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 Therefore, the whole family is placed in difficulty because his citizenship has been withdrawn.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 2 of 2.
“It is intended that there shall be less abuses by labour, higher labour productivity and longer working hours. As I have said earlier, it is desirable and even commendable for us to gird ourselves for difficult times ahead. But, at the same time, it is not amiss here to sound a warning that when trying to galvanise ourselves, we do not sacrifice our human dignity and human values. We have to bear this very much in mind whenever we legislate and we have also to convince our people that the measures we think are good for them do not take away from them those human values which we cherish. For instance, when applying the uniform rate of 44 working hours per week, a large number of people will have their working hours extended. It is true that some of them have acquired the advantage of shorter working hours not because our society or their employers can afford it, but because they happened to be in a union that was strong enough to secure an advantage over workers in other enterprises or in other industries. Such people must be convinced that the unpleasant medicine prescribed will be good for them as well as for our whole society. In reviewing the economic policies proposed by the Finance Minister, I cannot help feeling that in his proposals lie a depth and width of thought that will command confidence. For instance, for some considerable time in the past, vociferous voices were heard in Singapore on how our tourist trade could be developed. There were proposals to have gambling joints, striptease acts and the like. The thought was that if Singapore could provide such facilities, tourists would flock to Singapore.”
“The difficulty here is to draw a line separating those who can contribute more towards desirable objectives, and those who have to pay an additional levy which, however well meant, will cause immediate and unbearable hardship. I should, therefore, like to appeal to the Finance Minister to give serious thought to where this line should be drawn. It is also undoubtedly a very good thing for employers to play their part in contributing to the Fund which, as I have said earlier, will serve very desirable objectives. Here again, the difficulty will be to determine whether there will or will not be a class of employees from whom any additional levies may mean the difference between survival and bankruptcy. Nobody in this House believes that our Finance Minister wants to mobilise capital even at the expense of killing it. But it can well happen if detailed workings are not adequately thought out. Arising from this, a further point is that an additional levy on the employer for the Provident Fund is, in fact, a statutory rise for the employee. This means that the cost of production will rise varying with the amount of labour content in the product. On the one hand, we need and solicit both local and foreign investment. On the other hand, we are, as it were, passing a law compelling higher wages. Whether the higher wage cost will deter investment is something which economic experts in the Finance Ministry will have to work out with great care. Not equipped with sufficient data to make my own analysis, I will content myself by drawing the attention of the Minister to the possible adverse effects which this highly commendable scheme may induce. Labour legislation is to be introduced, as it were, to back up the economic policy of the Finance Minister.”
“The Ministry of Finance has the task of not only providing the economic sinews to our military muscles but of solving the more fundamental problems of economic expansion and the enhancement of the economic welfare of the population. The Minister for Finance has correctly assessed the position in his two speeches in the series of Ministerial broadcasts. The basic problem, of course, is that we have right now a grave and substantial unemployment problem. This problem will be aggravated and magnified by the British pull-out in 1971. It is also aggravated by the annual output of school-leavers seeking employment between now and 1971. The basic solution to this problem is, of course, a simple one of providing more jobs. But, as is usual, simple answers to problems require complex methods to effect. The first difficulty in this apparently simple solution is to find the necessary funds for capital investment. The Finance Minister has proposed schemes for the mobilisation of both domestic and foreign capital. One of the ways he proposes to mobilise domestic capital is to increase Provident Fund contributions from both the employee and the employer. Detailed workings are yet to be announced. But at this stage, it is necessary to draw the attention of the Minister to grave and adverse repercussions if the detailed workings are not adequately thought out. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 6.01 p.m. It is, of course, a good thing for an employee to contribute more towards the Fund which will either yield him better security in his old age or will permit him to own his house which, in view of the land shortage in Singapore, will undoubtedly in time get an enhanced value.”
“Sir, I wish to join the House in thanking the President for his speech when he opened Parliament on Monday evening. In spite of everything, the President had graciously come to this House and honoured us with his presence, and to state the Government's policy for the crucial years ahead. He has correctly and succinctly diagnosed a possible malaise to which we may succumb in the next few years if we are less robust and less prepared. He charted a course for us in the field of defence, anticipating the British withdrawal of their Armed Forces in 1971. He told us that we have very little time indeed to build up our military muscles. He also warned us that our military muscles are built, and subsist, on adequate economic health. Thus, unless we can in the next few years consolidate and expand our economic well-being, our security will rest on weak ground. In order that we have adequate military might underpinned by adequate economic resources, the President informed us that we will have to galvanise our people into a closely-knit society, each conscious of his own, his neighbour's and the collective response of citizenship and nationhood. Indeed, living as we are a comparatively small group of two million people compressed in an area of 225 square miles, we can only survive, let alone prosper, if the people are absolutely united and act consciously as a single body towards the national goal. As an Addendum to the President's Speech, various Ministries have outlined the programmes by which they anticipate that the problems posed by the President will be adequately met and solved.”
