he is a man of modern politics, we must have discerned the progressive elements in his arguments, but the two Reports have shown that the arguments he had advanced so far were intended to destroy our present political system. His arguments are retrogressive, lacking in substance. This is what I mean when I say that he depicts the modern Pak Pandir, except that in the course of embarking in politics of this nature the humorous aspects which are present in the folklore of Pak Pandir are absent. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, nobody can prevent the Opposition from continuing to indulge in this kind of politicking. This reminds me of yet another folklore character, Lunchai, who jumped into the river with his pumpkin. If there are people who have a penchant to indulge in the politics of modern Pak Pandir, let them jump into the sea with their pumpkins. The Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I say a few words? I have listened to the Member for Potong Pasir and I noted that most of his comments were devoted to the question of penalty. But at the same time he also did comment that in his view Mr Jeyaretnam spoke in the heat of the moment and all the surrounding circumstances should be taken into account. This puzzles me because I wonder whether he was also disagreeing with the finding of the Committee of Privileges that Mr Jeyaretnam was guilty.”
“The two Reports have now clearly proven that he, Mr Jeyaretnam, like the bulldozer, has become a casualty as a result of his own recklessness. But more importantly, we should attempt to evaluate the quality and personality of the Opposition in this House. Do we need an Opposition of the quality and personality of the former Member for Anson? Do we need an Opposition of the quality and personality that distorts truthful reports? Do we need an Opposition that cannot offer constructive contributions to the proceedings of our Parliament? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there may perhaps be quarters that applaud and consider the former Member for Anson as a political hero. Maybe some regard him as a political hero who can rock the stability of this Government. But we have seen what has been exposed by the two Reports that he is masquerading as a political hero, a political hero masquerading in the name of justice, a political hero masquerading in the name of the sanctity of justice, and a political hero who ostensibly wishes to uphold the pillar of justice. The two reports have clearly unmasked his pretensions and, further, arising out of these reports has emerged a pattern of politics that is blurred and obscured. But what is more important to me is that these reports form an object lesson to our people, especially the voters of Singapore. Do we need an Opposition which, since its entry into Parliament, I think, want to snare the Government but eventually got itself trapped? This brings to memory a folklore in Malay literature. We all know the story of Pak Pandir who was always doing a good turn to others. But because of his ignorance and stupidity, he got himself entangled and finally destroyed.”
“When any Member has breached Parliamentary privilege and misrepresented proceedings of Parliament or its Committees, it is our unpleasant duty to take disciplinary action. I concur with the Committee of Privileges' findings and support the motion, and urge my fellow Members to do likewise. Encik Wan Hussin bin Haji Zoohri (Kampong Ubi)( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, permit me to respond to the Second Report tabled by the Leader of the House. We witnessed this morning the recommendation contained in the First Report of the Committee of Privileges that the former Member for Anson was found guilty of contempt of the Committee of Privileges and of Parliament. The essence of his offence lies in his allegation that the administration of the Judiciary is tarnished thereby raising doubts about the sanctity of our laws. He casts aspersions that the Judiciary is being manipulated, influenced and interfered with. However, we all know that the Committee of Privileges in its First Report has totally repudiated all these smears made by the ex Member for Anson as untruths. We are now debating the Second Report of the Committee of Privileges which accuses Mr Jeyaretnam of wilful distortion and misrepresentation of the proceedings of Parliament in his five newsletters addressed to his constituents. The Second Report has vehemently rejected his unfounded allegations. My reaction to both these Reports is that the former Member for Anson was robust enough to challenge our judicial system as well as the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges. I liken him to a bulldozer that crushes anything in its path without realizing that in the process the bulldozer itself might be damaged.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is natural to expect those who seek to become representatives of the people to be persons who place the interests of the people first and foremost. Any person, once elected by the people, must always seek the truth and speak the truth. Without adhering to this fundamental principle, public debate degenerates into a game of deception. How can the public interest be served then? From what the Member for Potong Pasir has said, the debate may be on how much we value the truth. Thus the motion before us is whether the fine of $5,000 per offence is too severe or not severe enough. I think it is worse if we, as a Parliament, do not exercise our responsibility to punish a duly elected Member of Parliament who misrepresents what actually happens in any of our proceedings. It is even more serious when these are proceedings of the highest body in the country, Parliament and its Committees. Can we afford to allow this to happen? If we, as Members of Parliament, do not set the example, then how can we enforce the law? How can we uphold the system? If we allow Parliament to be misrepresented, then the logical consequence is the erosion of public confidence in Parliament. Can we afford the erosion of public confidence in the highest body of the land? If people do not have faith in Parliament, it would not be possible to conduct public affairs and all systems will break down. That is why the action of the former Member for Anson must be dealt with promptly and firmly. There is no other authority in the land that can keep this House in order. It is for us, the Members of this House, to keep our House in order.”
