Lim Chee Onn
Singapore
“I would like the Ministry in its discussion with the Ministry of Finance to consider this scheme seriously in order to attract more R&D activities and more companies to adopt technology in their production processes. Such a scheme should not be just a case of providing relief to individuals and corporations, risk-takers or entrepreneurs.”
“On the surface, the venture capital allowance would appear to just favour investors, entrepreneurs and promoting R&D activities, which would appear to benefit only a very restricted few.”
“The point really is even if they apply and are allotted a 4-room flat or a 3-room flat, not all of them can be accommodated under one roof by mere reason of numbers.”
“But I am afraid, Mr Speaker, Sir, my mode of transport is slightly more modest, it is a bicycle. I would like to illustrate by means of a bicycle, if I may, how Singaporeans can expect to create wealth and how we, as a government, as a Parliament, and as a people, ought to distribute this wealth.”
“Finally, perhaps on a matter of semantics, I would have preferred to have seen the Committee adopt a more positive attitude towards the aged than to refer to the matter as problems of the aged. Because if that were the case, then every one of us here is a potential problem.”
“And here we have a Member of Parliament, someone who presumably is not short of grey matter, advocating that we should follow the British and go down the drain the way they are going. Is he really speaking out for the workers? I dare say he is not. Probably he is just looking for publicity. Some hon. Members: Yes.”
The complete record
Every one of 74 lines we hold for Lim Chee Onn, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 2.
“I would like the Ministry in its discussion with the Ministry of Finance to consider this scheme seriously in order to attract more R&D activities and more companies to adopt technology in their production processes. Such a scheme should not be just a case of providing relief to individuals and corporations, risk-takers or entrepreneurs. I believe, if properly structured, this venture capital, venture incentive, can succeed in helping to restructure our economy, an objective which we have been pursuing in the past many years. This, in turn, will ensure that we will create the jobs for a more educated, a more skilled workforce. In short, it is part of our overall national effort to create wealth and should not be seen as handouts to entrepreneurs and risk-takers.”
“So really the emphasis on high technology is quite sensible, because with it we will be able to not only maintain our market shares but penetrate new markets. However, in our anxiety because of the relative downturn of late we ought not neglect this long-term objective of infusing new technology into our industry and merely concentrate on job creation, regardless of the nature of the jobs, just to absorb the surplus labour that is available. Because I fear the school of thought that says that the whole emphasis on high technology has been misplaced is wrong. This is really a wrong reaction to the current situation. To react in such a way would really jeopardize our long-term growth, although the short-term benefits may be there. I would therefore like the Ministry to consider seriously a review of the venture capital incentive which has been implemented. The relief proposed by the Minister for Finance in his Budget statement, I feel, is not adequate because the scheme is basically a form of income tax relief only when the shares pertaining to that project were sold at a loss. Hence, the scheme works along lines of that sort. It is not likely to succeed because investors are surely not thinking of a loss when they start. Of merit, however, is the proposal of the Economic Committee which recommended a modified version of the business expansion scheme adopted in the UK, with a fair amount of success. Basically the Business Expansion Scheme gives tax relief on the initial investments, whether or not the venture is successful, of course subject to conditions which are fairly stringent.”
“Sir, I have two amendments. May I take both together, please.”
“On the surface, the venture capital allowance would appear to just favour investors, entrepreneurs and promoting R&D activities, which would appear to benefit only a very restricted few. But if one really studied and examined the thinking that went behind the setting up of venture capital allowances or funds and in the promotion of R&D activities, one will find that we are really talking about job creation, creating new markets and even maintaining our market share. How is it so? Basically, infusing a new technology will enable us to become more competitive and reduce our unit costs. More importantly, because of changing demand patterns, it will enable us to penetrate new markets if we have more goods to sell. The Chairman: Mr Lim, you have used up 10 minutes.”
“I think the Minister for Finance did indicate that it will be a drain on revenue and it may not be the right time to do so at this juncture. But perhaps there is another even more telling reason, and that is, an across-the-board incentive will not enable us to con- trol the type of investments we want to attract or,put in another way, it will reduce our ability to influence the direction of new capital investment. So instead of accepting the recommendation of the Economic Committee of an across-the-board increase in investment allowance, the Ministry of Finance has suggested that the EDB should adopt a more liberal approach in the granting of investment allowance under the existing scheme. This would imply a more flexible approach, perhaps even more flexible criteria in assessing applications for such allowances. I wonder whether the EDB could spell out what sort of revised criteria it will be using in assessing such applications because knowledge of such criteria will help investors considerably in deciding whether Singapore is or is not an attractive location for their new plants or their expansion plans. In spelling out this criteria I would like the EDB perhaps to explain - here, I suspect the Ministry, as a policy maker, would be in a good position to do so - what really is the primary objective of this scheme. Is it to attract mainly the capital-intensive type of industry, or is it the job creation which will be given priority? I suspect it must be a balance, but I would like the Ministry to elaborate on this objective. In short, could the Minister indicate clearly how liberal is this effort to liberalize the investment allowance scheme? Next, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to touch a little on venture capital.”
“There is a school of thought which feels that providing incentives is perhaps throwing away public money. Indeed, there are even a few, including Members from this House, who view tax allowances and incentives as handouts given out to employers and investors at the expense of workers. I would like to ask, is that really so? If they do really think that providing incentives to investors to set up shop in Singapore, so to speak, is giving away good money, then I am afraid they really do not understand that tax allowances and other fiscal measures to attract investors are a very important means of generating employment, and these are all done with the workers' interest in mind, not the employers alone. I would like to dwell a little on the provision of investment allowance to companies in this regard, particularly to stimulate the expansion of existing operations as well as to invest in new types of operations. Generally speaking, investment allowance is really an incentive given in addition to tax depreciation normally allowed for industrial buildings, plant and equipment used in business. Presently, such allowance is given on a case-by-case basis and is restricted to approved projects. Nonetheless such allowances are very attractive, particularly for the capital intensive projects, especially if such projects have a long gestation period. In order to increase the attraction of such allowances, the Economic Committee has recommended that a 30% across-the-board increase in such an allowance be given to all expenditure on capital equipment and machinery. I think the Committee felt that this would stimulate further investment in production assets. However, this recommendation was not accepted by Government, possibly because it may be a bit premature to do so.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, over the past week, Members in this House have spent considerable time in debating and providing recommendations on how to increase employment opportunities, provide better jobs, and better paid salaries for our workers. In short, the emphasis has been, and quite correctly too, on wealth creation. Because without first creating wealth, it will be foolhardy and, in fact, futile to talk about distribution of wealth. Yet, time and time again, we hear Members from the Opposition rising and spending time to spew forth what they feel should be the right way to distribute wealth, and to propagate somehow or other their preoccupation with the dichotomy between employers and employees, without realizing that in this national effort to create wealth, workers, employers and the Government share the same objective And, therefore, they ought to pull together. Indeed, the question we have to address ourselves to is, how do we create this wealth quickly and effectively. In this regard, I would like to divide my remarks into two particular aspects. Firstly, how do we promote investments locally? Obviously, this will be foreign investments as well as local investments in Singapore in order to create employment both directly and indirectly. And secondly how to promote our exports overseas. Because if we succeed in both these areas, then I think we have made some considerable way in creating the wealth we seek. In the effort to attract overseas investments into Singapore, I would like to just touch on two topics, because I think the Economic Committee has dwelt on this subject in fairly great detail, and quite a number of recommendations have been made. First of all, the type of allowances we provide as incentives.”
