Lim Swee Say
Singapore
“The number of reports received via the Snap@MOM app, number of valid reports and number of companies issued with enforcement actions between 2015 and 2017 are shown in the table below: All valid reports have resulted in warnings or enforcement actions.”
“In the case of students from ITE, polytechnics or autonomous universities, employers do not need to contribute CPF if the student is employed by them for training that is approved by their institutions.”
“Together with our tripartite partners at the national and sector levels, we have to do our best to transform across all sectors, for our economy to transform and grow, pervasively, as One Singapore Unlimited.”
“Between April and December 2017, the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TADM) and the Employment Claims Tribunal (ECT) concluded 3,750 employee salary claims where the employer was ordered to make payment to the worker. Salaries were fully recovered in about 92% of these orders. The remaining claims involved 139 employers.”
“The number of employed residents aged 62 and over, and 67 and over has increased over the last five years (see Table 1 below). Of all employed residents aged 67 and over in 2017, 64% were males; 80% held secondary and below qualifications, 9% had post-secondary qualifications, while 11% were tertiary-educated; 52% of this group of older w…”
“The proportion of full-time resident employees earning below $2,000 who received bonuses, including the Annual Wage Supplement, has remained stable at about 50% over the last decade. Employers and unions share the flexibility in structuring staff remuneration together under our Flexible and Performance Based wage systems.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,231 lines we hold for Lim Swee Say, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 24 of 25.
“So 25% of the workforce of foreign workers can defer unemployment, in theory, by 10 years, because every year we send back 2.5% of the workforce. So we can defer by 10 years. That sounds very good, very attractive. But if you were to look into the composition of the foreign workers, one-third are construction workers; one-third are domestic maids; and then how about the nurses, how about the workers who work on shift, the skilled workers working at wafer fabrication plants and so on. Therefore, I come to this guesstimate that if we were to look at the number of jobs taken by the foreign workers which Singaporean workers are willing to do, are able to do, maybe the number is down to 70,000 or so. And how long can 70,000 last us? My guess is one year, maybe two years, and after that we will run out of foreign workers to send back. Then what do we do? Unemployment will still be there. Then some said, if that is the case, it is so difficult to spend the money and to send back foreign workers, how about setting up an unemployment fund? So, again, I did a simple calculation. Assuming unemployment was to rise by 1%, which means 18,000 workers out of a base of 1.8 million, assuming we pay them $500 a month, it will cost the Government $100 million a year, at $500 a month for each of these retrenched workers. Then what next? Now you pay $500, two months later they will come back and say $500 is not enough, how about $700, how about $1000? Also, do not forget, if we do not address the real issue of unemployment, the number will go up, which means over time, what is going to happen is that Singapore will become a welfare state whereby employers say it is okay to retrench because the State will take care of them.”
“Based on the report I read in the newspapers about leakage through import, if we were to increase consumer spending or government spending to increase GDP growth from 0.5% to 4%, an increase of 3.5 percentage points, we would have to inject an equivalent of 5% of GDP of spending for GDP growth to go up to 4%. 5% out of a GDP of $143 billion, as at the end of last year, works out to about $7 billion, meaning that we have to spend another $7 billion in the economy to boost the economic growth. I called up HDB and asked how many flats they can build with $7 billion. They said: 61,000 4-room flats. I called up MOH and asked how many hospitals they can build with $7 billion. They said: 20 hospitals with 800 beds each. I called up the LTA and asked how many LRTs they can build with $7 billion. They said: 14 LRTs, each one costing $500 million. Sir, my point here is this. $7 billion is a lot of money. It is easy to talk about spending $7 billion, but by the time we translate the $7 billion into real goods and services, then we understand. It is not possible for the Government or for the people to just throw $7 billion to building another 61,000 flats, another 14 LRTs, another 20 hospitals, just to keep the economy growing, just to defer unemployment. So spending our way out of a slowdown is a no-go solution. Then somebody said, if that is the case, why don't we send back the foreign workers? After all, there are about 450,000 foreign workers in Singapore, which is equivalent to about 25% of our workforce of 1.8 million. Theoretically speaking, if unemployment were to go up by 2% to 3% every year, we can just downsize our workforce by sending back the equivalent number of foreign workers.”
“So we need to have 3% to 4% growth a year. But we are not going to see 3% to 4% growth this year, and not likely next year. The Government has projected that GDP this year will grow at maybe between 0.5% and 1.5%. That will be about 2 percentage points or so less than the 3% to 4% needed to sustain the present level of employment. Therefore, it is possible that unemployment rates in Singapore may reach as high as 4% before the end of the year. And if slow growth were to continue into next year, then by the end of next year, if we do run into a recession, unemployment may even reach 5% to 7%. The point I want to highlight here is this. Looking at the nation, we can talk about unemployment of 4%, 5%, and so on. But the workers, who are unemployed, to them unemployment is 100% when you do not have a job. It is for this reason that I felt it is very important that the entire nation, whether we are Government, unionists or employers, all Singaporeans, we must come together to rally the support, work united, stay united, and ask ourselves this question: what are the three to five most important things we have to do together, work together, in order to manage and contain rising unemployment in the near future? There are, of course, various ways we can try to regain full employment or to defer unemployment. Some people have suggested that since we have a healthy reserve, why don't we spend more money - the consumers be given tax incentives, the Government increases the budget. Then by spending more money, hopefully, we can prop up the economy to the 3% to 4% needed to sustain full employment. I did a simple calculation.”