“My suggestion to have publication in leading newspapers is to ensure that some finance companies do not select little-read newspapers for publication of their balance-sheet and widely-read newspapers for advertisements calling for deposits. Clause 20, as it stands, can, I feel, be by-passed quite easily. The clause only requires that a finance company shall not hold share capital or have a direct interest in any financial, com mercial, agricultural, industrial or other undertaking, exceeding a quarter of its paid-up capital and published reserves. This clause does not, in my view, prevent a finance company indirectly committing funds exceeding a quarter of its capital and reserves. I should like to see the clause rewritten to include a restriction on direct and indirect participation exceeding a quarter of the capital and reserves. The proviso that excess share holdings acquired in the course of debt-realising should not be allowed, appears not to be necessary. Indeed, the very existence of this proviso indicates the weakness of the clause itself. Clauses 25 and 26 put teeth into the provision for supervision. As such, the penalty provided under sub-clause (4) of clause 25 of $250 is rather low. Normally one would expect that no finance company would refuse to show its books and data to an officer appointed by the Commissioner. The occasion when it will do so will be rare but very important from the point of security of the depositors. I would suggest a heavier penalty be provided. Mr Speaker, Sir, with these comments, I support the Bill. 5.45 p.m.”
“I personally would have preferred to see the figure of $500,000 in clause 6 doubled. But I do not wish to press this point as I am confident that the Government will not hesitate to raise it should it become necessary to do so. Another cause of apprehension over finance companies is that few of them provide adequately for bad and doubtful debts. This is so because operators of finance companies prefer to lose other people's money rather than their own. And so they distribute as much of their profits as possible and allow their depositors to carry the risk of bad and doubtful debts. Clause 12 will, I feel, go a long way to safeguarding the depositors and, in addition, to providing a built-in growth factor for the finance companies to grow to a reasonable size. Of course, this clause will have the disadvantage of inducing minimum initial capitalisation even when funds are available. It is conceivable that funds which otherwise would be capitalised would be rearranged as loans. However, as such an arrangement will be countered by the liquidity ratio required by the Commissioner, I feel that a correct balance has been struck. Clause 14 requires that every finance company shall exhibit its balance-sheet and the list of its directors at its principal and branch offices, if any. The company is also required to publish its balance-sheet in at least each of the four local daily newspapers in the four official languages. There is no requirement to publish the list of directors. A better requirement, I feel, is to have the publication in the leading instead of any daily newspaper in the four language streams. I further suggest that the list o directors should also be published.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the touchstone test of this Bill is not so much whether it can control finance companies, but whether it can control them without killing them. With the present-day economic arrangements of our society and of any advanced society, there is no dispute that finance companies do play an important part in our economic life. Gone are the days when a person wants something, he saves for it. Today he pays a small down-payment. Sometimes he does not even have to do that, and he enjoys the use of the article he wants and pays for it in instalments. Consumer credit is now the rule rather than the exception. Under such circumstances, finance companies are something we cannot do without. And yet for a long time many people have felt that they should be abolished. Sir, this is because finance companies readily lend themselves to abuse by unscrupulous people. One of the causes of apprehension over the profusion of finance companies over the past few years is that by their very profusion they are forced by competition to pay such high interest rates that they can only hope to pay them by resorting to speculative ventures. A large number of finance companies are known to be speculating, and at times even wildly, in properties and in the stock market. If a person speculates with his own money, that is his own funeral if he fails. But when a finance company plays around with depositors' money, then clearly it is the duty of the State to ensure that such things cease. The present Bill before the House does provide the means to restrict the number of finance companies. Clauses 5 and 6 provide the Commissioner not only with the powers to shape the structure of finance companies, but also to limit them.”