“The point really is even if they apply and are allotted a 4-room flat or a 3-room flat, not all of them can be accommodated under one roof by mere reason of numbers. But, at the same time, the rules indicate that unless they can form a separate nucleus family, this family of parents, grand-parents and four or five grown up children will have to move into one flat. I wonder whether the Minister could consider reviewing these eligibility rules which were set up many years ago. A review can be made to accommodate these large families, not because they did not take heed about the family planning programme but because their children have grown up over the years and they really have no alternative, short of these grown-up children rushing into marriage in order to be eligible to apply for a flat. I think this is not in line with our overall policy of encouraging later marriages.”
“On this question of home ownership, I quite appreciate that there are policies and guidelines laid down as far as eligibility to purchase is concerned. This is not only natural but is necessary, particularly during the early days when there was a shortage of flats. As such, priority was given to core family units or the so-called nucleus families in order to make sure that those who are in urgent need of flats got their flats early. Now that the construction programme has been improved and that the demand will be shortly met and we are in fact encouraging and hopefully getting 80%-100% of our population to own their own flats, it might be timely for the Ministry to review some of its eligibility rules and regulations. The reason really is not to encourage families to own more than one flat. But I think there is a practical aspect or facet to this problem of large families. Let me describe to you one possible scenario. Let us say 10 years ago, a family of two parents, 2 or 3 children and grand-parents, possibly were resettled from a kampong or a village and put into a 2-room rental flat. Ten years have passed, the children have grown up, quite possibly one or two more added. And now you have a family of seven or eight with ages ranging from maybe teenager to the 20s or possibly even early 30s, all unmarried. It is easily seen that this large family of grown-up children with parents and grand-parents will find it rather difficult to live under one roof. Of course, they can apply to purchase a larger flat. And given the increase in wage levels and better earning capacity of the children, I am quite sure they can afford to buy a larger flat.”
“In this respect, I would like to recommend to the Minister that his Ministry ought to review the measures with which the HDB supervise the construction that is going on. On this same question of quality, I would also like to find out, apart from concentrating on building new blocks of flats in the new towns and the new estates, whether sufficient attention has been given to the relatively older estates. I think for reasons quite well understood by the Hon. Minister, innovations or improvements to be made to the older estates are difficult to be implemented for a variety of reasons, not least of which are factors such as old-fashioned layout, constraint of land availability, high density population, and generally inadequate infrastructure and supporting amenities. Hence the people there have to be satisfied with whatever is available in the older estates, So again I would like to seek clarification from the Minister whether attention has been given to the older estates in improving the quality of the environment and the range of amenities provided to the residents. Moreover is there any conscious policy on the part of Government to convert some of the 1-room or 2-room flats into improved models of 3-room or even 4-room flats to enable the residents to purchase these converted flats and to remain within the vicinity of the constituency where they have spent a large part of their lives. In this way I think not only will the residents themselves be happy to remain where they are, but the community as a whole will also benefit in that the constituency can become even more settled as residents need not be disrupted, having to move from old town to new town and perhaps later to yet another new town. I would like the Minister to consider this suggestion seriously.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek a few policy clarifications from the Minister in regard to HDB. I think most of us are aware that the home-ownership scheme is the corner-stone of our public housing policy. It has served us well in that it has helped immensely to give our citizens a stake in our nation. At the same time, I think it has accelerated the rate with which our population has settled down into a cohesive people. 2.45pm I would like to congratulate the HDB for the rather creative and innovative ways in which they have set out to meet the target of the home-ownership scheme. For example, they have embarked on a fairly extensive use of pre-fabricated units and, at the same time, got together a band of core contractors to build the blocks more cost effectively and more promptly. I would like to ask the Minister whether, in the process of trying to keep up with the numbers of flats to be completed within a year or, five years, sufficient attention has been given to the quality of these flats. I am not referring, Sir, to the structural integrity or other similarly important aspects of the blocks but to the finishing of the units. I think it is a well-known phenomenon that for a high-rise block, flats below the first six to eight floors are invariably better finished than those on upper floors. The reason is very simple, The Clerk of Works finds it a bit more tiresome to walk above eight floors. The point really to note, Sir, is that while we quite rightly have emphasized on home ownership, having expended hard earned cash albeit through the CPF, to acquire a flat for one's family, one really expects, not first-class but reasonable quality finishing.”
“Yet at the same time, let me hasten to add, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must not swing the other way and create what has been called the "crutch mentality" in any strata of our society, nor by our policies ought we to encourage dependency and slothfulness. What is called for is a judicious balance to be struck and, at the same time, whenever increases of fares, rates and fees are inevitable, great pains ought to be taken to explain why such increases are necessary rather than just making changes by merely promulgating legislation, just by the stroke of a pen. The litmus test really is that the "national bicycle", if I may term it, must be kept going with everyone pedalling to the best of his ability, realizing of course that some will need more help than others. And those who need more help ought to receive more help, not because we believe in hand-outs but because this is to enable them to give of their best. In this way, everyone can and shall enjoy a better quality of life in accordance with his contributions. I note that one of the declared objectives contained in the Presidential speech is that Singapore ought to be a fun place to live in. I would like to expand on that by stating in no uncertain terms that unless life in Singapore can be fun for everyone, no one will be in a position to enjoy any at all. It is with this reminder that I support the motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ayer Rajah. 3.06 p.m.”
“What I am suggesting, Sir, is that Government, when translating this overall policy into programmes at the ministerial level, should take extra care to ensure that the talents of the less well-endowed and the skills of the less able are given every opportunity to be developed to the fullest, like those of their more talented and better endowed fellow citizens. And this, I must stress, will require a conscious decision in policy formulation on how much of our limited resources are to be used and for what purpose. I am afraid, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is really no one clear-cut answer to this difficult decision. But one thing is clear. We ought to bring our minds to bear on this matter and convince Singaporeans that whatever decision we arrive at, it has been made in the best interest of Singaporeans at large in the longer run. The guiding framework I touched on earlier will continue to be what is most good for the maximum number of people. I have, however, one caveat to this approach of helping the people at the bottom of the heap. Having been told of the Government's intention to pay particular attention to the lower income group, the aged and the disadvantaged, Singaporeans will invariably put under the microscope all policies particularly those relating to fees, rates, fares and I suspect it will include the impending increase in taxi fares, and compare such fare adjustments, fee increases, against the declared policy. This is inevitable. And as a Government we have and must have the courage to stand up to it. What we must prevent at all costs is to lose our credibility, and that is, to preach one thing and do another.”
