Lim Soo Peng
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 1207 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1101*. (* The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Ho Kah Leong) Sir, this is to seek information only. Will the Minister enlighten this House on the performance of the Jurong Fish Market and the Jurong Abattoir?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am informed that there are quite a few cases of people who were denied entry into Singapore because their passports had expired. These people, all Singapore citizens, were in Indonesia or somewhere else, and, for one reason or other, could not renew their passports.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0803 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1181. Sir, the first impression a tourist gets of Singapore is the smartness and efficiency of the airport personnel. The Immigration and Customs officers do give such an impression to passengers using the airport.”
“Thus his rice bowl was broken. He depends on hawking for his livelihood. His wife is not a citizen. His children are citizens, but they are very young. Therefore, the whole family is placed in difficulty because his citizenship has been withdrawn. Sir, taking the oath is a question of procedure.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 1207 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3201. Sir, the project of a Fishing Port and Auction Markets was mooted for quite some time. The buildings for these purposes at Jurong were completed some months ago.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 1207 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1321. Sir, the abattoirs at Jurong were built on very lofty hopes. They were supposed to be the centre- piece of a complex of the meat processing and packaging industry in Singapore.”
The complete record
Every one of 85 lines we hold for Lim Soo Peng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 2.
“I am not moving, The sum of $522,400 for Head 52 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head 53 -”
“In fact, when the fireworks factory in Jurong blew up about a year ago, the fire brigade got there in a very short time - five minutes, I believe; in any case very much less than 15 minutes. In fact, in the Development Estimates in one of the previous years, a sum of $1.5 million was provided for a fire brigade. My officials had a look at it and wondered whether there was any justification for spending this large sum of money for a fire brigade. Most of the money spent on this fire brigade would be to provide quarters for the firemen. This is one of the extraordinary features about Government development projects - the money is not spent on items that one would conclude from reading the title of the project. For instance, $5 million is to be spent on, say, building a prison. You will find that $4 million will be spent not on housing the convicts, but on housing the prison staff. It is the same with this vote. I hope we can develop a system where the firemen will go to the fire brigade station according to a duty roster, but go home after that. I do not understand why we have to provide accommodation on the site of the fire brigade station. Certainly in other countries they do not have this. So if the Member for Havelock wants to have a fire station there, but without firemen's quarters, then I think my Ministry will be more willing to consider this proposition than otherwise.”
“The Member for Sembawang asks for details of the acreage of land opened for industrial use, as well as the number of outstanding applications. The land in Jurong available for industrial use now stands in the region of 4,000 acres. The number of outstanding applications varies from time to time. I cannot give the exact figure off-hand, but I think it is probably between 40 and 60 applications which need to have their land requirements fulfilled. The Member for Jurong wants to know whether this $50 million loan will include expenditure on a community centre. There is an item here with the heading, "Mosque, community centre, etc." at Kampong Java Teban, and a sum of $20,000 has been set aside for this. As regards a secondary school for Jurong, no secondary schools will be built there. Most of the workers there are not married, and those who are married have very young children. In fact, even the primary school in Jurong has not been filled up. So it will be many years before we need secondary schools in the estate itself. But there are secondary schools quite close by, for instance, the Jurong Integrated Secondary School at 12¼ m.s. Jurong Road, the Yusof Ishak Integrated Secondary School in West Coast Road, and the Toh Tuck lntegrated Secondary School in Toh Tuck Road. These three secondary schools are well under capacity, and they may serve the population of Jurong for some time. As regards a fire station, no fire station will be built in the Jurong industrial estate. There is a fire station in Queenstown, and there is another fire station in Bukit Timah. So the necessity of having one in Jurong is not all that urgent.”