“Some newspapers have described it as a standstill Budget. This term, I think, is a misnomer. Only the rates of taxes stand still. Revenue and expenditure are anything but standing still. They go up by 8.7 per cent. Many countries have to run very hard with tax rates in order to keep still. In Singapore's case, with unchanged taxation, revenue is estimated to increase by a welcome $56 million and, as usual, the Ministry of Education takes a huge bite from revenue. It is estimated to spend nearly a quarter of the Republic's budget. If the figure of $151.6 million for 1968 is to he compared with that of $60 million for 1959, the progress in the field of education is apparent. Expenditure has almost trebled, while the population has increased by less than one-fifth. No other evidence is as clear as this of a socialist budget. Similarly the Ministry of Health, with the Hospital and Public Health Divisions, expect to spend some $70.6 million. Compared with the 1959 figure of $28.4 million, the increase shows again the mark of socialism. And what has socialism brought us? In spite of the turbulence in the few years since 1959, our country has prospered. Everybody, irrespective of race, colour or creed, has a more equal start and everybody has a better life. Every child has a free place in a primary school and every sick person can get free medical attention. Any person in misfortune can get public assistance. Consumption of electricity and gas, the obvious indicator of a better life, has more than doubled. At the same time, the infant mortality rate, the obvious indicator of an inadequate life, has dropped from about 35 per thousand life births to about 25. Mr Speaker. Sir, we have before us a good budget, a socialist budget. 3.40 p.m.”
“In the trading sector, because capital is turned round very much faster, the cost of jobs will be lower, and it is here that we should try to expand with as much vigour as, if not more vigour than, in the manufacturing sector. I, therefore, hope that the trading agency proposed by the Finance Minister will not confine itself to servicing the export needs of our manufacturers. Mr Speaker, Sir, our unemployment problem is a very severe one. The Finance Minister has outlined brave and decisive steps to be taken to solve that problem. We wish him all success. There is, however, one aspect he has not dealt with. If Singapore can mobilise enough resources to meet the problem, then he is, of course, right to ignore this aspect. I refer to the rather large number of people who are not citizens and who' work here under the work permit system. I do not know the exact figure. But I understand it to be around 20,000. The Finance Minister, in referring to the retrenchment of Base workers, stated that only citizens arc our responsibility. The question I now pose is whether the employment of these 20,000 non-citizens is our responsibility. I call upon the Government to review constantly the policy on the granting of work permits. I have every sympathy for people north of the Causeway, and I would be very happy to see them being able to get jobs in Singapore if our own citizens are not unemployed. But this is not the case and it is not made easier by the tariff wall raised by their Government. I think this House should accept the basic philosophy that there can be no common market for labour without a common market for the output of labour. The Budget for next year has been described by the Finance Minister as a continuation Budget.”
“As the Finance Minister has rightly pointed out, if Singapore has not done so much as it did in stimulating economic growth, the situation would have been much worse. But now with Britain's military withdrawal, our problem - again to quote the Finance Minister - has been severely aggravated. According to him, by 1971, 16,000 people will be retrenched by the British. We have already 52,000 unemployed and every year we have 25,000 people coming out of schools looking for jobs. Thus if we are to solve our unemployment problem completely, the Finance Minister tells us, we have to create 43,000 jobs every year for the next three years. This is indeed a gigantic task calling for prodigious efforts. In industry, figures, of course, vary from factory to factory. It takes generally at least $3,000 to create one job. If we are to create 43,000 jobs in industry, we will need $1,290 million in investment every year. If we compare this figure with our gross national product estimated for 1966, at about $3,200 million, we will see the magnitude of our task. In other words, the gross capital formation will have to be more than one-third of our gross national product. The Economic Development Board estimate that in 1966 gross capital formation ranks at about 14 per cent of gross domestic expenditure. To put it bluntly, even doubling our efforts will not be good enough. This is, of course, assuming that all jobs are created in the manufacturing sector. In other sectors the cost of jobs may be lower. The Finance Minister estimates that some $45 million put into new hotels may create some 2,500 jobs. This works out to some $18,000 per job.”
“This is no doubt one of the important factors in our economic progress during the year. According to figures published by the Labour Ministry, man-days lost on account of strikes dropped from a peak of 411,000 in 1961 to 44,000 in 1966. Figures for this year are not yet available. But from what we know, except for the Hume Industries strike, there does not seem to be any major work stoppages. The better industrial relations climate today may be attributable to a reorientation of basic thinking between both management and labour circles. There has been a marked willingness on both sides to place national interests, and therefore of the general good, before any other interests, and there has developed a new mood where both sides are increasingly anxious to sit down and reason rather than to fight it out. This is especially so in the Jurong industrial complex, it is here, I think, that the workers deserve a special compliment; not only have they and their leaders, with rare exceptions, shown a remarkable degree of responsibility in industrial relations, but they have also widened their activities into the social, cultural and recreational fields. In these activities, I am glad to note that the management has willingly co-operated by donating funds. If the good work is sustained, I am confident that before long Jurong's leisure hours will be as vigorous as during working hours. The Economic Development Board also deserve a compliment. I have heard from both labour and management leaders that had it not been for the understanding and support of the Board, progress would have been very much less. Turning now to the problems of the coming year, we find that in spite of the advances we have made, unemployment will still be a threat to the core of our social fabric.”