“At the same time, I think Government equally has the responsibility to make it a conscious policy to help those at the bottom not by hand-outs, as may be advocated from time to time by one or two MPs, but really by giving them the extra assistance in order that they can succeed in pulling themselves up by their own boot-straps. What they need is that little extra help. And this help which must be forthcoming from the Government is not only morally right, but I feel very strongly that it is also a pre-condition for continued social harmony and national cohesiveness. Because if we promote a society, where the concertina is overstretched, with the result that those at the top of the heap pay scant regard to those at the boftom, there can only be but one result - civil strife, chaos, and all the attendant disastrous consequences. Indeed, when we speak of total defence, something which we have been trying to promote, everyone must have a stake which is worthwhile defending, and if the bulk of our population does not have any stake, then I am afraid the concept of total defence will never succeed. Hence, it is really in the interest of national survival that we make every effort to assist those at the bottom of the heap. In short, Mr Speaker, Sir, Government has stated quite categorically, as I said at the outset, that it will create an environment where each and every Singaporean will give of his best. I think no one will quarrel with that. Moreover, their respective talents will be developed to the fullest. This broad policy deserves our full support.”
“But the crucial point is whether Government ought to channel more resources to help these students, namely, those in the extended or the monolingual streams, or the normal secondary stream, with the sole objective of enabling them to realize their full potential. It is well and good to stream them into schools where they are able to learn at their own pace. To succeed more resources could well be required to help them along. Mr Speaker, Sir, if our declared policy is to help those who need help to help themselves, then I feel that it behoves us to consider seriously to deploy even more resources to help the children from the lower income families in order that they could break out of the poverty trap and move up the economic ladder. In case some of my colleagues think that I am going soft, I am making this plea really in the hope that the declared aim of the Government in helping each and every Singaporean realize his full potential can really be met, and is not just a slogan. I will be the first to declare that meritocracy has served us well. Equal opportunities have enabled those who are talented and well- endowed to rise socially, regardless of their race, creed, culture or their stations in life, or background. Indeed, I have often compared the upward mobility of our society to that of a concertina. In short, our society, as a result of free and easy mobility, has expanded like a concertina. It is really up to those who have made it to the top to help the others struggling at the bottom of the heap.”
“In this regard, I am really pleased to note that this fact has not been overlooked. The Addenda indicated very clearly that the Government in its farsightedness has decided that lower income families will require assistance to own their own homes, just as one example. This is a laudable and a necessary policy. Since most of my colleagues have already touched on how Government can help the lower income families to own their own homes, I would not reiterate any of these suggestions, but perhaps to round up by saying that, whatever schemes the HDB or the Ministry of National Development or the Ministry of Finance may come up with, they should take cognizance of the fact that in a prolonged recession, particularly if it is going to result in massive retrenchments, not just in numbers but also in frequency, lower income employees invariably by the very nature of their jobs that they are engaged in, will be affected disproportionately. As such, when drawing up details of any scheme to assist home ownership, they must take into account that these families will need that extra help. Let me add, Mr Speaker, Sir, that these same low income groups will also require assistance in other areas as a result of the reduction in household incomes. Since education is uppermost in most of our minds, it will be a useful example to examine children's education in primary and secondary schools in this respect. I do not have any ready figures. But I strongly suspect that the majority of children who have been streamed into the monolingual or extended stream in primary schools, and the normal stream in the secondary schools, are from lower income families. I am sure the Ministry of Education will be able to confirm whether this is so.”
“Fortunately for us, household incomes have substantially increased over the past three to four years because of the full employment situation which we enjoyed over the period 1979-1983. Hence the standard of living rose over this period despite what could be deemed to be relatively low individual incomes. Indeed, the 1980 Census Survey confirmed this, and I would like to quote: "The second and subsequent working members of the household provided modest but important supplementary income to the household." So despite the fact that superficially the bulk of, or to be precise, some two-thirds of the employees earned below the mean income, Singaporeans were able to afford a fairly comfortable way of life for the simple reason that we were able, despite the many setbacks and an unfavourable, global economic situation, to maintain full employment, thereby providing ample employment opportunities for Singaporeans from all walks of life. As such, I would not be too perturbed if someone stood up and said, "Look, $585 is way below subsistence level, if ever that was." But what is perturbing, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that with the likely downturn in economic growth over the next year, I am afraid that more workers will be retrenched, job opportunities will decrease and, as a result, household incomes fall. The net effect will not only be the reduction in individual incomes, but also in household incomes. And this latter effect, the drop in household incomes, will have fairly grave consequences. The point I am making, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that the Government and we in Parliament ought to bear this in mind when formulating policies, particularly those which have a financial impact on the average household.”
“So the policy as to how we ought to cut the cake will impact not just those who are likely to benefit but all Singaporeans. I would perhaps like to, if I may, quote a few figures to help bring the problem into perspective and hopefully enable the Government and ourselves to have a better grasp of the dilemma that we are facing. I have gone through the Report, the Census of Population, 1980, which is perhaps rather ancient being about four years old, but I think the patterns and the trends are still applicable. In this particular Report, Release No. 7 which gives the income profile of the population, the 1980 Census showed that about 70% of employees earned less than the mean income. I do not intend to go through the details, but roughly, a summary of Table 11, on page 46 of this Report, indicates that for employees with no qualification, their mean monthly income in 1980 was $352 and 69% of this category of people were earning below the mean income. Those with primary qualification, numbering some half a million, their mean monthly income was $425, with 74% of the employees earning below the mean income. For those with secondary and upper secondary education, the mean monthly income amounted to about $785, with 68% earning below this figure. For those with tertiary education, the mean monthly income was $2,401, with 54% earning below the mean income. For the whole group of employees, numbering some 900,000 of them, the mean monthly income, I would like to reiterate that this was in 1980, was $585, with 70% of the employees earning below the mean income. In short, some two-thirds of employees in 1980 earned below the mean income. However, to make policy decisions based purely on such figures would not only be irrational but would be totally wrong. Let me explain.”
“I would like to dwell a little on this question because, to me, it is the under-pinning philosophy of the whole Government's agenda, Should we trade-off faster progress for a slightly slower one in order that more people can benefit from our prosperity? If that is so, then the Government has to make a conscious effort in bringing this about. Having perused the Addenda, while I detect some implied thinking along this line, I was unable to discern any clear indication regarding Government's position on this rather crucial policy decision. I realize that reference has been made, albeit in a general way both in the Addenda as well as in the Presidential Speech about helping the lower-income group, the aged, the less fortunate, the less able and so on and so forth. These broad objectives are laudable and are at the same time in line with our overall aim of improving the quality of life for all Singaporeans, as I have stressed earlier on. But let me hasten to add, Mr Speaker, Sir, that all of us here, and I suspect every Singaporean too, realize that we do have limited resources but, at the same time, we also do have Singaporeans who need that linle extra help or push to realize their full potential. Given the best of will, they cannot make it on their own. Therein lies the dilemma. The nub of the matter really lies in the way in which we, the Government, and we, the people, wish to cut our cake. Who should have the larger share? I am posing this question because we are debating the Government's agenda for the next 10 years. We are also in the midst of a rather critical situation in view of the economic difficulties we are likely to encounter over the next year.”