“Sir, in providing facilities and amenities, the Jurong Town Corporation appears to have forgotten a very important need - there is no fire station in this industrial area. A fire station is the back-bone of our industrial system. The nearest fire station is miles away, and at present even without a traffic jam a fire engine takes 15 to 20 minutes to reach a factory in the Jurong industrial estate. If it is not the responsibility of the Jurong Town Corporation to provide a fire station, will it not at least make available a piece of land for a fire station, and get the proper authorities to put it up? After all, the Jurong Town Corporation has to protect its own interests as well. The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Sir, this loan of $50 million will pay for a wide range of development projects which the Jurong Town Corporation intends to carry out in this fiscal year. It includes land development, both in Jurong estate as well as in other areas of Singapore. It is also proposed to extend the deep-water wharves, and the total cost of this wharf extension will be $10 million. Standard factory buildings, as well as flatted factory buildings, are expected to come to nearly $13 million. A total of $8.8 million will go towards the construction of workers' houses in Jurong, and $1.5 million in housing for other industrial estates. Then, of course, a substantial amount will be spent on social amenities, such as the park, the aviary, a sports complex, and a public jetty to facilitate transportation between Jurong and some of the southern islands which have been developed for industrial purposes. These, broadly, are the main purposes for which the loan money will be used.”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 1207 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1101*. (* The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Ho Kah Leong) Sir, this is to seek information only. Will the Minister enlighten this House on the performance of the Jurong Fish Market and the Jurong Abattoir? What was the cause of the boycott by the pork dealers last year and how was it solved?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to share the sentiments expressed by my colleague, the Member for Jalan Kayu. It does not appear that there has been any revision of our fire prevention rules and regulations fast enough to keep pace with modern industry. Every year new construction methods are evolved and new materials are used. However, we seem to apply the same rules and regulations on fire prevention which, in many instances, seem to have caused annoyances and frustration to industrialists who have set up new factories or plants here. Sir, I am not advocating a reduction in the standard of our fire-prevention requirements. What I am quarrelling with is that the civil servants concerned will just go on saying that certain rules and regulations must be complied with. Sir, these must not only be complied with but also intelligently complied with. The rapid industrialisation, the various forms that our factories may take, as well as the enormous range of products now being manufactured, make it impossible for comprehensive rules to be drawn up for every type of factory and every type of product, let alone our present set of fire-prevention rules and regulations. Sir, I would request the Minister to give this matter his constant attention.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am informed that there are quite a few cases of people who were denied entry into Singapore because their passports had expired. These people, all Singapore citizens, were in Indonesia or somewhere else, and, for one reason or other, could not renew their passports. Later on, when they wanted to renew their passports, they were not allowed to do so. Without renewing their passports, they were not allowed reentry into Singapore. Will the Minister state whether it is his policy to deny such people readmission into Singapore? If so, please state the rationale behind it. Mr J. F. Conceicao: I am not moving my amendment, Sir.”
“Sir, stories of rudeness and cheating by taxi drivers are rampant and are frequently in print in the local newspapers. Some taxi drivers are even reported to have threatened passengers with assault. I have heard that some top civil servants and a Parliamentary Secretary were threatened with assault and abuse. Of course, these rude, dishonest and belligerent taxi drivers are in a minority. But they are enough to give Singapore a bad name to visitors, and if unchecked, may also force local passengers to avoid taking taxis. There must be stricter supervision of these taxi drivers and more energetic action should be taken on complaints by passengers. Recently, there was a campaign to have cleaner taxis. There should also be a campaign to have honest and polite taxi drivers. Furthermore, when it rains, it is impossible to get a taxi. So I hope when the findings of the Transport Advisory Board are to hand, the Minister will consider whether there is a need to issue more taxi licences. Also will he state how many complaints have been received against rude taxi drivers from 1968 to the latest available date and what action has been taken against them?”
“Sir, in view of the Minister's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0803 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1181. Sir, the first impression a tourist gets of Singapore is the smartness and efficiency of the airport personnel. The Immigration and Customs officers do give such an impression to passengers using the airport. By and large, the airport police are also doing a good job, but there is increasingly the sight of airport policemen slouching sloppily here and there. These few lazy policemen mar the good work done by the others. Can we not have more discipline and responsibility drilled into them?”
“Thus his rice bowl was broken. He depends on hawking for his livelihood. His wife is not a citizen. His children are citizens, but they are very young. Therefore, the whole family is placed in difficulty because his citizenship has been withdrawn. Sir, taking the oath is a question of procedure. If we can avoid causing any inconvenience and hardship to the people, we should do so. The Minister for Foreign Affairs is also the Minister for Labour. He has many duties to perform. However, he should consider my suggestion for setting up a consultative committee to help him review all the outstanding applications for citizenship. The committee's recommendations will then be submitted to the Minister for his approval. This will prevent the unpleasant consequences which I have mentioned.”
“I have come across residents at the meet-the-people sessions who are mostly Chinese-educated. They have complained to me that most of the documents are printed in English. The officials have not pointed out to them that when they reach the age of 21, they should go to the Registry of Citizenship to take an oath before they can become citizens. These applicants say that they are Chinese-educated and are not conversant with the legal terminology in the documents. I therefore support the view that the fault to take the oath in time should not be placed on the residents. When they reach the age of 21, they should be reminded that they should go to the Registry to take the oath, otherwise they will be disqualified. If they fail to do so, then it is their fault. However, we have not given them any reminder. Many people cannot remember the date when, at the end of three years, after their child has attained the age of 18, they have to take an oath at the Registry. We should not cause any inconvenience to the residents merely on a matter of procedure. They may have possessed the red identity cards and may have been employed. For example, there was a hawker in Tiong Bahru who failed to take the oath at the Registry, and, as a result, his citizenship was taken away. He asked whether I could help him. I went with him to the Registry and appealed to the officials to consider his case. However, according to the officials, his citizenship was withdrawn in accordance with the law. He was then asked to reapply. He reapplied and was given a blue identity card. He went to the Ministry of Health to pay his licence fee. When asked to produce his identity card, he presented his blue identity card. As a result, his licence was cancelled by the Hawkers Department.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, since we are touching on various aspects of citizenship, may I bring the attention of the Minister to the fairly large number of people who have been deprived of their citizenship? Sir, I refer to those people who, after having spent a large part of their lives here, are told that they are no longer citizens. These are the people whose parents had made use of other people's birth certificates in order to get them into school some 30 to 40 years ago. This, of course, was a dishonest act. But parents are known to have done more dishonest things for their children. The question now is whether these people should be penalised and made stateless persons as a result of the dishonest acts of their parents which were committed decades ago. Sir, I feel that these people deserve our utmost sympathetic consideration. I hope the Minister will take into consideration such applications for citizenship. Madam Chan Choy Siong(In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, many Members have touched on the question of citizenship. I spoke on this subject in 1968. Up till today there has been a great deal of controversy over it. This shows that citizenship is a very important and crucial question. At the meet-the-people sessions, we are confronted with all sorts of problems from the people. I want to bring up one matter which has also been raised by the Member for Toa Payoh. According to the regulations, those who apply for citizenship through their parents must first go to the Registry of Citizenship to take an oath before they can be granted citizenship. Of course, this is the correct procedure. The Member for Alexandra has also touched on this question just now. However, we must not put the blame entirely on the residents.”