“It treats employee directors no differently from those directors who are shareholders in the company, neither does it make a distinction between executive and non-executive directors. The Minister has pointed out that in company law there is no difference between executive and non-executive directors. But in practice, there is a difference. Although section 149 is based on section 9 of the UK Insolvency Act which he has just mentioned, I understand that a director is debarred on the specific orders of a court order at a liquidation hearing. This is not automatic and I believe it does not apply to all directors unless the Act has been extensively amended in 1985. The UK Insolvency Act makes a specific order on the debarment of a director at the time of a liquidation hearing. I think he is also right when he mentioned that the UK Act has been amended and now makes the penalties even higher for directors who continue to transgress and operate despite the debarment. In this instance, perhaps we should also do a similar thing. A director who has already been debarred should, of course, be personally liable for all debts that he has incurred when he continues to operate despite being debarred. But on the other hand, we have to look into making some specific provisions to protect the innocent directors, especially those who are employee directors. I do not know how much chance we have in Select Committee. This was well deliberated in the previous Select Committee. But I honestly hope that the next Select Committee will take a much closer view of section 149.”
“It has been alleged that some companies have taken advantage of Chapter 11 proceedings to proscribe trade union rights. The proposed amendments do not spell out the conditions that may be imposed on the conduct of industrial relations once a judicial manager is appointed. I think this should be verified. This is one example of the issues that we will have to examine when we introduce this new provision for a judicial manager. Sir, I thus support the move to refer the Bill to a Select Committee of Parliament. Mr Chng Hee Kok: Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the move to commit this Bill to a Select Committee as there are extensive new provisions governing the management of companies, especially those provisions on judicial management and definitions. As this and others will be deliberated by the Select Committee, I shall not go into details. However, I must voice my unhappiness over one particular provision which is the result of the deliberations of a previous Select Committee. I am referring to section 149 which the Minister has just elaborated. The proposed amendment in clause 22 makes practically no change to section 149. In essence, the so-called double liquidation penalty in section 149 remains intact. Coming on the heels of several requests from businessmen, professionals, Members of this House, and the recommendation by the Economic Committee that section 149 be revised, the proposed changes come as a great disappointment. I am afraid that this may inhibit further progress that we are aiming for in business. Section 149 takes no account for the vagaries of business as has been pointed out before.”
“Because, as the Minister has said, there are many causes for company failures, would not such a clause make a person guilty until proven innocent? Rather than the other way round where a person is innocent until proven guilty. So I hope this particular section would receive the comments of the public since it is a matter that has aroused great interest, and I hope that the people who have an interest in this particular section would make their representations to the Select Committee. Next, I would like to turn to the provision for judicial management. The intention of clause 46 is wholly laudable from my point of view. This, as the Minister has said, is conceptually similar to the Chapter 11 proceedings in the United States. Under the new provisions, companies that are facing temporary liquidity problems should be given a reasonable chance to continue to operate and to overcome their problems. And in this current recession, owing to a lowering of confidence, creditors have been nervous and there have been some instances of hasty action being taken to secure payment, forcing premature closure of companies and causing unnecessary loss of jobs. Notwithstanding the good intentions of this new chapter, I think it will be prudent for us to examine how the provisions would function. There has to be a fair balance, as the Minister has said, between the interests of the company, its shareholders, directors and employees as against the interests of creditors. And all these would have to be thoroughly considered. But no matter how laudable the intentions of the proposed new chapter, we must be careful to avoid any possible undesirable effects. For example, Chapter 11 proceedings in the United States have been criticized by their trade unions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Companies (Amendment) Bill as moved by the Minister for Finance. But I have some points which I would like to put to him, and also to explain why I support this Bill going to Select Committee. First of all, let me express my appreciation to the Minister for clause 60 which will amend section 328 of the Companies Act which now puts retrenchment benefits under priority in case a company should go into liquidation. The Minister will recall and Members will recall that in several past sessions of Parliament, we spoke on this subject and we are glad to note that finally the Minister for Finance has heeded our calls. Next, I would like to turn to section 149 of the Companies Act which is now covered under clause 22 of the Amendment Bill. The Minister has explained in some detail on the desirability of section 149. However, it has attracted a lot of criticisms that, while the objective of the section is desirable, it is unduly harsh and labelled as an administrative overkill. But I am glad that the Minister has at least taken note of the criticisms that have been levelled and now makes it easier on the part of directors to discharge their duties and tries to remove part of the section which would deter the setting up of companies, particularly in those volatile high-tech and high-risk businesses. I had initially thought that perhaps section 149 would be repealed. But the Minister has chosen to amend certain aspects of it which have been criticized. However, there is still one point to note, ie, a director who has been a director of two companies which have gone insolvent would be debarred from being a director of another company. Would this still not be unduly harsh on such directors?”