“Not only must he have this feedback but what is equally important is that having got the feedback he must take heed. He neglects it at his own peril and endangers the whole nation by so doing. Because by neglecting the feedback he may end up steering but getting nowhere. Since we have referred to the striker, one probably wonders where is the place for the goalkeeper. I suspect he will be right at the end, bringing up the rear. In case the bicycle wobbles while negotiating a bend, he will be in a good position to put on the brakes or perhaps even crack the whip. The second feature of this bicycle is that everyone on board is carried along on one condition - provided he is giving of his best. What is equally important, as mentioned in the Presidential Speech, is that everyone has a place on this bicycle. No one should be left behind or discarded as the bicycle progresses. In this regard, again I am thankful and gratified that the Presidential Speech clearly stated that each citizen will be urged "to develop his potential to the fullest, and to achieve his rewards in accordance with the worth of his contribution to our economy or society." The question that is being begged to be answered really is: how best to help each individual to develop his potential to the fullest? Or look at in another way: how much resources should be deployed to help those who are less talented, less well-endowed, less able and consequently require more care and more attention? Alternatively, should more resources be used to develop the better-endowed and the more talented? I suspect the answer lies somewhere in between. We cannot have the cake and eat it too. There must be a trade-off.”
“One thing that has remained unchanged, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the physical principle which will apply as long as the law of gravity exists, and that is, we have to keep on going to avoid failing off. To achieve that means that we have to put in the effort continuously, putting in more effort when the going gets tough just as we did when we encountered hard times and steep inclines in 1973 and 1978. But one factor is unaltered; we cannot afford to stop, for to do so means falling off and, in our case, it will not be unlike Humpty Dumpty. Once we fall, Singapore will never be the same again. Let me digress a little, if I may, Mr Speaker, Sir, to regale you with two important features of this rather large and unique bicycle. Firstly, I would like to stress that despite the size of this mam- moth contraption only one person can steer this bicycle. To encourage otherwise will only end up in the bicycle becoming a twisted hulk of metal. It begs the question then: who should steer? I think the obvious answer would be the striker. I know, Mr Speaker, Sir, I run the risk of getting my metaphors mixed. I suspect what we end up with will be a footballer-cum-bicyclist. But what is important is that this striker who is steering the bicycle must rely on inputs from all his colleagues, from Cabinet and Parliament, our various grassroots organizations, our community leaders, and most important of all, the people who are right behind the striker, pedalling away, putting their best foot forward. What is worthwhile repeating really is that the person who is doing the steering must have enough gauges and meters to know what is going on at the back of him -whether the people are exhausted, what sort of refreshments the cyclists require, what are their needs to keep on going.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I am pleased to report back to the House that the bicycle, having been repaired over lunch, is back on the road, in good order. As I was saying before we broke up, Mr Speaker, Sir, the bicycle, I was referring to really is a figure of speech, as you quite well realize. It has to be large enough to accommodate all Singaporeans of all hues and capabilities, of different ages and inclinations, and obviously, each with an independent set of pedals. Why do I choose this rather unglamorous form of transportation when my colleagues before me were dwelling on MRT and other similarly exotic vehicular traffic. The reason is very simple, Sir. There is one unalterable physical fact about cycling, as all of us well know: one has to keep on the move, keep on pedalling to remain on the seat. To stop means to fall off. This is not unlike the way Singapore has grown over the past 21/2 decades. We had to strive continuously to achieve political, economic and social growth and were never at any one time able to relent despite the fact that on many occasions the odds were so overwhelming that men with weaker physical and intellectual abilities would have given up. But fortunately for us, the younger Singaporeans, our leaders did not give up. They kept on pedalling. True, the bicycle was travelling at different speeds at different times. Sometimes we encountered obstacles and had a bumpy ride. We slowed down when we had to move uphill. On the very rare occasion, we free-pedalled a little as we went downhill but often times there was always a danger of a fall as we negotiated curves and hairpins. Despite all the traumatic experiences we had encountered over the past 25 years, we have arrived at the present stage of our progress and must continue to pedal on.”
“But I am afraid, Mr Speaker, Sir, my mode of transport is slightly more modest, it is a bicycle. I would like to illustrate by means of a bicycle, if I may, how Singaporeans can expect to create wealth and how we, as a government, as a Parliament, and as a people, ought to distribute this wealth. My bicycle unfortunately is out of the ordinary because it has to be large enough to accommodate ---”
“I must at this juncture say that we ought to be thankful to him and his colleagues for not succumbing to what could easily have been a very attractive alternative, namely, to trade off a proven approach, a hard-headed approach, and often even an unpopular approach, for a more popular one, because if he had done so, I would not be standing here today in support of the motion. I mentioned earlier, Mr Speaker, Sir, that one of the reasons why the Presidential Address and the Addenda is significant is that it provides us with an insight into the way our new leaders think and act. And I would like to quote one policy statement which I feel stands out very starkly in the Presidential Address, encapsulating the essence of how our new Cabinet think, their philosophy and their priorities: 'My Government will pay particular attention to those who find it difficult to keep up with the pace of change - the 15 to 20% in the lower income group and the aged . .'. This statement stands out starkly because it is a categorical statement that will shape all our policies over the next five years and possibly even longer. And for that reason I would like to take a little time to dwell on it. Undoubtedly this policy statement will have a very important bearing not just on policies alone, but also on the way and the manner in which details of policies will be worked out. To illustrate this point, I would like to use an example as to how we can expect the new Government to attain the two objectives I outlined earlier, namely, the creation of wealth and the distribution of wealth. Since it appears that it is fashionable to use transportation modes as examples, I recall last Friday it was a bus, with some interjection on MRT, yesterday I believe it was the taxi, I shall do likewise.”
“This guiding principle has been, and will continue to be, how to motivate and help Singaporeans from all walks of life, regardless of race, religion or culture to work together as a people, participating in and contributing towards our progress, and in creating a secure, prosperous and vibrant nation, where each and every Singaporean can find fulfilment in life. I would like to really stress that it is each and every Singaporean that will find fulfilment and not just a sector or a group. While the guiding principle has served us well over the past 2 1/2 decades and, I venture to add, will continue to serve us well for the next 2 1/2 decades, we must take cognizance of the fact that over time circumstances will change. We have a different mix of people with different and improved capabilities. Our population has not remained stagnant, we have improved not just in quantity but in quality. Priorities and expectations of our people have also varied; lifestyles have become different; and the of demographic pattern has also changed. In short, while the guiding principle remains, but because of differing circumstances, our approach to resolving problems must also change. In this regard I am particularly gratified to see in the First Deputy Prime Minister's note to the Addendum that cognizance has been given to these changes. But equally gratifying is the fact that he and his colleagues have not taken the softer option despite what has been termed as the recent set-back in December and traded off a proven approach towards prosperity for softer options in order to attain immediate gains and popularity.”