“Sir, in view of the Minister's clarification, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Just as we are financing Neptune Orient Lines, I think we should similarly start our own fishing company. This is perhaps one of the many possible ways in which our funds can be better used for ourselves. The second observation I would like to make is that there do not appear to be sufficient allocations to make Singapore a greener and a more gracious place to live in. I quite realise that this is not the time to spend large sums of money for parks and gardens. But follow the model of Jurong Aviary, where a public amenity is entrusted to an incorporated trading company. I would like to suggest a way in which we can have a greener and more graceful Singapore, without too much public expenditure. There are large numbers of people in Singapore who grow orchids as a hobby. But there are only a few orchid exporters, and a rather large international market is hardly touched. Hawaii has ceased to be a major orchid exporter because of prohibitive labour costs. More people in Singapore will grow orchids if an outlet is found. Orchid growing can be a profitable hobby and if more people take up orchid growing, Singapore will be that much more attractive, It would appear, therefore, that orchid exporting, since it is inadequately served by private enterprise, is a good field for Government to step in, not only to increase export earnings but also to encourage people to like and grow flowers. I think the Government should set up a cooperative to promote the export of our orchids. 5.30 p.m.”
“I note that the estimate for Interest and Dividend income for l969-70 was in the region of $30 million, and that the estimate for the 12 months from 1970-71, instead of 15 months, is over $43 million. Taking 12 months for comparison, this revenue is estimated to increase by nearly 90 per cent from these two items. As nearly 70 per cent of these two items were derived from foreign sources, we must have staggering amounts invested abroad in stocks and bonds, probably more in bonds, as the 1970-71 Estimates show Dividends at about 5 per cent of interest. Can some of these sums be more profitably used here? In the past years the Government has quite rightly placed a great deal of interest in investments in shipbuilding and the shipping industry. Neptune Orient Lines Ltd, has got off to a good start, and more money is to be lent to it. What I hope the Government has not forgotten is the fishing industry. Just as it was futile to wait until a big shipbuilder came here, it is equally unrealistic to wait until a big fishing enterprise decides to establish an industry here. I would like to recommend for the Finance Minister's consideration the need to start off as a joint venture or alone, if necessary, a large fishing industry. In 1968 we imported nearly 80 per cent of our fish requirements. Our annual consumption exceeds 60,000 tons. There is therefore, a fairly substantial home market to start off with. But a modern fishing industry requires enormous capital. The Government should step in and take the lead, otherwise it will take a long time before a local firm grows sufficiently large to be able to afford the capital. And as no foreign firm has shown signs of investing the large sums needed, it would appear that we have to finance it ourselves.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, over the past years many of us in this House have lavished praise on the wisdom and far-sightedness of our Finance Minister's budgets. Even in those years when an M.P.'s life was made very uncomfortable by constituency queries and criticisms of new taxation, many of us could not but have a sneaking admiration for the way money was raised, disbursed, and hidden. I, for one, had this suspicion that total expenditure did not absorb all the taxes collected. But it is all for the better. Now we are told that should lean times really come, we have put on sufficient fat to last it out. Looking around the city. I cannot but agree that the economic infrastructure is there. Jurong is thriving. New industrial estates are fully occupied and newer ones are planned and provided for. Never has there been so much money in the bank and in people's pockets. Unemployment has turned into labour shortage. And the final proof is this budget --which, in spite of larger demands for development and defence, relies on increased prosperity to bring in increased revenue. The years of belt-tightening have been proved timely and necessary. Now we are able to meet the economic consequences of the British withdrawal with the confidence derived from a vastly expanded economic stability and a comfortable savings hoard. I have but two observations to make on the Government's financial policy for the year. We have large amounts of money stashed away abroad. I know some of it has to be so in order to meet the needs of our currency backing. I understand also that when we ask for foreign investments in this country, we ask for technological know-how and international connections just as much as we ask for foreign cash. But are we making the best out of our funds?”