“In this respect, we would have to take note also of one important factor which has been enunciated in the Economic Committee's Report, and that is, the educational level of our workforce. We have an inherent disadvantage at the moment. It is a problem we recognize and we have to overcome it as quickly as possible. The Government has announced a $3 billion extra expenditure on education. I think that while it is important that we invest in the new generation of workers from pre-primary to the University, we must pay equal attention to those who are in the workforce, many of whom are still young and require to get the skills so that we have a qualitative uplift in the quality of education of our workforce. In this respect, I think we should make full use of the Skills Development Fund to redirect our energies, the resources available in the Skills Development Fund towards the upgrading of our workforce. I hope that the Ministry of Trade and Industry will work closely together with the Education Ministry and the other appropriate Ministries to have together a coordinated plan for the qualitative upgrading of the present existing work force.”
“" That is why the Australians have not attracted the investments that they want to regenerate a recovery in the manufacturing industry in Australia. I think the lessons here are useful for us, as we face our own economic problems. We have got to take note of how others have analysed their own problems and the measures they are likely to take. What is critical for us at this stage is that we want to attract investments so that we can create jobs for those who are out of work and for those who are coming out to look for jobs. So we need to make this place a place where the returns are more favourable compared to our competitors, compared to even countries like Australia. We have one advantage which we must exploit to the fullest, ie, our small size. Being small has its disadvantages, but it has also the advantage that we are able to move quicker, ie, if we have the will to move faster, to come to grips with our problems, to work together, Government with the people, workers with employers, to face the recession, to take whatever measures that we need, to counter the recession, to attract investments, to get out of it as quickly as possible. I think at this critical juncture it is necessary for us all, as Singaporeans, to look at ourselves, to look at where we stand, to acknowledge that we are all facing one common problem, and to respond as a people. We have to take advantage of our smallness, our ability to respond faster than other countries. If we are able to give the right signals to investors overseas, then we stand a far better chance of being the first to attract them to come to invest in Singapore and thereby safeguard our own interests, the interests of the people, the interests of the nation.”
“'Manufacturing imported such a heavy proportion of components for their products that the high cost balances out the competitiveness.' So, again, an argument which we found very familiar in the last few months. I quote again. 'Suppliers abroad who can expect much greater productivity in their own work forces than is possible here [in Australia] and so can rely on out-competing Australian products within a couple of years.' So economists in Australia have come to the conclusion (at least some of them have come to the conclusion) that at this rate we would need a devaluation every year to remain competitive. I think the lessons which the Australians have learnt are useful for us. Another factor that has been identified as a problem for the Australians is: 'The system of wage indexation and centralized wage increases which builds unrealistic cost pressures into an apparently unbreakable cycle.' We do not have indexation. We have the National Wages Council, and again the arguments of wage costs being built into the wage system are all too familiar. A third factor which has been identified as a problem, and here I think we should take note very seriously, is: 'Low levels of investment in Australian manufacturing during the past 10 years which means plant and equipment are not in place to provide a regeneration of manufacturing either through import, replacement or producing new lines of export. Lack of confidence among investors about the likely returns on investment in manaufacturing and the increasing tendency for investors to look overseas for better returns.' One of the Australian economists has said, "People are saying, where do we get the best return and moving overseas?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when we are in the midst of a recession, it is only natural that we are concerned with our own problems. We analyze our problems. We formulate measures to counteract the recession, to try to get out of the recession. But at the same time, other countries, like our nearest competitors, Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan, are also looking at their own situation and coming out with their own measures to maintain their share of the world market, and to compete effectively. So how we can get out of this recession would depend on how fast we can take measures to counteract the recession and get out of it, and on whether we are able to work faster than our competitors. While our nearest competitors may be Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea, other countries that have been similarly affected by the recession have also been doing their own analyses and coming out with arguments and conclusions which are all too familiar to us. I came across a report in the Australian, 15th March 1986, and I would like to quote some passages from this report to show the similarity of their problems with ours. One of the measures which the Australian Government took a few years ago to help regain the competitiveness was to devalue the Australian dollar. Here in Singapore I think there have also been arguments for a devaluation of the Singapore dollar because there is added to our problems of price competitiveness. Here this report says: 'The devaluation of the dollar was meant to open a brave new era for Australian manufacturing. But the revival is slow in coming and some economists are arguing that manufacturing is in such a bad way that devaluation will have an overall negative effect.' They have already devalued. Now they are finding that it is not working. Why? I quote again.”