“In other words, the Member for Anson thinks that by changing the legislation, by amending the Constitution, by providing more rights which apparently we have been deprived of, we will all be well provided for. These objectives are not new, for the simple reason that these are the same challenges that we encountered when we first attained self-government in 1959, and subsequently when we achieved nationhood in 1965; and I will venture to say that these objectives will be with us in 1999 and even up to the 21st century. There is a reason for this constancy of purpose. It is not that we lack imagination or we do not have good and able men with vision. The reason for this constancy of purpose is really because ours is a political system where our future, our prosperity, our progress, are determined by the people and for the people. That being so, there is no reason whatsoever why these two objectives should vary over time. Now, it is a well-known fact that over the past 25 years our success has been the result of hard-headed decisions, a realistic and pragmatic approach to resolving difficult problems, an impeccably, honest administrative service, and of course an able leadership which was able to jell a group of disparate people into one cohesive unit with a common sense of purpose. In the process of developing over the past 25 years, one thing stands out very clearly, and that is the guiding principle that has formed the framework for our policies.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I consider the speech which the President made on behalf of the Government sometime last week to be very significant on a number of counts. Firstly, I think it allows us to have a good grasp of what this new and young Government's priorities are. At the same time, as has been pointed out earlier, it has given us a fairly vivid description of what we can expect over the next decade or so. But what I feel to be most important of all is that, through the Presidential Address, we were given an insight into the collective thinking of the younger leaders, their philosophy and their approaches to resolve what would appear to be intractable problems which we are likely to encounter. And it is on this philosophy that I would like to deal with in my speech this afternoon. Before I do so, I would like to outline what I perceive to be the back-drop for the plan of action which Singaporeans can expect to be implemented over the next decade. Having perused the Addenda to the Presidential Speech, one cannot but try to extract the essence of the various programmes which Ministries have put up. This essence, I feel, can be captured in two objectives; namely, first, the creation of more wealth and a better society for all Singaporeans; and secondly, the distribution of wealth amongst Singaporeans or, in more common terms, how and on whom to spend the money we shall earn. These objectives are really not new and, moreover, they look deceptively simple to achieve, so much so that I gather that the Member for Anson, who is not here now, was under the illusion that they could be achieved just simply through the stroke of a pen.”
“Finally, perhaps on a matter of semantics, I would have preferred to have seen the Committee adopt a more positive attitude towards the aged than to refer to the matter as problems of the aged. Because if that were the case, then every one of us here is a potential problem. Would it not encourage a more enlightened and positive attitude by society towards the elderly had they entitled the Report, and this is just a suggestion - "Responsibility of the Government and the Community Towards the Aged"? This, I feel, is showing a more positive attitude towards the aged. But perhaps the Minister and the Committee feel and believe in calling a spade a spade. There is nothing wrong with this approach. But then, as has been pointed out by the Member for Kampong Chai Chee, there is more than one way in selling a policy, no matter how correct that policy may be. 5.57 pm”
“The final point which I would like to touch on relates to the raising of the CPF withdrawal age because of the feeling that some Singaporeans may be unable to manage their funds wisely. Allow me to regale you of what I feel is not a too far-fetched situation. Take the case of a CPF contributor who has just passed away and his CPF contributions are then given to his widow and children. This is as it ought to be as the CPF contributions are also intended to help the family of a contributor in the unfortunate event of his demise. Extending the argument of unwise spending, inability to manage funds and unnecessary consumption, are we to expect that there will come a day when we might have to intervene to prevent widows and children from squandering unwisely the hard-earned savings and CPF accounts of the breadwinner? I do not think that I am giving the Minister any fresh idea. I hope not. I think he is more than capable of working out this scenario. What I am trying to do, Sir, is merely to use this illustration to point out the logical extension of the Committee's recommendation to protect man from his vagrant ways. My example is simply to remind him and the Committee that we cannot always cover every eventuality of man's folly. I would not belabour the point on the CPF accounts. Much has been said. Indeed, there have been many suggestions made by earlier speakers to review this proposal. I think enough sentiments have been aired for the Minister to reconsider this recommendation carefully. My own feeling, Sir, is that it is best to leave well alone and not risk the credibility of the Government with respect to the handling of the people's CPF contributions unless convincing evidence and arguments can be presented to justify changing the ground rules.”
“Moreover, even if he succeeds in retaining his employment, he will need the CPF savings to supplement his income since he might be re-employed with a much reduced salary which is insufficient to meet his daily expenditure. The essence of it all, Sir, is that continued employment of an older worker does not necessarily ensure him of an income sufficient to meet his daily family obligations, and the situation is worse if he fails in securing conti- nued employment beyond 55 years of age and yet he cannot have access to his CPF contributions. As a digression, before I come to the fourth point, I would like to respond to what the Minister for Labour mentioned regarding the 40,000 HDB tenants who are unable to meet their financial obligations because of arrears in rentals or instalment payments, I believe there are 1.78 million CPF accounts. We are talking about 40,000 HDB tenants who are for some reason or other, in financial difficulty and this may not necessarily be due to flagrant expenditure or inability to manage their finances. This amounts to less than 2% of CPF contributors. There could be many reasons why these 40,000 tenants could not meet their financial obligations. For example, there could be temporary setbacks in their employment, retrenchments, illnesses, and of course the odd few who either really could not manage their own finances or are spendthrifts. The point I am making, Sir, is that we cannot extrapolate the rather unsavoury behaviour, if indeed, all of them are unsavoury, of 40,000 people or families or households, as the case may be, and introduce a policy which affects 1.78 million CPF account holders.”
“The Report states quite categorically, and I quote: 'Withdrawal before retirement would encourage unnecessary consumption and, in some cases, misuse of savings, resulting in little or no balance for retirement'. I will be the first to admit, Sir, that cases of unwise expenditure there will always be, for after all we are dealing with human nature. But can we extend this assertion to cover the whole population? There are many who have withdrawn their CPF savings and have invested wisely to benefit not only themselves but their families. In fact, quite a few Members in this House have already withdrawn their CPF, and I dare say that far from being a burden to the State, they are continuing to make significant contributions both to the State and to CPF. Should we have less faith in those who have elected us? The third point I would like to make regarding this proposal is that there is little evidence given in the Report to justify this assertion of "unnecessary consumption", and I feel that it is grossly inequitable to tar every Singaporean just because of a few spendthrifts. Moreover, if a contributor has incurred financial obligations based on his expectation of withdrawing his CPF contributions at 55 years of age, depriving him of access to this savings could well put him, at best, in an embarrassing situation financially. What could be worse is that he could become indebted. This is particularly so for those who have started families late as a result of our family planning programme and have planned to use their CPF savings for their children's education or even in meeting their daily needs.”