“We have but a small island, and although our birth-rate is slowing down, our population is growing. As more and more land is required for human habitation, less and less land is available for catchments and reservoirs. Therefore, the problem of getting enough potable water becomes more acute. Costs have gone up and will continue to go up. This is inevitable with population growth and economic development. If our only problem is rising, costs, we should consider ourselves fortunate. At the moment, there are two huge pipes carrying enormous amounts of water to us every day, if one of these pipes, let alone two, were for one reason or another to be unavailable, we would be in a rather difficult position. We have, therefore, to think in terms of developing a larger capacity for domestic water resources. This will, of course, be costly, but unless we intend to go without water, we have no alternative but to spend the huge sums necessary for water works of one kind or another. In order to do this, Sir, we should have a rational basis to apportion the charges for use of water. I support this Bill because it provides us with that rational basis. 6.36 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, once the principle is accepted that we pay our way, and I think Singapore accepted it quite some time ago, then it is only logical that the maintenance of our sewerage system has got to be put on a rational, self-sustaining and self-developing basis. Nobody is going to come here to give us some money to clear our waste or to improve our sewage disposal system. We have just got to find the money ourselves, whether we like it or not. The Ordinance which this Bill seeks to amend already empowers a charge to be made for water closets and urinals. What is sought now is a charge on fittings that discharge waste into the sewerage system and on the water that is used to convey that waste. As I said earlier, this is only a logical extension of the law, and the recoupment of cost of sewerage development. Everybody in Singapore who lives in a house connected to the sewerage system knows that more water is flushed into it than from only the water closet or the urinal. The water from the bathroom, the kitchen sink, etc, is emptied into the sewerage system. The amendment to the law to include a charge for sanitary fittings or other fittings which discharge waste is therefore fair and necessary. When levying such a charge, it is only logical and fair to take into account the water that goes into the sewers. Hence the amendment Bill which seeks to impose a levy on the amount of water used in houses which are connected to the sewerage system is again logical and fair. It is perhaps the most appropriate time here to touch on a subject which is a critical problem, not only in Singapore, but also in many parts of the world. Just because we do have an excellent system of potable water, we often take other things for granted.”
“What can be worse is that not only are the prices increased, but the volume of sales is reduced to a lower figure in order to defraud on payment of the cess as well as income tax. This is less likely to happen and there is less incentive to do so if the levy is initially and directly paid by the guest or customer. I foresee that the rate of levy will be going up and not coming down in the future. Other countries have a much higher rate than this Bill seeks to impose. The Minister has the power to vary the levy at any time, and I frankly do not anticipate him lowering the rate. The higher he varies the rate, the greater will be the incentives to defraud. It is, therefore, better to start the cess under conditions where there is less incentive to defraud. Having said this, it only remains for me to add that it should be decided that the cess be paid directly by the customer who partakes of the food and drinks in the same way as the hotel guest is now paying for his room. Therefore, either the schedule is amended or the Minister, under the powers conferred upon him under section 11, specifies a minimum cess. A person can go to a first-class hotel and have a cup of coffee which may cost a dollar. If he goes alone, which is unlikely, he has to pay a cess of three cents. If he takes two friends along, he has to pay nine cents. This will be awkward. I suggest, therefore, a minimum cess of five cents and thereafter to the nearest five cents. 4.27 p.m”
“There has been considerable debate in this House, in the press, among trade and financial circles, over the ways and means of developing the tourist industry. Everyone agrees that something has to be done, but nobody has thought of what has to be done. The Minister has just told this House that to woo tourists from abroad, money must be spent on publicising Singapore. Experience has shown that the amount of money needed to increase the flow of tourists cannot be obtained by voluntary contributions from the industry. It is with this view in mind that I support the Bill to levy a cess on or through the industry which stands to gain from the efforts of the Tourist Promotion Board. In going through this Bill, I notice that no intention is stated or indicated as to who would have to pay the cess in the first instance. Is the cess to be collected as a sort of turnover tax on lodging, food and drinks, or is it to be additional to the bill to be presented to the guest or customer? I cannot agree with my colleague that the cess should be borne by the industry. I would prefer to have the cess as an addition, to the bill. The three per cent cess levy is not a heavy one and is unlikely to cause any resentment to tourists or the local consumers of food and drinks in certain more costly places. I understand the Government levy in Japan is ten per cent and in Taiwan thirteen per cent. Hotel operators and restaurateurs will most likely pass on the levy through increased prices, if they are asked to pay a levy on the gross salary and, in so doing, they are more often likely to increase prices by more than the levy.”
“I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 1207 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 3201. Sir, the project of a Fishing Port and Auction Markets was mooted for quite some time. The buildings for these purposes at Jurong were completed some months ago. The Minister has told this House a while ago of the resistance met by his Ministry in trying to resite the fish auctioneers from Ellenborough and Beach Road Markets to Jurong. I am sure that the removal of the Ellenborough auctioneers to Jurong has been made easier when the Ellenborough Market was gutted by fire in January this year. Will the Minister enlighten the House on what steps have been taken in this respect? [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 4.39 p.m.”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, the Minister has touched on the Ellenborough Market fish auctioning centre. He will recall that I was not there when the Government were trying to get the fish merchants out. I only came into the picture after Ellenborough Market was burnt down. I shall come to this later on, Sir.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 1207 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1321. Sir, the abattoirs at Jurong were built on very lofty hopes. They were supposed to be the centre- piece of a complex of the meat processing and packaging industry in Singapore. The abattoirs were completed quite some time ago and yet they are not fully operational today. I would like to know the reason for this.”