“Receipts from tourism are up, and there is a grave shortage of hotels which we are trying very hard to remedy. Manufacturing output has gone up, and industrial investment is also up, so much so that the Economic Development Board has to have a crash programme in factory construction. Mr Speaker, Sir, our achievements for the year have really been impressive and satisfying. But what is more gratifying is that not only have we kept up with economic development which began in 1959, but we have also distributed the uses of our increasing wealth in a more just and equitable manner. Since 1959, in spite of rapid population increases, the per capita income has risen from about $1,200 to about $1,700, or by about 42 per cent. At this figure we certainly have a per capita income exceeded only perhaps by Japan in Asia. This alone will mean very little to the common man if he does not get an increasing share of the use of the increased wealth. As the Minister has observed - and on which I can personally testify - not only has the number of cars but also the number of motor-cycles and scooters has gone up very rapidly. All the factories in Jurong that I know of provide substantial parking lots for motor-cycles and scooters of the ordinary worker. If further proof of a better life for the ordinary worker is required, one need go no further than to any of the vast subsidised public housing estates and observe the living conditions there. One will see radio and television sets in nearly every home. One will see the car parks full of cars, motor-cycles and scooters. The only thing that one perhaps will not see is a boy or girl of school-going age not in school. Another very satisfying matter is the continued improvement in the industrial relations climate in Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, much praise has been given to the Budget speech of the Finance Minister - by the ordinary man in the street, by bankers, industrialists, traders,, and merchants. The speakers before me have also praised him, and I am sure the speakers after me too, will be resounding these praises, if I were to add even more praise, I am afraid the Finance Minister might not be able to bear the burden. And so, if I do not join in the chorus, then I think it does not deserve praise. The Budget speech on the financial policy of the Government for the year 1968 can be divided broadly into three parts. Firstly, the Finance Minister surveys the progress for the year; secondly, he analyses the problems of the ensuing year; and, thirdly, he tells us what he proposes to do with it. As I sat listening to his survey, I could not help feeling very proud of being a Singapore citizen. Mr Speaker, Sir, I assure you it was not on account of the language of the Finance Minister, whose language was indeed restrained and sober. My pride swelled from the facts the Minister reeled out one after another. Everything was up - trade was up, not only in value but even more so in volume, and by a staggering 15 per cent. According to a very recent Colombo Plan report quoted in the local Press, only two countries in Asia had an increase in their share of the world trade. These are Singapore and South Korea, bearing in mind that we flourish (to use the words of the Finance Minister) entirely on skill and expertise. The distinction in trade is something to warm all our hearts. The number of ships using our harbour has gone up, and so has the tonnage. Bank deposits are up. So has building construction gone up - both public and private. There was even a short shortage of cement.”
“I know that it is even more difficult to legislate on what constitutes bona fides, but I should like the Minister to assist manufacturing exporters with some general guide-lines, so that those wanting foreign loans or foreign technical assistance are better able to proceed. Mr Speaker, Sir, with these reservations, I support the Bill. Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I wonder if the Member for Telok Blangah has really thought out to its logical conclusion the statement he has made about Hongkong industrialists who establish ---”
“If it is found advisable to adopt the investment allowance method as an incentive, clause 17, especially sub-clause (1) (a) and (b) , will need revision either in principle or in quantum, or in both. Many manufacturers are apprehensive of the possible administrative difficulties in the use of the words "established export market" contained in Part IV of the Bill. Such a fear may or may not be justified depending not on the legislation but on the attitude of the tax authorities implementing the legislation. Not being a legal man, I am not in a position to propose the necessary amendments to the Bill, but I should like the Minister to narrow down the possibilities of lengthy and fruitless arguments between taxpayer and tax collector. Another dissatisfaction from manufacturers, especially from the established ones, is that the incentives proposed give more to the new exporter and discriminate against the old exporters. Here, we are dealing with a Bill which seeks to induce new exporters, and there is much to justify the philosophy of not running after the bus when it is already caught. But the sour note introduced by differential treatment may either cause friction amongst manufacturers or induce old manufacturers to create subsidiary companies ostensibly to manufacture those products that are exported or export to new markets for the purpose of re-export to the established markets. If the Minister does not wish to change his mind on not running after a caught bus, I feel he should examine the many possible ways of tax avoidance. Parts V and VI of the Bill operate largely around the key words "bona fides". Everyone knows that it is extremely difficult to determine bona fides in the business world. There are so many forms and so many disguises.”