“What better way is there than for unions to negotiate with employers, who are also unionists, to get the scheme going. This effort, together with Government's efforts for its employees, will give a tremendous impetus in encouraging employers to change their attitude towards older workers. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would now like to turn to the rather thorny problem, and that is, to address the matter on the proposal to raise the age at which a person can withdraw his CPF savings. This proposal, quite understandably, has attracted a barrage of criticisms since in effect the recommendation will change the ground rules for access to one's life savings. I feel that a number of inconsistencies exist in this recommendation, notwithstanding the remarks made by the Hon. Minister for Labour earlier on. These inconsistencies have to be resolved before any proposal can be finalized. Let me cite briefly four such inconsistencies. Firstly, the Report has suggested that the age to withdraw CPF be raised from 55 to 60, and eventually to 65 years, in line with the raising of the retirement age. This sounds very reasonable. However, as we all know, the retirement age is not likely to be raised universally until many years hence, unless it is done by legislation. Yet it does appear from the Report that the proposal to raise the age to withdraw CPF contributions will be implemented rather promptly. In fact, the date of 1st July, 1984, has been suggested. This inconsistency must be given careful consideration before any firm decision is made on this matter. The second inconsistency relates to the assertion made for raising the age to withdraw CPF.”
“I would therefore urge that, as a matter of public policy, Government departments and statutory boards must adopt the spirit of the recommendations when dealing with requests made by charitable organizations for assistance. This will reduce effort and time spent in arguing over rules and regulations and this time and effort can be spent more productively in the areas which require much Government support, namely, in meeting the aged's health and recreational needs, and helping voluntary organizations set up social services and institutional care. My third suggestion for the Minister is that as a major employer, Government and statutory boards can and ought to set the pace in implementing the recommendations that will help employees extend their useful working life. This is not merely done by raising the retirement age but, more importantly, by retraining workers or giving older workers the option to work part-time or opportunities to secure alternative jobs in line with their capabilities. The crux of the matter, Sir, is to provide more opportunities to older workers to remain productive and useful for a longer period of time. This is crucial for this will help older workers lead more meaningful lives and help them emotionally, physically and financially, to remain integrated with society instead of feeling alienated. In this respect, my colleagues from the NTUC have rightly lamented the absence of a recommendation for employers to do their part in raising the retirement age or in providing opportunities to retain workers beyond 55 years of age. However, may I suggest that since NTUC is a fairly large employer through its many cooperatives and SLF companies, it could consider setting the lead in drawing up a scheme which could subsequently be used as a model by others.”
“Those recommendations dealing with the age at which a person can withdraw his CPF and the raising of the retirement age, quite expectedly, drew the sharpest reactions. I too will return to these two matters. But first let me at the outset state that I endorse fully the philosophy and motives behind these 35 recommendations. It is their implementation that I feel warrants closer attention. In this respect, I have the following three suggestions for the Minister's consideration. Firstly, most of these recommendations will require Government authorities to draw up implementation plans if they are to be meaningful at all. In doing so, I wish to remind those responsible to display the right attitude towards the aged, namely the very same attitude that we want to see instilled in Singaporeans. We cannot have it any other way. It will be sad indeed, to see the Minister and his Committee preaching one policy and principle while Government departments practised another. For example, it will definitely be untenable for Homes for the Aged or senior citizens' clubs to be classified as commercial organizations when levying charges, fees or rentals, if clearly such organizations and Homes are run on a non-profit making basis. The second suggestion I have for the Minister to consider relates to the recommendations that require Government support and action. I would like to see these recommendations implemented promptly to demonstrate Government's concern for the problem at hand, and not just recommendations on paper. For I feel it is by positive action and example by the Government that we can change society's attitude towards old age.”
“In the distribution of our population by age, as shown by the Report's charts of age group against numbers of people, there is a distinct shift from a pyramidal shape to a barrel shape over the period just spanning some 50 years, 1980 to 2030. And I would hazard a guess that if extended for another 50 years, the shape of the chart could well be an inverted truncated pyramid. In simple terms, this means that the proportion of aged people over the whole population will increase and will continue to increase unabatedly, In fact, Table 1.1 on page 10 spells out the trend of the old dependency ratio which is the ratio of persons 15 to 64 years to persons 65 years and above. And this ratio is forecast to change from 34:1 to 3.2:1 over the period 1947 to 2030, barely 80 years. Given this dramatic change to be expected over the next 45 years, i.e. from now until the year 2030, the Committee has quite rightly made 35 recommendations on how to deal with the Problems of the Aged. Going through these recommendations, it appears to me that there are two underlying aims to these recommendations, and I would like to highlight both of them. They are, firstly, to help the aged so that they are better equipped physically, mentally, emotionally, psychologically and, of course, financially to help themselves. The second aim, I feel, is to correct society's attitude towards older workers and inculcate in Singaporeans the desire to show respect and affection for the elderly. Let me hasten to add, Mr Speaker, Sir, that these aims, in my view, are laudable and deserve our full support. However, based on the comments made during the past two sittings, some of these recommendations have attracted all the attention while the rest did not draw as much as a remark.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Problems of the Aged, I think, we will agree is an issue which affects all of us. While I recognize that not all of us here in this Chamber can be categorized as aged, whatever the cut-off point may be, be it 55, 65 or even 70 years as Was mentioned yesterday, there is one fact of life which is immutable, and that is, everyone of us is ageing. And so is the rest of Singapore. Hence, I feel very strongly that it is only right that the subject of Problems of the Aged be thoroughly discussed and the implications of the Committee's recommendations be understood, not only in Parliament but also by every adult Singaporean. Sir, for this reason, the Minister for Health and his Committee ought to be congratulated for drawing the public's attention to the problems of the aged, although I must admit they have done so in a rather over-dramatic way, and that is, by threatening to put a padlock on our workers' life savings or at least part of it and then keeping the key for another 10 years. In fact, based on the remarks made by my colleagues earlier, there is even a general feeling among Singaporeans that the key may eventually be thrown away. However, the important point to bear in mind is that the Committee, by putting their minds to bear on this very important problem, has recommended a National Policy for the Elderly. And I feel that this is a very timely and important step indeed in the light of the ageing society we are in. The Committee, if I may be allowed to recapitulate, has illustrated vividly the changing demographic pattern of our population.”