“Madam Chan Choy Siong: (8) That the total sum to be allocated for Head 1001 be reduced by $100. The sum of $22,097,540 for Head 1001 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 1101 - The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Teong Eng Siong - (1) That the sum to be allocated for Head 1101 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1005.”
“Sir, I withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank my friend, the Member for Moulmein, for supporting my statement. Ministers come in through the V.I.P. Channel on their arrival at the airport. I am sure, therefore, they do not know the problem faced by the ordinary traveller. The Minister has asked me to be specific. All I have to say is that if he would delegate one of his officials or his Parliamentary Secretary to go to the airport, he would see that the luggage clearance is slow. Of course, the loss of a baggage could happen even in the best of airports. Even in Tokyo, the busiest airport in Asia, it took us no less than 20 minutes to have our luggage cleared. When we compare standards, Sir, I take it that we compare ours with only the best and not with those which are not up to our standards. Sir, in view of the Minister's assurances to look into this matter ---”
“Sir, the Minister can look into the handling of luggage by porters of Malaysia- Singapore Airlines.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0803 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1051. Sir, it is not only my personal experience but that of many travellers who pass through Paya Lebar Inter national Airport that the handling of luggage is very slow indeed. There were occasions when it took about 45 minutes for passengers to get their bags from the conveyor belt. The few luggage porters who happened to be around adopted a couldn't-care-less attitude. Sir, in the wake of our extensive campaign to woo tourists and develop our tourist industry, I hope the Minister will look into this matter and improve the existing facilities immediately. I am sure that any costs incurred in so doing will be very negligible as compared with the ever-increasing invisible earnings that our economy will benefit by this industry”
“While agreeing that our rate of defence build-up is necessary, I think that at the same time other Ministries should not acquire the defeatist attitude of doing nothing as far as improvements are concerned, The Ministry of Finance has set up a trading company and a bank on a commercial basis so that the additional expenditure involved will be more than met from commercial opera tions instead of being a further charge on Government funds. The Ministry of Communications now functions more like a huge business concern than like a regulatory Government department. The Ministry of Culture has formed a trading company to cut down the cost of production of radio and television programmes and at the same time to market those programmes locally and abroad. The other Ministries should follow suit. The Ministry of Education can, for instance, try to sell its excellent E.T.V, programmes abroad. The Ministry of National Development can, for instance, sell more of its housing and technical expertise to other countries. The Housing and Development Board should accelerate its sale of low- cost houses. At present, I do not think that more than 15 per cent of those who live in the low-cost housing estates own their own flats. The ideal would probably be about 50 per cent. I am not suggesting that the Government should go all out to compete with business enterprises. What I am suggesting is that, with some thought and imagination, the Ministries can in one way or another operate along commercial lines to cut costs and increase their income. Even if nothing more than an attempt has been made, the exercise will keep those Ministries which have a standstill budget for the next three years fighting fit until better times come. 7.23 p.m. Mr Low Yong Nguan (Crawford) rose -”
“5 million and 32.7 million. Therefore, in terms of external reserves and on the basis of population, Singapore is ahead of Japan and Thailand. The per head of external reserves of Japan is 5560 and that of Thailand is S$96 as against ours of S$l,000. This figure must again put us well ahead of other nations in Asia, if not ahead of many prosperous nations of the West. Having done so well in the year, it is no wonder that the public have responded favourably to the additional requirements of the Finance Minister. Furthermore, the additional sums required are for transfer to the Development Fund to expand further our economy. Therefore, I do not wish to touch on the new tax measures and the variations on the old ones. All of them appear to have been carefully calculated and designed to spread the load on those most able to bear them. Mr Speaker, Sir, what I wish to touch on is the rather grim prospect facing us in the next three years. I have little doubt that our economy will ex pand enough to meet the increasing needs of defence. However, I do have grave misgivings about the outcome of the work of those Ministries whose share of economic increases will be siphoned off to the Ministry of Interior and Defence. I quite appreciate that without an adequate defence system, all economic and social development will not be to our good. But at the same time we have to ensure that we have something worth while to defend. I fear that if non- defence expenditure is kept at a standstill, not only will there be a standstill in the work of the Ministries concerned, but there may be a deteriora tion that will, in the end, be very costly to arrest and rectify.”