“But in the case of a national economy, a country cannot just simply retrench and downsize the country, the workforce, because at the end of the day we still have to find jobs for every Singaporean. Sir, I think this precisely is the challenge facing us today. For the last 30-over years, in the process of nation-building, we have been very conscious about the need to create more than just a competitive economy. Because we realise and understand that at the end of the day, the long-term survival of Singapore rests not just with a competitive economy but equally, if not more importantly, on a cohesive society and a strong and resilient nation. In fact, if you look back the last 20-over years, since the mid-70s, the standard of living of all Singaporeans has improved tremendously because of full employment. As a result, there is no widening of income gap, there is no widening of social gap, standard of living, and so on. What we have today is both a competitive economy and a cohesive society. However, full employment in Singapore is likely to come to an end this year. If you look at the economy today, for every Singaporean who is still having a job, I assume we have to be at least 1% to 2% more productive than last year, so that we can still keep our job. And yet at the same time, the workforce is growing, because every year we have 40,000 to 50,000 young Singaporeans joining the workforce, maybe 10,000 to 15,000 older Singaporeans retiring from the workforce. So there is a net growth in the workforce of about 1 1/2% to 2%. In other words, the economy will have to grow by about 3% to 4% every year, in order that everyone of us who is having a job can continue to keep the job, and at the same time to create enough jobs for the new entrants to the workforce.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That, in view of the economic downturn, the Government should rally the support of the entire nation to minimise unemployment in the short term and strengthen economic competitiveness and social cohesion for the long term so that Singapore will emerge from this regional crisis even more competitive and resilient. Sir, in my address I may touch on issues related to various organisations which I am associated with. I would like to begin by declaring my interests, as a Deputy Secretary-General of NTUC, the Chairman of the National Computer Board, a Board Member of the EDB and PSB, and a Member of Singapore 21, Manpower 21, and the Committee on Singapore's Competitiveness. Sir, in 1992 when I was working with the EDB, we presented the economic strategy of Singapore to the Chairman and CEO of one of the world's largest corporations. We were there trying to get him to invest more in Singapore. At the end of our presentation, this Chairman, who had just taken over the running of the corporation and gone through a major exercise of downsizing and retrenchment, commented that he was very impressed by the economic strategy of Singapore. He said the way we ran our economy in Singapore was very much like the way he ran his big corporation, a global operation. We thanked him for his compliment and pointed out to him that there is one big difference between running a big corporation and running a national economy. We pointed out to him that in the case of a corporation, when business is not doing well, when the company needs to restructure to remain competitive, you can downsize, you can retrench to be lean and trim again.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister mentioned that the new forecast for this year will be 0.5%-1.5%. If we assume a productivity growth of 2% and the workforce expansion of 1%, it means that the unemployment rate in Singapore this year is likely to reach between 3-5%. Next year, if we continue to grow at a slower pace of about 1%, then it is possible that unemployment may reach as high as 5-7% by the end of next year. I would like to ask the Minister in what way the off-Budget measures will help us not just to contain the slowdown on the loss of jobs today but, more importantly, contribute to the speeding up of the creation of new jobs in 1998 and 1999, so that, hopefully, unemployment would not get out of control in Singapore.”
“Sir, may I also follow up with the clarification from Mr Chiam See Tong? I would like to seek further clarification from the Minister of State. On this issue of retrenching workers, is it right to say that some companies are not able to focus on retrenching foreign workers for at least two reasons? Firstly, it is the skills. As the Minister of State mentioned, because there are foreign workers who possess the skill which the local workers do not have. Secondly, is it right to say that many companies find that Singaporean workers are not prepared to work in a 12-hour shift and, as a result, the third shift, ie, the midnight shift, has to depend a lot on foreign workers? Even at a time like this, they have no choice but to continue to retrench workers through a combination of Singaporean workers and foreign workers.”
“On the second point about the cost of workers, I agree that, with the various charges and cost of housing, it may well be more expensive for companies to recruit foreign workers.”
“Sir, I would like to seek two points of clarification. On this issue of a company retrenching Singaporean workers and replacing them with cheaper foreign workers, am I right to say that, firstly, if a company were to retrench workers and, immediately following that, were to replace them with workers, whether foreign workers or Singaporean workers, to do the same job, then this will violate the understanding of retrenchment and that the NTUC can actually bring up the case to the Ministry of Manpower and it will actually investigate into these cases? I also like to seek clarification from the Minister that, according to a previous survey conducted by economic agencies, such as EDB, it was established that, having taken into consideration the foreign worker levy and the cost of housing in Singapore, the foreign workers, on the average, will actually cost 20% more than the Singaporean workers. One reason why companies are going for more foreign workers is not because foreign workers on the whole are cheaper but rather because of the shortage of Singaporean workers. I would appreciate the Minister's confirmation on these two points. Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe: I can certainly confirm the two points. If there are cases where NTUC feels that the companies are unfair, it can always report the situation to the Ministry of Manpower. And I have mentioned earlier, under the Advisory Programme, companies will discuss with us what they intend to do when they have excess manpower. So once these recommendations are implemented, I think the situation that the Member has described in the first part of his question will not arise.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister for Finance, as and when off-Budget measures are introduced, besides addressing the issue of lowering the cost of doing business in Singapore and stimulating the economy through infrastructure projects, whether he will consider introducing some new measures to encourage companies to build new capabilities during this slowdown?”
“Sir, I would like to touch on this subject of ranking of schools. There is a saying that if you feed peanuts, you get monkeys. I am not saying that the teachers are monkeys. But I am saying that if we rank the schools according to results, then we are likely to have all the teachers concentrating their efforts on producing results. I heard that there is a junior college whose principal and school teachers actually responded to the call by the Ministry to promote creativity, and so on. What they did was to try some new methods of teaching, but as a result the academic performance dropped because whatever new knowledge that they had passed on to the students was not tested. As a result, the school had now decided to go back to the old way of teaching. I would urge the Minister to consider changing the way of ranking. If you are talking about producing a whole person, then I think ranking must reflect the criteria of the whole person.”