“But as we are not debating a Bill to establish corporation tax, I should now like to deal with the provisions of the present Bill, after having established the point that we should not expect too much from it. Sub-clause (9) of clause 14 is held by many as unduly restrictive. This sub-clause restricts the carry-through tax exemption benefits to shareholders of a holding company to one which holds throughout the tax relief period of a pioneer company either all the issued shares or such portion of the shares as the Finance Minister may require at the time when the pioneer certificate is issued to the pioneer company. I do not think the Minister will be an unreasonable man when he determines the portion of pioneer shares the holding company should have. But the Bill does not allow him to change his mind should the holding company, for one reason or another, all good and valid reasons, wishes to change its shareholdings. Unless the Minister can give cogent reasons why a holding company should not vary its shareholdings at all, I am of the view that he should at least arm himself with the powers to agree to a variation. Sub-clause (5) of clause 19 does not appear to be a favourable incentive to expanding enterprises in that its terms are rather restrictive. It must be borne in mind that we are a young industrialised country and cannot compare with those highly industrialised countries in other parts of the world. Practically every country in this part of the world is competing against one another for investment. In the face of such competition. I feel we should give serious consideration to affording relief by way of investment allowances which have been found to be a more practical form of inducement to investment.”
“What is more is that the profit from the sale of the shares will be regarded as non-taxable capital gain and the new shareholder in reality gets back part of his capital by way of the dividends subsequently declared on which he has to pay tax. It follows from this that our present tax withholding system upon which is based the further reliefs proposed by this Bill before the House does not lend itself to accurate or even close estimation of the effects of the reliefs either in quantum or on the persons considered desirable to enjoy them. It is widely held that one of the most important factors conducive to economic growth is the presence of large joint-stock companies with capital spread over a large number of shareholders. Such being the case, it is important that shareholders should shoulder their true tax liabilities or enjoy their true tax reliefs. Our present tax structure does not provide this, and it follows that the present Bill does not so provide. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not saying that we should not have the present Bill before us made into law. What I do say is that we should not stop with it. We should only regard it as a stop-gap measure while we revise our present tax structure. I say, let us try to make this Bill work in order to give us time to work out a better one, which, apart from ease, certainty and fairness to the taxpayers, will at least enable the Government to estimate its revenue from. profits made by the companies rather than on the probable time and quantity of dividends distributed. I can go on, Sir, for quite some time on the merits of a corporation tax instead of our present withholding tax.”
“Sir, that is what I have in mind. Property owners have been heard to complain rather bitterly and vociferously about discrepancies and differences in rates and valuations that cannot be justified. The present Bill before the House can at least supplement if not correct our present income tax system by offering incentives to investments through reliefs from income tax. Such incentives can at best be stop-gap temporary measures and should be examined in the light of possibly better things to come. All the reliefs proposed for pioneer industries, expanding established industries and export industries relate directly back to the rather old and cumbersome method of income taxation which asks incorporated companies to act as tax collecting agents for the Government in the case of distributed profits, and as taxpayers in the case of retained profits. Such a system has little philosophy, less rationale and no equity. It operates this way. A company does business for a year and makes a profit. It pays 40 per cent of that profit as tax, if it distributes that profit as dividends in that year, then its shareholders get the tax credit and adjust it against their personal rates in the third year. On the other hand, the company may not distribute the profit until ten years later. In this case, the shareholders will adjust their tax credits in the twelfth year against their personal rates. During this time, many shareholders may have disposed of their shares to new shareholders who have taken them over. The old shareholder would have sold his shares at an enhanced price incorporating the profit of the company and the tax credit.”
“On the other hand, there will be those who believe that a revision of our present tax system solves all problems associated with industrial expansion. The truth probably lies, as truth usually does, somewhere in between. It is here that I think the Government can profitably explore. The process will probably take at least a year or two before the truth is found and implemented. I suggest that a Commission with as wide representation as possible be appointed forthwith to review the principles and administration of our present tax system and to make recommendations for changes. This Commission should set out to discover ways and means of simplifying and modernising our income tax structure. Indeed, if the necessary men can be found - I have no reason to believe that in our island of talents we have this shortage - I will even go further to suggest that another Commission be appointed to review our laws on property tax. In our need for rapid economic development, we should not ignore an aspect which plays a very important part in either stimulating or retarding economic growth. I think everyone in this House will agree with those outside that our property tax laws are rather archaic and require modernisation. Property owners have been heard to complain rather bitterly -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Bill seeks to provide additional relief from taxation for enterprises whose creation or expansion of exports are in the economic interests of the State. This Bill consolidates, re-enacts and repeals the Pioneer Industries (Relief from Income Tax) Ordinance of 1959 and the Industrial Expansion (Relief from Income Tax) Ordinance, also of 1959. As such, any criticism of this Bill will, I think, be found in what it does not contain than what it does. It merely consolidates two previous Ordinances and grants additional tax relief, but it does not nor is it designed to change the basic character of tax legislation. I believe that what is urgently required is a comprehensive re-examination of the fundamentals of our taxation structure and system. After all, this Bill seeks only to supplement the income Tax Ordinance, and if what it seeks to supplement is not the best, then the best it can do cannot be the best. In other words, it is circumscribed from the start. It is, of course, a highly controversial matter as to whether or not our present taxation system and structure retards economic growth. There does not seem to be any controversy. Indeed, it seems to be taken for granted by almost everybody that our tax system is not conducive to economic growth. If this is the situation, that is, where everyone agrees that it is not good and disagrees only whether it is bad, then I say that the time has come when serious thinking should be done on its change. There will be the traditionalists who regard any change with horror and who rest their case on custom and usage -the solid base of inertia.”