“Mr Speaker. Sir, this Budget comes as a surprise in many ways. Most of us knew of the extensive military build-up and consequently expected substantial tax increases. Most of us, including those in business, knew how well our economy was developing. What we did not know was that we were doing so well that the heavy demand of military spending could be met almost entirely by normal increases in revenue arising from an expanded economy. Sir, this is a remarkable feat by any standard. It is true that in most cases, non-defence expenditure had to have increases curtailed. I regard this as a rather small price to pay for our security. We all know how awful the burden of defence is. In most countries, including even developed ones, increases in military spending would have given rise to severe economic problems, if not led to bankruptcy. But here our Finance Minister does not even have to increase rates. All he needs is an addi tional $35 million in 15 months, representing about three per cent of his Budget, to pay for further economic development. I regard this as close to a modern miracle. Sir, we were told that a preliminary estimate of our gross domestic expenditure for 1968 put the per capita figure of Singapore at $1,940. This figure must surely indicate that we are a rather rich nation in Asia. The Finance Minister, in a speech at the recent opening of a new factory, said that our foreign reserves stand at S$2,000 million. With a population of around two million, our per head of external reserves is S$1,000. In Asia, only Japan and Thailand have more external reserves than Singapore. In June 1968, the external reserves of Japan were US$2,001 million and the external reserves of Thailand were US$1,051 million. Their respective populations, however, are 99.”
“We are an emerging country. We are beginning to produce more and more goods for our own consumption. It is essential that while we try to curb abuses in hire-purchase financing, we do not kill such financing. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill and I should like to ask the Minister charged with implementing it to consider representations carefully and to introduce any amendments whenever needed. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Resolved, "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and the following Members: Inche Abdul Aziz Karim Mr E. W. Barker Mr Hwang Soo Jin Mr Lim Soo Peng Mr Ng Kah Ting Mr Sim Boon Woo Mr Tang See Chim." - [Mr E. W. Barker]. LAND ACQUISITION (AMENDMENT) BILL 5.55 p.m. Order for Second Reading read.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, for a long time our society and economy needed and received the boost that hire-purchase provides in financing what consumption and consumer need. But equally for a long time there was no referee, save a rather unsatisfactory one originating in the United Kingdom, and even then ill-tailored for the needs here. More often than not, the free play of forces between the borrower and the lender ended in the borrower losing to the lender. This must be so, for you cannot afford to quarrel with the man to whom you are in debt. With this Bill, a new referee has come into the ring. The provisions in the Hire-Purchase Act, 1968, as intituled, seek to regulate the form and contents of hire-purchase agreements and the rights and duties of parties to such agreements and matters connected therewith. Whether the provisions contained in the Bill will make a good and impartial referee is something only time can tell. At this moment the provisions appear to be absolutely necessary. They also appear to have been carefully considered and drafted. Even forms are being prescribed and the terms and charges laid down. Going through the provisions of the Bill, I feel that the future borrower will have his rights protected and the future lender will know precisely where his relief lies. The Courts are being given exact areas of jurisdiction, and I think everyone will be happy except the borrower who borrows with the intention to abscond, and the lender .who lends with the intention to squeeze the purchaser. But the regulation and control of hire-purchase is a field in which there is little experience in this country. It is true that the Bill has the benefit of experience in other countries. But the experience of the other countries is not necessarily the prescription for us.”
“It is only under such conditions that we can hope to maintain the present buoyancy in our economy and promote a climate of stability for further expansion of our economy so that more jobs can be made available for our people. The Government's measures are an attempt to establish a balance between the needs of the workers and the requirements of entrepreneurs in the context of our national interest. The Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill, for example, will enable our workers to own houses and have a stake in our country. Although the employers will have to pay more under the new rate of Central Provident Fund contributions, I am sure none will grudge the extra payment when the money is put to good use.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill must not be considered in isolation. It is to be taken together with the Employment Bill and the Central Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill as each is part and parcel of a deal designed to achieve new norms in industrial relations, terms and conditions of service and to increase domestic savings which will benefit our people. The Government has already explained fully that, in connection with the Employment Bill, the purpose is to strengthen our economy and ready us to face the economic challenges ahead. The other Members of this House, leaders of industry, commerce and labour have expressed their views. Academicians and economists have studied and debated it and the general consensus of opinion has been that the Government is not only right but indeed has no other choice. It has to take stringent measures even at the risk of being unpopular. The Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill sets industrial relations in its true perspective. This Bill may appear to the superficially minded and the superficially inclined as a move against the interests of labour, but in reality it is not so. What it seeks to do is to rationalise the position to prevent in-roads into functions which properly belong to management. These inroads, whether made consciously or unconsciously, have led to aberrations in industrial relations which in turn have dampened the incentive for some employers to continue in business, have made them hesitate to expand business and, worst of all, discouraged potential new investment. Mr Speaker, Sir, the function of management is to manage and workers must accept this fact.”