“I believe that there is a limited time for us to teach our students and whatever time we can spend to strengthen the teaching of a value system is something we should not forgo. Take, for example, the learning of second language in the school. I noted that in our Chinese textbook, this is a photocopy taken from a Primary 6 textbook [indicating], the article is an excellent one. It is a story about a father and son and the kind of love and care between them. It is a very moving story. But at the end of the lesson, what was highlighted in the revision section is: what are the new sentences you have learned in this lesson and what are the new words you have learned in this lesson. My humble suggestion is, why not add another section, and ask the students what are the moral values they have learned from this lesson. I believe that, in so doing, by combining the learning of a language and the strengthening of the value system, we can go a long way to further strengthen the inculcation of a stronger value system in our young.”
“Sir, I would like to start by commending the Minister and his team for coming out with this excellent document, The Desired Outcomes of Education. A lot of insightful thinking has gone into this document and I think it is a first-class piece of work. There is one particular line that caught my attention and I would just like to read it loud here: "The foundation of a person is his value system, from which springs his outlook on life and his goals in life." Sir, I think this is a very important statement. It is something that is worth discussing further. With globalisation and technology, the world is getting more and more complicated. For the young Singaporeans to survive in the future, obviously you need to have more knowledge. But with technology, you can actually have access to knowledge in a just-in-time manner. Many people say that we should not worry too much about what we learn in school because when we need the information or knowledge we can always have it, when we need it. This is the just-in-time concept. But in the case of the value system, there is no such thing as a just-in-time value system. With globalisation, the young Singaporeans are now exposed to the world. We are seeing all kinds of influences, bad or good, that are influencing the young Singaporeans. My view is that for young Singaporeans to think straight in the future, it is very important that they have a stronger value foundation. In that regard, I am very happy that value system is being highlighted and given the right emphasis in this document. Having recognised the importance of value system, the next question is: how can we do even more to inculcate a stronger value system in our young? Here, I would like to present just one small suggestion.”
“Some teachers, particularly the older ones, have developed a technology phobia. In fact, technology itself is making it difficult for us to catch up with the times. Especially for older teachers, they will find it more difficult. And so some teachers are beginning to take courses to learn the latest technology available to us. Fourthly, the syllabi and curricula of schools have also been changing all the time. Now, apart from the normal curricula and syllabi, the teachers have to look after National Education, thinking and creativity, computer teaching, etc. As a result, they are highly stressed in the classroom and they really crave that they can have "three heads and six arms". That shows how much pressure is put on the teachers. Generally, the teachers have to upgrade themselves to catch up with the latest technology. On the other hand, the pace of the schools is on the move all the time and they may well suffer the "fatigue syndrome". If we do not face up to this phenomenon, it will only worsen the morale of the teachers. In last year's Budget, I really appreciate the Minister's vision. The Minister for Education has stressed the importance of professional training and it has also committed to the upgrading of teachers in their skills. I hope that the Ministry of Education can go one step further to give the teachers more support. This will not only improve their salaries and service conditions, but more importantly, they must go a step further to improve the social status of teachers, and the kind of respect they used to enjoy in the past. We must affirm the teachers' position so that they can develop their professionalism and teach our next generation better.”
“Sir, there is a Chinese saying, "If you are my teacher for a day, I will respect you like my father for my whole life time". This saying reflects how much respect students in the old days had for their teachers. It is also said that a successful teacher would have students all over the world. This saying affirms the social status of teachers. With the changes of time, students are difficult to teach, even parents are harder to handle and the pressure on teachers is increasing day by day. The question of how to improve the morale of teachers is a great challenge. There are four reasons for this. One, generally parent's educational level is higher and therefore their expectations on the teachers are correspondingly higher. As a result, their respect for teachers also correspondingly declines and some even criticise the teachers and interfere with their methods of teaching -- and this is a big blow to the dignity of our teachers. Secondly, in the past, teachers enjoyed a very high social status. Society generally respected the teachers and emphasised on morals. Now, the number of children in the family is small and parents both go to work. Accordingly, their way of bringing up children is different and this again further weakens the students' respect for their teachers. On the other hand, there is this problem of knowledge explosion and so the teachers, students and parents have to do all they can in the pursuit and transmission of knowledge and therefore the question of stress on morale also begins to decline in the minds of the people. Thirdly, with the advancement in science and technology, it is difficult for us to catch up with the time, especially for the older teachers who will find it more difficult.”
“We believe we will be able to find an economic niche for ourselves in the next century.”
“Second Priority: Remove all prejudices against the older workers Aging of our population is an unavoidable fact. The number of our workers who are above the age of 40 has now exceeded 750,000. A fortnight ago, within one week there were 330 recruitment advertisements and half of them stipulated that the maximum age for eligible candidates was 35, and one-third of them wanted only people who were not more than 40 years of age. In other words, 85% of the companies would accept only applicants who were below 40 years old. If we do not correct such prejudice against the older workers, a vicious cycle will emerge and it can become a serious social problem. Third Priority: Enhancing the competitiveness of our professionals The value chain of our economic activities can be divided into upper, upper-middle, lower-middle and lower streams. "Upper stream" refers to R&D; "lower stream" covers market development; "upper-middle" calls for creativity and innovation; while "lower-middle" refers to mass production. While pursuing the upper stream activities, such as R&D, we must always emphasise the importance of creativity and innovation and market development. With comprehensive professional capabilities and equal emphasis on the abovementioned four streams, we will be able to build up a world-class workforce and turn ourselves into a global hub for Asia. Although we have sound economic fundamentals, we have to continue to excel and strive ahead. If MTI and MOM could work closely together to create more opportunities for good jobs, while at the same time upgrade our workers' skills and the competitiveness of the professionals, we will be able to ride out such economic storm and better position ourselves for the next century in Asia as well as the world.”