“What does the Minister intend to do with the remaining seven projects?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 10 stipulates that - (1) The management of the Corporation shall be vested in a Management Committee. (2) The Committee shall consist of - (a) seven members nominated by the Rubber Trade Association of Singapore; (b) seven members nominated by the Singapore Chamber of Commerce Rubber Association; and (c) a public officer,...'. Sir, what I do not understand is this: clause 7 of the Bill provides for membership whereby any person carrying on or intending to carry on business in the rubber trade or industry may be admitted. Members of the two existing component Associations of the present Rubber Association of Singapore are automatically members of the proposed Corporation. I see no reason at all why any member of the Corporation, who is admitted in accordance with clause 7 of the Bill, needs to be nominated by either one of the two component Associations in order to be eligible to serve in the Management Committee. I think that members of any organisation should have the right and privilege to nominate from amongst its own members a committee to manage the affairs of the organisation. But with clause 10, I regret to say that it denies members of the proposed Corporation this right and privilege which is rightly theirs. And I can see no justification in granting the Rubber Trade Association of Singapore and the Singapore Chamber of Commerce Rubber Association the sole right and privilege of nominating 14 out of a Committee of 15 members to manage the affairs of the Corporation, which admits members from any one in the rubber trade.”
“No, Sir, I would not like to proceed now.”
“In view of the fact that under the Bill before the House membership is being thrown open to all and sundry in the trade in accordance with clause 7, I see no reason at all why any member of the Corporation who is admitted in accordance with clause 7 of the Bill needs to be nominated by either one of the two component Associations in order to be eligible to serve in the Management Committee. The proposed Bill sets up a corporate body with wider membership qualifications. It is to be a national body charged with the task of regulating the rubber trade to the best advantage not only to the trade itself but also to the national good. The proposed Bill provides that the Minister has the final say in all appointments. I fully support the Bill, but the fact still remains that members of any organisation should have the right and privilege to nominate from amongst its own members a Committee to manage the affairs of the organisation. I regret to say that clause 10 (2) of the proposed Bill denies members of this proposed Corporation this right and privilege which is rightly theirs. Sir, we are a nation in which every citizen is given equal opportunities. In view of what I have said, I see no justification in granting the Rubber Trade Association of Singapore and the Singapore Chamber of Commerce Rubber Association the sole right and privilege of nominating 14 out of a committee of 15 members to manage the affairs of a corporation which admits members from any one in the rubber trade. Sir, I now propose that paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 10 (2) be deleted and substituted by the following paragraphs -”
“Sir, the Rubber Association of Singapore was originally formed by the Rubber Trade Association of Singapore and the Singapore Chamber of Commerce Rubber Association to represent most of the Chinese and European communities in the rubber business. Problems common to both the communities in the trade have to some extent been successfully dealt with by the Association in the past. This move to incorporate the Rubber Association of Singapore as a corporate body with perpetual succession is indeed timely. This intention to provide for the conducting of a rubber market in Singapore, the regulation of the rubber trade and to establish a Singapore Rubber Fund is very commendable in view of the importance of the commodity to Singapore's trade and of the importance of Singapore in the rubber business. But what strikes me most is that the matter does not seem to have been given more careful thought in the drafting of the proposed Bill. Under the present practice, one might become a member of the Rubber Association of Singapore only if he were sponsored by either one of the two component Associations and duly proposed by two existing members of the Rubber Association of Singapore. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 4.14 p.m. The proposed Bill now provides for membership to the corporation as laid down in clause 7, whereby any person carrying on or intending to carry on business in such classes of the rubber trade or industry may be admitted. Members of the two existing component Associations of the present Rubber Association of Singapore are automatically members of the proposed Corporation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Moneylenders (Amendment) Bill is designed on the basis of experience derived from the operation of the Moneylenders Ordinance of 1959 to tighten up provisions and to make it more difficult for moneylenders to evade those provisions. Any Bill so designed must receive support from all except the dishonest moneylenders who are regarded by many as the unavoidable parasites of society. I particularly welcome the proposal to make it a seizable offence for a moneylender to harass his debtors at home or at the office. All too frequently we see on pay day the furtive departure and sneaky homecoming of poor victims in the clutches of the moneylenders. Many of these poor souls fell prey to the moneylenders through no fault of their own, as they had sometimes to borrow money because of family sickness and other misfortunes. These unfortunate people must be protected from the excessive demands and harassment by moneylenders. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Barker]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 6.02 p.m. Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 -”