“I am glad to note that this has been recognised and is provided for in sub-clause (4) of clause 39. As this law is new in more respects than one, we must tread cautiously. We must be magnanimous. We must always be willing to listen and always ready to change. With an open mind and flexibility, we must entertain and process all reactions to this legislation, from the workers and trade unions to the employers and the public. Our future will, in fact, be more dependent on the goodwill and understanding of all citizens in operating this Bill than on the clauses contained therein. I feel that if given a fair trial, this Bill will undoubtedly succeed. 3.52 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 47 as it stands in the Bill is a very good one. It gives discretion to the employer to pay a bonus to his employees, the amount varying from employee to employee, depending upon their performance and productivity. At present, the bonus provision in collective agreements applies equally to all employees. Whether a person is a good worker or a bad worker, he gets the same bonus. In other words, a good worker is penalised in that he gets the same reward in the form of bonus as another who is inefficient and unproductive. However, there are some genuine misgivings on this provision, as not all employers are enlightened employers. Some employers may take advantage of this provision and give no bonus or ex-gratia payment whatsoever. This should not be the case if they make a profit. To allay the fears of the workers that they might be deprived of a bonus, the amendment to be moved by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee is a reasonable one and should be supported. It makes the payment of bonus negotiable up to one month's wages, and any payment above one month's wages is at the discretion of the employer. In this manner, bonus can still be used as an incentive for higher productivity or as a reward for good performance. Mr Speaker, Sir, the standardisation of working hours at 44 hours a week as contained in clause 39 is a very good provision. It does away with the distinction between a white-collar and a blue-collar worker. The limitation of overtime work will help to create more needed jobs for our people. However, in view of the shortage of skilled workers in special trades, this provision has to be applied intelligently. It may not be possible to limit overtime work to 48 hours a month in all cases.”
“If this clause is not amended and if it is applied rigidly, then instead of increasing productivity, we may create a reverse effect. For example, we are still short of very skilled personnel for our industries. We cannot afford at this juncture to retire them off when they are still fit to work after 55 years of age. The concept behind this provision is a sound one, as the object is to get rid of unproductive persons and those in "soft" jobs. In many collective agreements, there are provisions for retirement at 55. But there are also provisions for retirement benefits to be given. However, in the very large majority of small businesses, especially the family type businesses, there are no such provisions. An old employee may be related to the employer and most of these people, as in the small Chinese businesses, live on the premises. If such people were to be retired at the age of 55, they would have no place to go, let alone the means to earn a livelihood. To allay the fears of uncertainty and insecurity among our older workers, this clause must be removed. In any case, any sensible employer will not employ an inefficient and unproductive worker.”
“There will be no British air power or sea power to deter anyone inclined to fish in troubled waters. This could, therefore, mean our second phase of colonisation or our last experience of peace, stability and relative plenty. It is in this context that the long-term view of this Bill should be tested. The Bill seeks to set above all other things a new order, a new pattern of relationships between Government, labour and management for the future. Its over-riding intention is the eradication of weaknesses and abuses in the present system of our labour relations. Let those who are now fortunate to be in employment remember that without sound labour and economic conditions, their own jobs are insecure. Let those who are union members remember that they form but a minority of workers. Let everybody remember that widespread unemployment jeopardises not only law and order but the very social order for which so many have worked so long and so hard. This Bill will also create employment opportunities, increase productivity and attract investment. These are all very desirable objectives which must find full support not only from this House but also from all citizens. But good intentions alone are not good enough. We are dealing with the mechanics of a law which purportedly embraces these good intentions. The mechanics, therefore, must stand the closest scrutiny to bear evidence that the good intentions would in fact be applied. Sir, may I now touch on certain clauses of the Bill? In clause 15, from the employers' angle, the misgiving on this provision is that it is too wide. It covers everybody employed in Singapore, as the word "person" is used in this clause instead of "employee". This will cover any person from a peon to a managing director.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, posterity will either look upon this Employment Bill as the Magna Carta of industrial Singapore or it will simply dismiss it as an Act full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. My only hope is that posterity will not also add that it was a classic example of men who did not understand their fellowmen. Sir, we are dealing with human beings, not mere figures, and it is upon this understanding, or the lack of it, that the success or failure of this Bill would very much depend. But, first, let me hasten to add that I support the proposition that the Bill is a necessary alternative to what really amounts to national suicide, for it is clear to all of us that we cannot maintain the status quo any longer. And the status quo by any standard, whether in developing or developed economies, is grim, a continuing unemployment problem in an expanding population and an inadequate rate of growth of foreign markets for our manufactured goods; a loss of 15 per cent of the Gross National Product after the withdrawal of the British troops, and an almost insatiable need for new investments. These are formidable problems of this island Republic devoid of the economic buffers of a big nation with land and natural resources. To keep the status quo without redoubling our efforts would result in a situation very similar to the one which prevailed in the mid l950s. For it must mean that if every other person in the street is unemployed and, worse still, because of our education policy an educated unemployed, then social unrest and discontent would increase. In such a situation, there is no doubt as to how far and how well the Communists could capitalise. Only this time it would be greatly different.”
“But the very nature of this Bill is to enable the landlord to recover premises which he cannot do under existing conditions. 5.30 p.m.”