“First Priority: Three groups of workers need to enhance their employability With all the industrial and commercial restructuring, the basic skill requirements of the workers are gradually being raised. Workers with a primary educational level and below are already facing the threat of being eliminated. In the next three to five years' time, if they do not upgrade the level of their skills, they will be structurally unemployable. This is the first group of workers. The second group of workers are those with Secondary 4 education, who are either unskilled or semi-skilled. As companies are accelerating their process of restructuring because of competition, there will be more opportunities for promotion. If the workers do not upgrade their skills, they will miss these promotion opportunities. On the other hand, certain industries will be short of skilled workers and have to be over-dependent on foreign workers, resulting in structural under-employment. 1.15 pm Our low value-added industry has contracted and thousands of workers in this industry are being laid off. On the other hand, the high value-added industry is booming, but it is faced with a shortage of workers. If we fail to enable our workers to upgrade their skills and to move them from the low value-added industry to the high value-added industry, then they will be faced with the situation of structural unemployment. This is the third group of workers. If these three situations become a reality, it would imply that we have not fully utilised the potential of our workers in Singapore. The tripartite cooperation among labour, management and the Government should try their best to avoid paying a higher price in these situations.”
“Sir, there is a Chinese fable which runs like this. There was a mountain in front of the house where an old man was living. It caused the old man a lot of inconvenience because every time he wanted to go to town, he had to go round the mountain. One day, he decided that this mountain had to be removed. His neighbours asked him, "Is it possible? The mountain is so high." The old man replied, "Yes. Although the mountain is high, it does not grow any higher. So long as my children, their children and their children's children persevere, this mountain will be removed one day". The moral of this story is, "if there is a will, there is a way." This old man may not be clever, but he is certainly not stupid. Sir, you may ask, "What has this got to do with our topic today?" Well, the unemployment problem is just the mountain. If we want to achieve full employment, we have to remove the obstacle, this mountain. The difference is: once the mountain is removed, it will not come back, but unemployment will. Full employment is difficult to achieve. To sustain it is even more difficult. As economic reform gathers momentum, job creation alone cannot guarantee that the state of full employment will be sustained. In this regard, MTI alone cannot shoulder the responsibility all by itself. It will have to work in tandem with the new Ministry of Manpower to upgrade the skill level of the workforce. Challenges are plenty. We have to get our priorities right. I have three recommendations for the consideration of the Ministry of Manpower. Firstly, enhance the workers' employability; secondly, remove all prejudices against the older workers; and thirdly, enhance the competitiveness of the professionals.”
“I would therefore like to suggest that MTI may wish to consider taking stock of all these new growth sectors identified by the various sub-committees and do a projection on the kind of employment opportunities that are coming up in our economy over the next five to 10 years, look into the kind of skills needed for the workers to move into these new growth sectors and provide that information to the Ministry of Manpower so that the Ministry of Manpower, in coming out with new initiatives and enhancing the quality of workforce, will make sure that their programme and the economic development programme under MTI are kept in sync. In conclusion, Sir, I feel that the setting up of MOM is a very timely move. At the same time, I also feel that MOM and MTI must work hand-in-hand so that all the new and better jobs being created in the economy in the future will be able to benefit the Singaporean workers, especially the older and the not-so-young workers who are under-educated. Many of them are not looking forward to more handouts through wealth sharing, but are looking forward to be given a chance to participate directly in furthering the economic progress of Singapore so that every Singaporean can live a better life in the next century.”
“I say this because two days ago, the Minister for Finance in this House, in response to the call for containing the Government's rate of fees and charges, mentioned that these Government agencies will continue to do regular revisions with small increments for fees and charges in order to meet the rising cost of operation. His statement is probably valid for the ministries and departments which are providing a public service. What I am afraid is that some of the statutory boards and coporatised entities may misunderstand what he said and continue to adopt that kind of business approach in their dealing of the products and services. This is the first point. It will go a long way if MTI can help to contain the cost of business, in particular, services cost, so that companies can continue to survive in this difficult period and hopefully, the pace of retrenchment can be managed somewhat. Secondly, on the issue of helping the lower income workers to move into a higher income group. According to the Labour Force Survey of 1997, among workers who are 30-40 years old, there are 150,000 of them earning between $1,000-$1,500 and 130,000 of them earning between $1,500 and $2,000. What this means is that there are 280,000 workers in Singapore, aged between 30-39, earning between $1,000 and $2,000. I believe that many of these workers are trainable and it is worthwhile investing in their upgrading because they have another 30 years of working career ahead of them. At the same time, I believe there will be enough good paying jobs and better paying jobs for these workers to move into because under the Committee on Singapore's Competitiveness, I believe the various sub-committees have identified the growth sectors for the next five to 10 years.”
“Sir, my point is that since the services cost has been the main contributor to higher unit business cost in Singapore, I would like to suggest that, if possible, the MTI may wish to take the lead to take a closer look into this area and to see what can be done to encourage these relevant agencies and statutory boards to review their pricing policy. Sir, there are basically two ways of determining the rate of charges to your customers. Some organisations look at the cost of provision, either a product or services. They add the normal profit margin and from there, they determine the price to charge the customer. This is known as the cost-plus method. The second approach is to look at the market place and see what would be a fair rate to charge the customer, what the market can afford to bear. And from these, do whatever is necessary to lower the cost of production, so that you can continue to remain viable without charging too high a price to the customers, what is known as price-minus approach. 1.45 pm In the business world of today, in the private sector, many organisations have moved away from the cost-plus method towards the price-minus method. The reason is very simple. Competition is so keen that any provider of products and services is no longer a price-setter, but rather a price-taker. Therefore, they have to accept this is what the market can bear, and their challenge is to lower the cost of production so that they can meet the price expectation and yet remain viable. In this regard, I sincerely hope that some of our statutory boards and corporatised entities can really change their mindset by moving away from the cost-plus mentality and challenge themselves to what extent they can move towards the price-minus mentality.”