“Sir, may I have your indulgence to speak since my name was mentioned? Two points raised by the Member for Anson require answering. First, he asked whether the NTUC would send him a set of the regulations governing the elections. I would say this to him. Some days ago he offered to show the Member for Khe Bong a list. He subsequently retracted and invited the Member for Khe Bong to go to his office. Today, he wants regulations governing the NTUC elections sent to him. I would have thought that a very easy and pleasant way of finding out what it is all about is to go to the National Library, get a copy of the NTUC Constitution and he can have the full facts there if he does not want to spend the bus fare or bother to walk to the NTUC. We would, in fact, be very glad to give him a copy of the Constitution, and I can assure him that we do not even charge a dollar, which the Workers Party does for the Workers Party manifesto. The second point I want to make is his challenge to me to step down in Bukit Merah. I recall that, maybe some four or five months ago, the Second Deputy Prime Minister raised a question in the local press, I think, asking the Member for Anson whether he would be staying in Anson for long and, if so, for how long. I suspect, to-date, no answer has been given. I think I am correct here - the answer has been given today. He would not be staying in Anson long. I think he is going to Bukit Merah the next round. I would welcome him there. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!”
“Whatever he said has been said, I think, with some malice because if he asserts that workers have not succeeded in acquiring a better standard of living, can he show figures? Up to now, during the sittings over the past six days,[ believe, he has made assertions time and time again without a single figure being shown. I would like to challenge him to produce figures, whether it is his Party's figures or his personal figures - I hope he will go back to his favourite housewife for a quick check - to show that workers indeed today are worse off than in 1959 or 1965. Finally, I would like to add to what my colleague, the Member for Moulmein has said although it may be a bit odd for me to say so on my own behalf, and that is, I am subject to election in the NTUC, and for his information, the next election is on 27th April. I would welcome any challenge which any member of the Workers Party or any friends or workers who are close to the Member for Anson, to stand for election and then do something about it since he is so disenchanted with the present labour movement. I will stand too and let us see who the workers will select. [Applause].”
“Sir, I did not say he was here for publicity. I thought I said he made a point for publicity, to gain the attention of the workers. Sir, may I speak because time is running out? I do not know whether this is part of his delaying tactics. Sir, I would like to refer you to a table which I have showing that workers and Singaporeans in general have progressed during the past 20 years. It shows that workers not only have jobs but they have better jobs under the regime we are practising. The Table (Cols. 1503 - 1504) I have indicates the contributors to the CPF by wage levels. Just as a very broad guideline, in 1965 - I think that is about the period the Member for Anson was referring to - workers earning below $200 made up some 63%. Workers earning over $500 in 1965 accounted for only 8.1% of all those who were contributing to CPF. In 1980, those earning under $200 made up only 7.4% while those earning over $500 numbered over 45%. Of course, for the levels in between I think he can work out the figures. To me this is a very clear indication that workers have indeed progressed. Table - Contributors to the Central Provident Fund by Wage Level (Cols. 1503 - 1504) The other point I would like to touch on in the three minutes I have left is this preoccupation with the legislation. If job creation, a better standard of living, and a better way of life can be achieved by a simple change of the law, then I would say that workers in Sri Lanka, in India, in Jamaica and a variety of nations now currently struggling to provide a better standard of living for their workers, ought not to be in any trouble. All they have to do is to just change the law, as advocated by the Member for Anson. Perhaps if the Member so offers himself, he may even get a job to draft the legislation.”
“And here we have a Member of Parliament, someone who presumably is not short of grey matter, advocating that we should follow the British and go down the drain the way they are going. Is he really speaking out for the workers? I dare say he is not. Probably he is just looking for publicity. Some hon. Members: Yes.”
“[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] More important than this, Sir, we will need the understanding and co-operation of parents, teachers and all the many others responsible for the education of our children. For in the final analysis, no matter how good a system is, and how laudable its objectives are, our efforts will be futile unless full support is given by those directly responsible for moulding the character of our young, especially parents and teachers. In this respect, the Ministry of Education should, on the one hand, help parents to understand the complexity of the task. On the other hand, it should spare no efforts to train a corps of dedicated teachers equal to the task in hand and with a complete understanding of what is expected of them. On that premise, Sir, I give my full support to the Motion standing in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education.”
“It is towards this end that the Ministry of Culture can direct some of its policies. Much can be done to improve the environment for children to help them in their pursuit of skills and knowledge. The Report has stated clearly that the home environment does affect the performance of children in school. There is no doubt that some who have the intellectual capability to handle the academic course, may find their progress hampered by a poor home environment. During the recent debate on the Government's financial estimates, it was made very clear by many Members that there is a tremendous demand for study space, and that the present facilities are inadequate to meet such demands. In this respect, the HDB and other bodies such as the People's Association and the JTC can do much to provide improved facilities for our younger generation. These are some examples of the concerted effort that is needed before the objectives of our education system can be attained. I would therefore like to suggest that a high-powered inter-Ministry Committee be set up to examine the contributions which each Ministry can make towards creating a better social and physical environment for our children and hence assisting them to achieve their full potential. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am fully aware that there are already over 100 committees in existence in the Ministry of Education. In fact, I am most reluctant to add on to that number. But I am confident that with the Ministry under new management, this Committee will fulfil the purpose for which it is set up and decisions will be made and implemented promptly without any attempt to pass the buck. I believe that a co-ordinated effort will bring about results that much quicker compared to ad hoc decisions and individual requests for assistance. 5.55 p.m.”
“With the variety of environments to which different children are exposed and the wide range of inclinations and abilities displayed by children, the practical difficulties encountered in implementation of the proposed education scheme are considerable. It will help to reassure parents if implementation plans are executed only after careful evaluation of their impact on children and their performance. Minor changes and adjustments are unavoidable and indeed are necessary to improve and fine-tune the system. But there ought not to be any drastic policy changes which will throw the whole education system into disarray. Once our citizens are convinced that the proposed system is the best, taking into consideration both our national long term objectives and the perceived ambitions of parents for their children, there should be no reversal of policies unless there is clear evidence that the results are far from desirable. Frequent policy changes will only create doubts in the public mind as to the veracity of the Ministry's claims. It will take many years before the fruits of our labour can be seen. It will require the concerted effort of the whole Government, not just the Ministry of Education alone, to ensure success. In fact, most Ministries could, through their respective policies help to create a social and physical environment conducive to the proper moral, mental and physical development of our children. The mass media's role is unquestionable in the context of language learning. The impact of TV, radio and newspapers on the development of language ability among children cannot be over-emphasised. Those people who are responsible for these communication media have to put in a conscious effort to make language learning a less onerous task.”