“Assuming that the Board has found it a fact that the landlord has taken tea money -and this is always very difficult to prove, although it is highly inconceivable that any landlord would have allowed a change of tenancy if his palm were not greased with money, is the Board in a position to take into account the landlord's share of the tea money? If not, will not the landlord get an unfair advantage? Even if the Board can take into account the landlord's share of the tea money, it can at best take into account the last tenancy transfer, as it is highly unlikely that earlier tenants can be traced or, if traced, will volunteer information. In many instances, the tea money paid by the last tenant, partly to the landlord and partly to the previous tenant, represents a sizable investment, and probably almost his entire capital will, as it were, be gone and replaced only fractionally by the Board's award. How many such businesses owned by such tenants will be adversely affected I do not pretend to be able to guess. But I should like those charged with declaring an area as designated for development, or with the onerous duties of the Board, to bear in mind that brand-new shopping and business premises will mean very little if the businesses that are expected to occupy them are made bankrupt by the process of building the premises. Sir, I make these observations fully conscious of the provisions contained in clause 7 (2) of the Bill, which allows the Board to give regard to goodwill, probable loss of income, disruption of business, cost of removal, etc. The basic fact is that if the award comes anywhere near the tenant's expectations, the need for this Bill would not have arisen because the tenant would have already come to an agreement with the landlord.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no complaint against the intent of the Bill. The objectives attempted by it are worthy of support by both the landlords and the tenants. There is no doubt that Singapore needs very rapid development. There is even less doubt that one of the major causes retarding development has been the operation of the Control of Rent Ordinance which, for over 20 years, has pegged rents at such unrealistic levels so that slums remain slums. The existence of the Control of Rent Ordinance for so long has also resulted in abuses and inequities being deeply entrenched and interwoven into our social and economic system. Therefore, while I applaud the Government for the bold move to rectify an ancient ill, I must, at the same time, sound a note of caution as to the possible adverse repercussions. Many tenancies of rent controlled premises have changed hands many times and, quite frequently with the knowledge and connivance of the landlord, at very high premiums. For instance, it is not unknown that certain premises along the busy parts of North Bridge Road have changed hands with tea money paid out as high as $100,000. If the last tenant who paid this huge sum of money for a tenancy of the premises is evicted, it will be a very difficult problem for the Tenants Compensation Board to determine the right amount of compensation. The Board is required to award a fair and reasonable sum, but this sum will not be less than eight years' rent paid for the premises.”
“But circumstances may change and the occupiers of posts may change. Are we then, and then only, to amend a piece of legislation which we pass now? Sir, I feel that there should be some safeguard that this House must retain for itself. I also feel that this House must set a limit to the amount the Minister may borrow, and if he requires more funds, he should seek authority again from this House. Similarly, I feel that this House must set a limit on the rate at which our Finance Minister can borrow. If he feels that he must pay higher rates, he should seek the specific authority of this House. Fortunately for us, our international credit rating is high and we do not have to pay interest rates as charged by the Market Street money-lenders for any external loans we seek to raise. But we still need to determine the rate of interest which this House must set as the limit on which the Finance Minister can borrow. I should like him to advise this House on the appropriate figure. Similarly, I should like him to advise this House on the limit he should be authorised to raise from external loans. 2.58 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure that I am voicing the sentiments of this House when I say that Singapore, unlike some emerging countries, does not require foreign loans to live. Singapore only requires foreign loans to expand its economy more rapidly. The rate of Singapore's economic expansion has been such that it has been equalled only by a few countries in Asia, and even in the world. But circumstances are such that, especially in the next few years, Singapore needs to expand much more rapidly, and because of this need I welcome this Bill which will enable us to raise external loans. While I welcome the intention of this Bill, I feel that it is my duty to raise objections to some of the provisions in the Bill. If this Bill is passed into law as it stands, a blank cheque Bill, as it were, would be handed to the Finance Minister. I am sure no one in this House doubts that with the present Finance Minister at the helm of our economic ship, we will not run the risk of foundering. Everyone in this House is confident that he, armed with the wide powers conferred by this Bill, will not seek the easy way out when confronted by a shortage of cash. I am also sure that he will do his best to mobilise all domestic resources before attempting to borrow from abroad. But, we are not legislating for one man. What we are doing today is to consider a piece of legislation which will fit in with our structure and system of government for some time to come. As the Bill stands, the Finance Minister can raise any amount of money he likes from abroad and pay any rate of interest he likes on those loans. As I have said before, I am confident that the present Finance Minister will neither be foolish nor will he mortgage our future unnecessarily.”
“No doubt, the exotic and the unique may attract some tourists, but in this field, we are in competition with places of high living scattered all over the world. The real answer to attracting tourists really lies in what the Finance Minister has lately proposed, and that is if only we can move the focal point or turning point of air routes from Singapore to Bali which has all the natural attractions for tourists, then they cannot help but come to Singapore on their way to Bali. This, to my mind, indicates very forcefully the depth of thinking and true answer to the problem. Before I conclude, I should like to refer briefly to the Prime Minister's speech when he congratulated you, Sir, on your election as Speaker to the House. He referred to a number of parliamentarians who have not experienced the rough and tumble of elections, or the nasty intrigues of inter-party warfare. As a Backbencher in this House, I should like to take this opportunity of assuring him that though we lack the battle scars, we have the intelligence, the will and the capacity to learn from the old war-horses, albeit in a second-hand manner, the traumatic experiences, of fights in the Thai boxing style, so that if and when the situation demands, we will be no less prepared than those who have actually fought. 6.10 p.m.”