“In other words, many OECD countries and NIEs are finding it difficult to create enough employment to sustain full employment or to lower unemployment. In the case of Singapore, I feel that during this period of slowdown, we have to take a fairly serious look towards containing the cost of doing business in Singapore, so as to slow down the pace of retrenchment, which may be picking up very soon or continue to pick up over the years. I have looked at last year's Economic Survey, and according to this report, it was stated that the unit business cost (UBC) of the manufacturing sector continued to increase in 1997 at the rate of 0.4%. And this report went on to say that last year, ULC's (unit labour cost) contribution to UBC's growth was negligible, because ULC's growth was flat. Services cost contributed 0.46% to the growth of UBC while Government rates and fees lowered the UBC index by 0.06 percentage point. From this report, it would appear that the main contributors towards the higher unit business cost in Singapore is not quite labour cost nor Government rates and charges, but rather it is services cost. What are services cost? Again, according to the various reports, services cost would include rental, utilities, communication, trade and transportation, interest and finance. Of the five items, I believe the first four items rental, utilities, communication, transport and trade are very much related to the fees and charges imposed either by the statutory boards or corporatised entities. These include the JTC, HDB, PSA, CAAS and so on.”
“Sir, I would like to touch on the subject of economic development and manpower planning. Sir, the purpose of any government must be to enhance the quality of life and the standard of living of the people. To achieve this, economic development is an important means to this end. Full employment could go a long way in helping the Government to achieve the objectives of enhancing the quality of life and standard of living of the people. Since the late 70s, because we have been able to sustain full employment, the life of Singaporeans has indeed improved tremendously. According to statistics, the real incomes of Singaporean workers have gone up, on the average, by 5.4% a year since 1973. More significantly, workers who earn less than $1,500 per month, as a percentage of the workforce, has declined from about 80% in 1987 to 42% last year, a drop of about 40 percentage points over a period of 10 years. I think this is a very significant achievement that the Government can be proud of. Looking ahead into the future, Sir, I feel that we have two major challenges. Firstly, how are we going to sustain full employment? And, secondly, how are we going to help more lower income workers to move into the higher income group, as what we have done in the last 10-20 years? Firstly, on the issue of sustaining full employment, I think this is going to be a very challenging task. Today, if we were to look around the world, not many economies are enjoying full employment. I have stated many times in this House that there are 35 million workers in the US who are working on a part-time basis, 18 million workers unemployed in Europe, and in the last two days, I read that unemployment in South Korea has gone up to 1.5 million, and every month 10,000 workers are becoming unemployed.”
“At least one of them has already sunk roots in USA. He has got a good job, a good family, and he has no intention to return. So the point here is this. It is like what Mr Philip Yeo told the Sembawang scholars: this is the workers' money. And I, as a labour MP, would like to tell all the public sector scholars the same thing: that every single cent that goes into scholarships belongs to the taxpayers, to the citizens of Singapore, and, therefore, when they take on a scholarship, I hope somewhere in their heart they remember that when the Government or a statutory board gives them a scholarship to create a better future for themselves, they will in return think about how they can create a better future for the average Singaporeans, for the common Singaporeans of Singapore.”
“I was told - I was not there - that once he met up with Sembawang scholars and he told them, "I hope everyone of you will remember - that this scholarship money is not my money; it is not the money of Sembawang management; it is not the money of the shareholders, but this is the workers' money." Because as the Chairman of Sembawang, he could have declared all this scholarship money as bonuses and wage increase for the workers. But because he is looking ahead to the future, that is why he puts the money to fund scholarships. And he told the scholars, "I hope everyone of you will appreciate that the workers of Sembawang are funding your education. I hope you do your very best when you go to school. And I hope that by the time you graduate from school, you will come back to repay these workers of Sembawang by giving your very best to Sembawang Corporation." And I think what he said to the Sembawang scholars is equally applicable, whether it is at a statutory board level or at the national level. Yes, we have bond-breakers. But we are not talking about the same kind of bond-breakers. Mr Leong Horn Kee mentioned that he served 10 years before he broke his bond. There is nothing wrong with that, because he served 10 years. After breaking his bond, he is still contributing to Singapore. But what we are talking about here are scholars who did not even serve one day and who decided to break their bonds. Of course, many will argue that after five years, 10 years, they will return to be better persons. Time will tell. But at this moment, in 1998, if we look back at what happened the last five to 15 years, under NCB, six scholars broke their bonds without serving a single day. And at this moment, out of the six, only one is serving in Singapore. The other five are now in USA.”
“Firstly, I am the Chairman of the National Computer Board (one of the two statutory boards that is involved in this whole issue); secondly, I was MD of EDB, and I am now still on the Board of EDB; and thirdly, I am a scholar, and I have been bonded to the Government for 11 years, and I am proud to say I am not a bond-breaker. Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Philip Yeo believes in developing the talents for the future. So wherever he goes, he makes sure that there is a scholarship system in place to invest in the young Singaporeans. In 1981, when he became Chairman, NCB, he set up the NCB scholarship. In 1986, when he became Chairman, EDB, I think not many people are aware, he secured a $50 million fund from Glaxo to set up the Glaxo-EDB scholarship. When he became Chairman, Sembawang, again, he expanded the scholarship programme. Why? Because he believes that for Singapore to sustain our growth in the future, we need to have young, good and capable leaders. To have good leaders, he believes in giving them the best education you can find in this world. Let me highlight this. For a long time, the Government has a lot of reservations about sending scholars to America for study and allowing scholars to go beyond the basic degree. Mr Philip Yeo changed all that. He was the first to allow NCB scholars to study in US, to do Masters, and likewise, in EDB, in Sembawang. Why? Because his belief is that you must give them the best. If the best is in USA, let them go to USA. When he became Chairman of Sembawang, I was told that some of the staff asked him: why are you giving all this money to scholars to benefit just a few persons? And he explained that the future of a good corporation depends on having good leaders, but, in return, he would expect a lot from the scholars.”