“Unfortunately, this is not sufficiently realised by those misguided few who, by committing such acts, destroy their own chances of employment. To these misguided few, I say, please think carefully; our country, our people, and our Government are doing everything possible to industrialise in order to create more job opportunities. By taking to street violence, you are scaring away foreign investors as well as local entrepreneurs. This means that there will be less factories which, in turn, means that you may remain jobless. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the present technological age, we need anything between $20,000 and $100,000 to create one job. Massive investments are needed. Hooliganism must stop if we are to retain and attract investments. Our duty today is not only to preserve law and order but also at the same time to increase job opportunities. The surest way to do so is to diminish the rights of those who violate the rights of others. There can be no question of right when rights are abused by a minority to destroy the rights of the majority. I sincerely hope that the day will not come when we may have to take away completely the possibility of bail for those who are bent on wrecking our society. At the moment, the least we can do is to deprive these social wreckers of the automatic right of bail. 4.37 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill which seeks to deprive offenders of their automatic right to bail when arrested for unlawful gathering and for offences of rioting. The House today is not discussing the theory of liberty or the abstract rights of the individual. We are facing a situation in which a small band of political bankrupts has openly declared that it will take to street violence as its form of struggle, the irony of which is that it is supposed to be struggling for democracy. In the name of democracy, are we supposed to allow social wreckers to stage lightning attacks on lamp posts, traffic lights, bus stands and community centres? And then when the police comes they immediately seek the shelter of anonymity in the innocent pasar malam crowd of shoppers. Are we to allow such social perverts the right to automatic bail, in the legal term, "bailable as of right", so that they can be released for further hit-and-hide ventures or to terrorise witnesses from giving evidence? Our clear duty today is to see that our people can go about without fear, that our facilities erected at public expense are not damaged, and that our law enforcing officers are not handcuffed. For the past month, owing to the prevailing uncertain conditions existing in certain countries in this region, substantial investment funds have flown from there. Some of the funds landed here. In my role as a businessman and a manufacturer, I have come across many instances where these overseas funds are seeking investments here. This House knows only too well that we need every cent of those funds for investment, if we are to solve our unemployment problem.”
“For one man to enrich himself in this way at the expense of the nation and the people is obviously immoral and reprehensible. Tire State, indeed, has a duty to step in. What I am worried is whether the proposed amendment as it stands enables the State to do this. I should feel happier if Members in this House will assist with words which will enable the State to intervene and only intervene in the circumstances I have narrated.”
“Mr Speaker, the amendment to the Bill amending the Control of Imports and Exports Ordinance attempts to restrict the powers sought in the Bill which, as it stands, gives absolute discretion to the Controller to cancel or vary import licences whether or not an irrevocable letter of credit exists. This amendment is to be welcomed as Singapore is a trading city. Whatever might be the success of its industrialisation programme, its geographical position determines that its trading activity will go on expanding. And in a trading city traders must feel secured that bona fide arrangements and commitments in trade will be honoured. The essence in trade is that delivery and acceptance are made as scheduled. I quite appreciate that there have been and there will be circumstances in which it is justifiable for the State to step in and interfere with trade. But I submit that such circumstances must be rare and far between. On the wording of the amendment, I should like to hear the views of the Members of this House who are in the legal profession. As a layman, I see great difficulties in implementing the law if the amendment as it stands is passed. My experience in business tells me that all letters of credit are established in good faith by the banker and his client, the importer. Without such good faith or confidence, the banker will not issue a letter of credit. I think what is in doubt is not so much the good faith between the banker and his client as the morals of the importer. Circumstances may arise where an importer, as the Minister for Finance has just mentioned, armed with foreknowledge acquired legally or more likely illegally, attempts to frustrate Government's intentions and enriches himself by extraordinary imports.”
“Before I sit down, Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish, with your permission, to touch on a lighter point of view. I refer you to paragraph 84 of the Commission's Report. May I draw the attention of the trade unionists in this House to this new method of taking a wage claim? 5.38 p.m.”