“It is precisely this reluctance to accept what is essentially a fact of life that has led to an education system that subjects the less able students to the same regime of learning drawn up for the brighter ones. This unsatisfactory state of affairs is further aggravated by the fact that for a large proportion of our students, the language of communication at home differs from that used and taught in the classrooms. While it is true that half a loaf is better than choking on a full loaf, parents in many cases will be unwilling to accept that their children are only capable of consuming that much and no more. At the same time, parents will always be nursing a nagging doubt that their children have not been given the best opportunity to develop their children's potential to the fullest. Given this natural reaction of parents, it is incumbent upon the Ministry of Education to explain fully, clearly and in very simple terms why the recommended system had been drawn up, how it will ensure that every child will be able to develop to his fullest potential and the length of time it will take to accomplish these objectives. The Report on the Ministry of Education 1978 presented by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education provides some answers to these questions. Unfortunately, the Report cannot be easily digested by the average parent or even by all teachers. The Ministry of Education should consider therefore explaining the rationale for and details of the proposed education structure to parents and teachers in a series of forums. With better understanding, there will be greater acceptance. Their responses will also help the Ministry when they draw up implementation details.”
“It would indeed be foolish if we did not make full use of this scarce resource in our possession. However, to do this effectively, our children must be given at least a working knowledge of their mother tongue. It is for this reason that we have pursued the bilingual policy so relentlessly. It is not easy to achieve this objective. There are many obstacles, but we must succeed, otherwise our future generations will be cut off from our cultural heritage from which our society can draw strength. The acquisition of knowledge and skill is the other facet of our education process. Not surprisingly, this aspect is the main source of concern for parents. They feel that possession of the right skills and high academic performance are the passport to good jobs and secure livelihood for their children. This pre-occupation of parents with the achievements of their children is not unexpected as every parent naturally hopes that his children will do well in life. However, parents must accept the fact that children do not all possess equal capabilities nor indeed similar interests. In fact, this dissimilarity is evident even amongst children from the same family. Given this nature of things, the objective of the recommended education system to provide every child the best opportunity to develop his or her full potential is a laudable and correct one. The essence of the recommendations made by the Mindef Study Team is captured in its expressed intention "to seek ways of giving half a loaf when a whole loaf would choke" (paragraph 3.2.1, page 6-4 of the Report). The Study has confirmed what is probably obvious to all but accepted by few, especially parents and purists and that is "different children have different capacities to acquire knowledge" through a formal education system.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as one of the tail-end speakers in this debate, I shall attempt to give a broad-brush view of the revised education structure rather than delve into cracks and crevices of the proposed revision because I feel these cracks and crevices have been adequately covered by my colleagues who spoke before me. There is no doubt that the education process is a complex one as otherwise it would not have foiled the best minds in the land for the past 20 years. There were, of course, other priorities such as industrialisation and economic development and later defence. The best way to analyse a complex problem is to break it up into its components and then examine each part in turn. The Mindef Study Team has attempted to do this and in my opinion has fared remarkably well in identifying the short-comings of each component of our educational system. Measures have been recommended to remedy the defects of each part of the system, and no doubt, these measures, if implemented judiciously and carefully, will produce the desired results. However, it will be prudent to reassemble once again in the mind's eye the reconstructed parts prior to execution to see if the improved system as a whole serves our purpose and is capable of meeting our objectives. The primary objective of our education system is to nurture each and every one of our young people into a loyal and patriotic citizen with the qualities which will stand him in good stead in caring for the community and our nation as a whole. The emphasis on moral education in the revised education system is therefore rightly placed. In addition, we ought to tap from the vast cultural reservoir which provided our forefathers with the strength and tenacity to build this nation of ours.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission I would like to reply on behalf of the Minister for Science and Technology. The provision under the Subhead Code indicated by the Member for Mountbatten will be used mainly for the purchase of laboratory equipment, instruments and tools. This will amount to over 90% of the provision indicated. A small portion will be used for the purchase of furniture and replacement of old office equipment. The substantial increase in the provision for FY 79 is due primarily to the provision of $300,000 for the purchase of testing equipment required for the analysis of difficult chemicals and compounds containing narcotic drugs such as morphine or heroin. The Department of Scientific Services has considered that this particular testing equipment will be most suitable for use in the analysis of drugs and, hence, has recommended its purchase.”
“Something which is to be forgotten, the sooner, the better. Mr Speaker, Sir, the feeling of complacency and well-being will be the first of many obstacles which the second generation leadership has to overcome. They will be under constant pressure to adopt new strategies and more productive policies so as to improve the overall performance of Singapore. The Addenda to the Presidential Address of the various Ministries have outlined their respective policies to achieve this objective. The acid test of the younger generation of leaders will be whether they are able to generate continually new visions for Singapore, internally, regionally and internationally. 3.30 p.m.”
“Domestically, the scenario has also changed significantly. The high unemployment rates in the 5O's and 60's have given way to a nearly full employment situation. The changes in the population structure and income levels have been equally dramatic. Gross Domestic Product at current prices increased from $1.9 billion in 1959 to $15 billion in 1977. During this period, the population grew from 1.6 million to 2.3 million. This resulted in the per capita GDP in current prices increasing by over 400% from $1,200 in 1959 to $6,490 in 1977. Income levels have also improved substantially judging by the CPF statistics. There is no doubt that the milieu in which the second generation leadership have to work is totally different from that which existed in the early days of our nationhood. The question is not just survival. Singapore has survived from the political and economic pressures of the 5O's and 60's. The now considerations are: how to survive better, achieve better standards of living, improve the quality of the people and the environment, and to build a more secure future. It is clear that the people will no longer be contented to have more of the same, whether they are HDB flats, public toilets, social and health services, education or even our defence forces. Higher expectations are part and parcel of successful development. However, if unaccompanied by a willingness to work hard for them or to temper them with realism, these expectations will just remain as expectations. One of the pitfalls of being successful is that one soon quickly forgets the unsatisfactory and undesirable situation that prevailed before we achieved success. The toil and sweat that gave us our today seems to be something which have existed in the dim and distant past.”
“For this reason, the next three to five years will be crucial ones in deciding the success or otherwise of our leaders' efforts in resolving the succession problem, not only in the political field but also in the trade unions as well as in the civil service. But one thing is clear. The type of problems which the next generation of leaders have to grapple with will be no different from those which the present leaders encountered during the past 14 years. These problems can be summarised into two questions. Firstly, how to make Singapore a better place to live in, given the limited 225 square miles of land we found ourselves on and a multi-racial population of 2.3 million; Secondly, how to maximize the economic value of our limited land area and resources, and how to increase the capacity and output of the population by education, social organisation and national solidarity. Only the circumstances in which these problems have to be resolved have changed. Externally, the Southeast Asian and East Asian political landscapes have changed dramatically. ASEAN states have now recognised that ASEAN cooperation and solidarity has become an imperative for continued peace and prosperity in the region as compared to the gingerly approach to the organisation by the five component states not ten years ago. The post-Vietnam era has brought with it many changes, both pleasant as well as unpleasant ones. On the economic front, subscribers to the free trade principle seem to be losing ground rapidly to the protectionists. Problems of unemployment, inflation and politics in the developed countries have encouraged them to adopt short-sighted policies. Being an open economy, we have to take corrective and preventive measures promptly and accurately.”