“We believe that, if given sufficient funding support, we can expand the SRP to beyond the unionised sector into a national programme, so that we can turn this period of slowdown into a period for investment, retraining, and skills upgrading of the workers, so that our workers will remain employable in the next century. Sir, these are my three suggestions which I hope the Minister will consider. But having said all this, I think, at the end of the day, whether Singapore would do well in the future depends not so much on how much money we have, how good is our strategy, but on what kind of people we have in Singapore, what kind of Singaporeans we have in Singapore, what kind of leaders we have in Singapore in the future. And here I am not talking about leaders who have the knowledge and expertise. I think equally, if not more important, we need leaders with the right value system. In that regard, I think the debate on the scholarship is a very relevant issue within the context of Budget 1998. Because if the young leaders of Singapore, the leadership of the future, have only good knowledge but not the right value system, I do not think Singapore can sustain our growth in the future. Many Members here mentioned that we must invest in the young Singaporeans, in the citizens of the future, and I fully endorse this. I would like to cite Chairman, EDB, Mr Philip Yeo, as an example of a person who really believes in investing in the young Singaporeans. I must at this stage declare my interest.”
“Why? During good times, they have no time for retraining, because workers would like to work overtime, because overtime brings extra income to the workers. And this is something we can understand. Now we are in not-so-good times, overtime has been cut back. In fact, quite a few companies are now going on shorter work week where factories open for four days, and workers are asked to take compulsory leave and stay at home. In a way, this spare capacity is now being wasted, because workers are now staying at home doing nothing. Here is a situation whereby during good times, they have no time for training. Now they have time for training, companies have no money to send them for training. So we are always caught in this no-time or no-money situation. I feel very sad that we are not taking the bold step to break away from this no-time or no-money situation. For companies, many of them, I believe that if we are prepared to co-fund training with them, many more employers are prepared to re-train their workers. The Skills Redevelopment Programme is spearheaded by the NTUC, co-funded by EDB, PSB, and supported by the training facilities offered by ITE, Nanyang Polytechnic and Temasek Polytechnic, and so on. We have demonstrated that, given a sufficient level of support, the employers are prepared to retrain their workers during this period of slowdown. And many workers, the older workers, the not-so-young workers, the under-educated workers, are prepared to respond to training. Under the SRP today, more than half the workers are more than 40 years old, and more than 70% of the workers undergoing training have less than secondary two qualification.”
“They mentioned to me that this is a period where they will focus in three areas. First, quality; second, productivity; and the third area, innovation. Their point is that by the year 2000, if their operations are going to survive in Singapore, in terms of quality, productivity and innovation, they must be so far ahead of their competitors in the region operating at a lower cost location. During good times, they have no time to go through this re-engineering. But now, during a slowdown, time is on their side. So instead of asking workers to stay at home, take a pay cut, they are now turning this spare capacity into an investment for new capabilities for the future. However, many of them told me that it is easy for them to secure additional resources from the headquarters during good times to fund investment upgrading. But during this difficult period, when revenue is down, profit is down, it is a big challenge for the executives in Singapore to convince their corporate headquarters to invest during this difficult period. Their suggestion is, how they wish the Government can do its part too to co-fund, to incentivise them, in some of these upgrading programmes. So in that regard, my second humble suggestion to the Minister for Finance is that I hope the economic agencies will not scale back their level of incentive support during this difficult period. Instead, I think they should increase the level of support so that companies which are prepared to go through the process of re-engineering to prepare themselves for the year 2000 and beyond, should be given more encouragement. Thirdly, at the individual level, and I think the Minister is aware that this is the level where I am most concerned. For many years, we have complained that workers are not committed to training.”
“Because of the uncertainty in the economy and the political situation, in fact, Singapore is one of the very few countries where they can invest today to position themselves for the year 2000 And he said that, in fact, this year they are going to increase their investment in Singapore. They are going to undertake more operations in Singapore. Therefore, I believe that we can turn this financial crisis into an opportunity for Singapore to move further ahead provided that we are prepared to set aside more resources to incentivise these investors so that they can do more in Singapore. In this regard, I would like to suggest that the Minister for Finance may wish to consider allocating a supplementary budget to economic agencies like the EDB under the Economic Development Assistance Scheme (EDAS) so that agencies like EDB, TDB, NCB, PSB and NSTB can make use of this slow growth period in the Asian region to go all out to attract more companies to speed up their investment into Singapore. So that by the year 2000 when the market returns, Singapore would be in a much stronger position to capture this Asian market. Secondly, at the company level. Again, many of us would imagine that during a period of slowdown, companies would be talking about retrenchment, downsizing, cost-cutting. I think we may be 70% right because out of every 10 companies, I am very optimistic that we can find two to three who are prepared to look ahead to the year 2000 and beyond and ask themselves what they can do during this period of slowdown with their spare capacity within the company to reposition themselves to build new capabilities to compete in the future. Recently, I visited a few companies and, some of them are Japanese companies.”
“I am proposing that we help companies to become stronger so that by the time the economic crisis is over, companies will be in a better position to compete in a more competitive Asia. This is theory. This is concept. Let me turn this into some concrete ideas. We can turn this spare capacity into an investment at three levels: at the national economy, the company and the individual worker's level. Firstly, at the national level. We always think that in a crisis like this, investment will drop and therefore we should expect fewer investments to come to Singapore, and be ready for the hard time. I think otherwise. Recently, I met a senior executive of a leading MNC of the world and I asked him, "How are you doing in Singapore?" He said, "Well, not too bad, quite tough though. Profit margin is low. Singapore dollar is high and therefore you are more expensive. But I think we will survive." Then I said, "How about investment plans? Do you think you will do something this year?" He said, "Oh, it is interesting that you ask this question. Because our headquarters just did a review. They come to the conclusion that by the year 2000 the Asian market will grow and expand again." Which means they have to do something in 1998 to prepare and position themselves for the year 2000. They look around in Asia. They concluded that at this moment in 1998, for their capital-intensive, skill-intensive and technology-intensive investments, in fact, there are not many places in Asia they can put their money now.”