“After the Council has publicly debated on the proposed legislation, Members of Parliament can either repeat their wisdom and apt phrases, in which case their public image will be tarnished. Or they can try to unearth something new for the sake of being new and run the risk of more damage to their public image. The germs of friction are abundant in such a situation. The Council is not answerable to the electorate and there is no basic reason for it to debate in public. It is far better that it does its work without casting anxious glances at the Public Gallery. Thus I feel the Commission should have recommended a Council that will debate Bills certified by the Speaker as likely to affect minority interests after and not before Parliament does so, privately and not publicly. Of course, with this suggestion must go the further suggestion that the Council should be able to refer the Bills back to Parliament once again for further consideration. In our present structure of elected representative government, Parliament is the supreme legislative institution second to none and answerable to none except the electorate. This must be so. The recommendation of the Commission for an Ombudsman really exceeds its terms of reference, although it is obvious that it has been done so with the best of intentions. The Ombudsman does not really look for infringement of minority interests. His task is to ensure that with the increasing need for wider discretionary powers in the Executive, such discretions are not to be abused. The need for his services is to be debated in the context of the good of the whole society and not in the limited context of how minority interests can be safeguarded.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to thank the Constitutional Commission for the very speedy Report which is fundamentally well-conceived and clearly expressed. Like any other piece of work, there are shortcomings, and if I appear to touch only on them, I wish to emphasise that it is only the pressure of time that compels me to by-pass its virtues. This Commission was appointed to consider and advise on ways and means to safeguard minority interests. It has recommended a Council of State to consider all Bills other than Supply and urgent ones. Not all Bills impinge or infringe minority interests. I feel the Commission should have recommended a Council that will only consider Bills certified by the Speaker as likely to affect minority interests. This Commission has also recommended that the Council, consisting of nominees of the President, should publicly debate Bills before Parliament does so. This may give rise to bad effects. Firstly, the focus of the spotlight will be switched adversely from Parliament to the Council. The House of Lords in the United Kingdom, the Senate and Upper House in other countries debate Bills after and not before Parliament. The spotlight must be on those answerable to the people and not on those who do not have to face the electorate. Secondly, friction may arise between Parliament and the Council. Parliament generally is composed of people educated in the rough and tumble of life. Their education is a strenuous one which the electorate has endorsed. Members of the Council, on the other hand, will consist of eminent men who are very likely to be learned professionals.”
“I am confident that the Ministry of Interior and Defence will, in the course of implementing this Bill, find this balance. But I would like the Ministry to give serious thought at this stage to the problem and not allow our national goal to be jeopardised by miserliness. I note that no provision is made for allowances to the Vigilante Corps. I feel that the Ministry should give further thought to the question of compensating members of the Vigilante Corps for their time and incidental expenses. The parents of the old school may still feel - although such parents are decreasing year by year - that service in any uniform is reserved for the son who cannot do better elsewhere. This stigma attached to the uniformed service has to be forestalled and countered with adequate explanation. I suggest the Ministry take early steps to make known the ideals and purposes of this Bill through all the mass media open to the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill provides every able-bodied citizen between 18 and 40 years the opportunity to serve his country. In this connection, may I quote these stirring words? 'Breath's there the man with soul so dead Who never to himself hath said "This is my country...!"' If everyone in our country says to himself that this is his country, his land and his home, and that he will fight with his life for what he cherishes, then we shall have a nation and a people who will consider it the noblest task to defend his country. May I take this opportunity to urge every person eligible to serve under this Bill to do so as an opportunity rather than as an onerous task. The glory to serve should over-ride any discomfort of services. Mr Speaker, Sir, I heartily welcome and support this Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the introduction of the National Service (Amendment) Bill is aimed at the creation of a healthy, useful and dedicated corps of citizens. In the process of their duties, members serving in the various corps will acquire and enhance their sense of national identity, which will infuse itself into their families and neighbours, and thus multiply its effect. In my opinion, if this Bill is successfully implemented - and I see no reason why it should not - we may expect to have a new generation of dedicated Singapore citizens, fully conscious of our needs, effectively and willingly shouldering the responsibility of citizenship. We live in an island surrounded by turbulent seas of nationalism and racialism. The past few years have shown that we, having no other place to go to, must and will stand up and fight if our very existence is threatened by expansionist ambitions. This Bill lays the cornerstone of our national resolve to be mentally and physically equipped to defend ourselves. A side effect of the implementation of this Bill can be the inculcation of discipline among our population of ages between 18 and 40. This sector is the most physically productive of our working population and a more disciplined working force can but do our economy enormous good. However, in the implementation of this Bill, I would urge the Minister to consider the following points. A fine balance will have to be struck between the call of duty and the compensation for those answering the call. Ideally, of course, all should serve without recompense, but human beings, being what they are, the thin line between enthusiasm and frustration must be found and drawn.”