“Sir, in view of the spirited defence of the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $30,042,910 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $21,158,000 for Head R ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. 4.40 pm [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] Head V”
“The success of our wage restraint policy will depend very critically on the labour-management relations that exist within companies. So in this critical stage of our economy, I think it is only wise on the part of managements to exercise understanding and to keep the trust of their employees. So I think this is a time where they have to exert even more to win the hearts and minds of the workers who work for them. We should not allow unconsidered action by employers to disrupt the labour-management relations which hitherto have been cordial. Now I would like to express in this House an appeal to all employers to act carefully and wisely in this difficult period of time so as not to create unrest, unhappiness among workers. It is only when there is industrial peace, harmony, a willingness on the part of both employers and employees to pull together that we will succeed. So we must not have unscrupulous employers taking advantage of the situation. We should have caution all round, good sense and good will.”
“The employees come to know about the position a little earlier, roughly about two months after the employers' default of payment. So there is a real risk on the part of employees to lose their CPF contributions if eventually the employer is unable to pay. This situation is unsatisfactory. While one may sympathize with employers who face temporary cash flow problems, it is the employer's duty to inform employees that he is using the employees' money for business operations, in other words using part of the employees' wages for his business operations. And making use of employees' money without informing them must be morally wrong. I am aware that the CPF Board has come under pressure from employers to be more flexible. While we do not want to take hasty action to cause the unnecessary collapse of firms with liquidity problems, on the other hand we must protect the interests of workers. I would urge the CPF Board to require all employers to inform their employees immediately when they are unable to pay their CPF contributions. I think it is only fair that the employee knows that his CPF contributions have not gone into his account. I think it would be unwise of the CPF Board to continue to give the employers the latitude which they have hitherto had with workers' money without the workers knowing about it promptly. I would like to urge the Minister to request the CPF Board to further tighten the measures in the manner in which I have outlined. Sir, I have another amendment No. 5 which I propose to speak on now. In this period of economic recession, much has been asked of workers to make sacrifices. It is always unpleasant to face the prospect of no wage increases. But workers are prepared to go along if it is justified.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead RA-01 Object Group 1100 of the Main Estimates. Sir, a few days ago the Straits Times reported in its Forum page a reply by the CPF Board to a request by an employer for greater flexibility in terms of payment of CPF. The CPF contributions, whether they are from the employer or employee, are workers' wages. Employers are made responsible for the payment of CPF contributions to their employees' CPF accounts. Last year the NTUC drew the attention of the CPF Board to the fact that some employers had failed to pay their contributions into employees' CPF accounts, resulting in some workers losing CPF contributions when employers defaulted and went into liquidation. As a result, the CPF Board took measures to tighten up the procedures. Although this has been done, more workers have lost their CPF contributions when companies wind up and go bankrupt. This comes about because of the time lapse between default of payment to actual enforcement action by the CPF Board. Employers are normally given two weeks to pay CPF contributions. The CPF Board lists out those companies who fail to pay three weeks from the end of the grace period, and sends out notices. Employers are given another two weeks to pay the arrears. It is only after the expiry of 14 days that the CPF proceeds to initiate legal action to recover the money due to the employees by first obtaining permission from the AG's Office. By the time legal action actually commences, as much as three months would have elapsed because one must remember that a date for a court hearing has to be obtained.”
“However, the problem now is that we have a flag where foreign seamen are working on board Singapore flag ships. A number of these ships do not call at Singapore. What I would like to ask of the Minister is whether we should not review even the current regulations to see, first of all, what is the benefit of ship registration to Singapore. We would like to see companies registering ships under the Singapore flag benefitting Singapore as a whole, and the benefit should be substantial or, in other words, the benefits should be visible. But if registration of ships under the Singapore flag does not result in benefits to Singapore, then perhaps we could review the regulations to exclude such ships so that we no longer face the same kind of boycott or threat of boycott of Singapore flag ships in overseas countries. Sir, the third point which I wanted to raise concerns the MRT and I think the Member for Fengshan has adequately expounded on the issue and I will not repeat.”