“Mr Low Thia Khiang says, "use a smaller plane". I suppose you can. But the problem is that later on when the business picks up again, what do you do? Do you change back to a bigger plane? Of course, it costs money to change from a big plane to a small plane. Therefore, I would like to offer this suggestion because whatever we do now under Budget 1998, it is quite clear that the economy is likely to grow between 2.5% and 4.5%. It can be 2.5% or 4.5%, maybe lower or higher. But whatever it is, I think it is quite safe to say that in 1998 and 1999, we are not going to be able to fully utilise our full potential because the Singapore economy has the potential to grow at 5% to 7% a year. But this is not likely to happen in 1998 or 1999. Therefore the question is: what should we do with this slack in the national economy? What should we do with this spare capacity? Because, like the airline, if nothing is done to make full use of this spare capacity, by the year 2000, I think we will look back with a lot of regret because what is gone is wasted forever. Sir, I would like to put forward this suggestion that there are two ways we can make use of this spare capacity. Various Members of this House have suggested that we should introduce some stimulation package to stimulate the economy. That is one way of helping the companies to survive, to keep them alive, keep them above the water, so that hopefully when the economy turns into high growth again, they can move on. The second way is to look at it in a more proactive and constructive way and ask ourselves: can we turn this spare capacity into an investment for the future? What I am saying here is this. I am not talking about giving more incentives and subsidies to help companies to survive.”
“There is a saying that we are able to refine better than we are able to create. Now that the Minister has created a very good budget, as a humble MP, I would like to contribute just some ideas on how this good budget can be refined a little, for the better. Sir, imagine we have a plane that is normally full. In fact, there are times when we even have to add extra seats to cater for the over demand. All of a sudden, one day, for whatever reason, the passenger load drops, and we end up having many empty seats. This is a situation we are not used to. But for the airline, when they see all these empty seats coming up, there are a few things they can do. The first thing they can do is to lower the fare, make it cheaper so that many people can travel. The second thing they can do is to do some promotion to attract new passengers, people who have no intention to fly on their airline and bring them to their airline. The third approach is to target certain special groups and give them special fares, maybe tourists, for example, so that in that way they fill up those seats. But why do airlines make all these extra efforts to fill up all the empty seats? The answer is simple. Because if nothing is done, by the time the flight is over, the empty seats are gone forever. There is no way you can recover the empty seats.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion in the name of the Minister for Finance. Sir, the long term is made out of a series of short terms. To survive the long term, we need to grow in the short term. Likewise, to grow in the long term, we need to survive the short term. In this regard, I am very impressed by Budget 1998, because it addresses both the need to survive the short term and the need to grow over the long term. In particular, I would like to highlight three areas where I am very impressed. Firstly, during this period of economic slowdown, many companies are facing problems with cash flow and profitability. The various measures announced by the Minister to contain the rising cost of doing business in Singapore will go a long way in helping businesses to survive the short term. Secondly, the small and medium enterprises, together with the manufacturing and services sectors, are the key source of employment. The review of the Local Enterprise Financing Scheme (LEFS) is a very timely move by the Government to support more SMEs during this period of difficulty. Thirdly, Asia, in the year 2000 and beyond, will be a very different Asia. By then, many countries, if not all of them, would have turned around from the current turmoil. It is very important that Singapore is well positioned for the 21st century. In that regard, I am very impressed by the various incentives and measures announced by the Minister to position Singapore as a global hub in Asia in the 21st century in terms of being a financial hub, exhibition hub, information hub, technology hub, electronic commerce and so on. So all in all, as I say, Budget 1998 is a very good budget and I would like to congratulate the Minister for coming out with such a good budget in such a difficult time.”
“In fact, many workers who are in their 40s have already expressed concern that if and when they are retrenched, they do not have the confidence of finding new jobs. Because if you look at the job advertisements in the newspapers, quite a number of them do specify that they are looking for workers who are either less than 35 or 40 years old. And, increasingly, we are concerned that middle-aged workers and not so young workers may have greater difficulties re-entering the job market should they be retrenched. Therefore, I think this is an area whereby the tripartism committee should look into and see how we can incentivise, and encourage the employers to restructure jobs so that they can be more suitable for the not-so-young workers. In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Singapore, the Government has the Singapore 21 Vision. For the NTUC, we have the NTUC 21 Vision. The employers' federation has the SNEF 21 Vision, and all of us are working towards the same objective, which is to make sure that the economy will remain competitive, the companies will remain profitable and that the workers will remain employable. We hope that this motion will be endorsed strongly by this House. We hope that concrete action will be taken to bring the tripartite partners closer so that, as we move forward into the future, we can continue to strengthen the competitiveness of Singapore, and continue to strengthen the employability of our workers so that in the 21st century, our workers can live a better life in Singapore.”
“Thirdly, the Action Committee should work on the whole idea of skills redevelopment. We have said enough about 39% of the workforce being unskilled, under-educated, and so on. The question is: how can we help them to go through this whole process of skills certification? The SRP was launched in December 1996 at the initiative of the NTUC. And, today, we have managed to convince 27 companies to sign up 3,100 workers and everyone of them is going through training that will lead to skills certification. By next month, when we launch the third batch of SRP companies, we are targeting to have 50 companies supporting at least 5,000 workers. The progress is promising and we believe that if this programme is expanded into a national programme and if given the full support of the union, the employer and the Government, we believe we can convince enough unskilled workers to take training seriously so that they can enhance their employability. Fourthly, the Action Committee should seriously look into how we can channel workers from the downsizing sectors to move into the new growth sectors. The consumer electronics sector, for example, is downsizing very rapidly. In 1997, we saw a few companies moving their operations to other lower cost locations. At the same time, we are seeing many new operations being set up in Singapore, in wafer fabrication, petrochemical, pharmaceutical and other services sectors. What we have to do is to concentrate on these workers who are going to be affected by the downsizing of the lower value, relatively speaking, the more labour-intensive sector and move them into the new growth sectors. The next area that we are going into is on the need to redesign the jobs in the industry. The workforce is aging.”
“According to SDF records, of the training supported under SDF, less than 10% led to skills certification, meaning that the majority of the training are functional training, ie, helping workers to be more productive in their current jobs. What we need now is to focus on training our workers for future jobs which will enable them to become skilled workers of the future. So in that regard, I would like to propose that it is about time that we brought the level of tripartism in Singapore to a higher plane. Dr Lee Tsao Yuan, the NMP, suggested the setting up of a Tripartism Advisory Committee to advise the Government, the tripartite partners. I would like to go one step further. I propose we set up a Tripartism 21 Action Committee because it is time for action. Time is not on our side. With the current financial turmoil, I think we are going to have even less time now. I propose that the Tripartism 21 Action Committee focus on two areas. The first area is how to remain competitive. Secondly, how to enhance employability. For example, the Action Committee, through the collaborative efforts of the union, the employer and the Government, can firstly identify what kinds of skills are needed in our economy for the next five to 10 years. These skills should include not just technical skills, but also skills relating to technology, thinking skills, interpersonal skills and language skills so that the workers will be well-rounded workers. Secondly, I propose that this committee look into a comprehensive skills certification system. We need to put in place a skills certification system for all the new growth sectors, in the manufacturing sector as well as the services sector, so that there will be a systematic roadmap to guide the skills development of workers.”
“Today, and in the future, for every three jobs that will be created in the economy, only one job will be unskilled and semi-skilled. The other two jobs, two-third of the jobs, will require skilled manpower, technical manpower, or professional manpower. So in the face of retrenchment, many of our unskilled workers will be retrenched. The question is: can they move on to this new growth sector like wafer fabrication? Yesterday, in the newspaper, we read about the speculation that Seagate was retrenching 20% of its workers. But, at the same time, in the same newspaper, we read about EDB announcing that the tenth wafer fabrication plants will be set up in Singapore. Every wafer fabrication plant will create 800 to 1,000 jobs. With 10 wafer fabrication plants, there will be 8,000 to 10,000 jobs. And over the next five to seven years, if we are able to remain competitive and if we are able to achieve the target of having 25 wafer fabrication plants in Singapore, there will be employment opportunities for about 20,000 to 25,000 workers. But the catch is this. Every one of the workers must at least preferably be a semi-skilled or skilled worker. So the issue here is how fast can we move to help our unskilled workers in Singapore to upgrade themselves so that they can take on this better paying job. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, here, I would like to propose that it is now time for action. We have been talking about structural unemployment for the last one to two years. We have been talking about training and retraining for the last many years. But the problem is that training does not necessarily lead to enhanced employability.”
“My apologies. Let me repeat again, if there is such an idea, I like to explain why such an idea is not the right idea. Because the important issue which we must understand is that the challenge facing Singapore today is not an employment problem. It is an employability problem and I think this is an issue most people do not understand fully. If I may quote an example and this is a real life example. In October last year, a consumer electronics company closed down their operation in Singapore. They had 938 workers retrenched. Of the 938 workers, a majority were unskilled workers. So the union talked to the workers and we identified 240 of them whom we thought could have the potential to be retrained to go into the new growth sector, like wafer fabrication. After six months of hard work, we finally managed to channel about 40 of them to go into the wafer fabrication operation. We found them the employment. We provided the training to them. Within two months, more than half of them had left the jobs. And, today, we are down to about 15 of them. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my point here is this. In Singapore today, we are not having an employment problem. What we have here is a problem of employability. If our retrenched workers who are unskilled or semi-skilled and if they prefer to remain as unskilled workers, then in time to come, they may find themselves not able to take on the job, not because there is no job in the economy, but because they do not have the right skills to take on the job. The EDB is now targeting to bring in about $8 billion to $10 billion worth of investments every year. Our understanding is that, in the past, for every three jobs created through these foreign investments, two jobs are semi-skilled and unskilled. Today, the situation has changed.”
“Because the Asia-Pacific is going to be a very different Asia-Pacific by the year 2000. And for that matter, the whole world is going to be a very different world by the year 2000. The reason is very simple. Today, with rising unemployment all over the world, with 35 million people in USA working on part-time basis; 18 million in Europe unemployed; 2.31 million workers in Japan jobless, every country is now taking tough measures to reform themselves. The OECD countries, just two months ago, held a two-day job conference in Tokyo to discuss how they can create employment for the youths and how they can work together to retrain the workers. In Korea, a tripartite panel has been set up to look into how they can legalise layoff of labour. By the year 2000, I am very sure that all these countries are going to be much more competitive because they are prepared to bite the bullet. They are prepared to take tough measures. In Singapore, today we are in a much better position than anybody else. The question is: are we prepared to take tough measures today so that by the year 2000, we will continue to remain ahead in a more competitive world? Mr Chiam See Tong disagreed with what the Secretary-General said on the retrenchment sequence and I think his point is that foreign workers should go first and local workers ---”
“The reason why we have this symbiotic relationship with the PAP Government is for very simple reasons, and very often we forget about these. We must always remember who are the members of the labour movement - they are the workers of Singapore. And who are the workers of Singapore? They are the citizens of Singapore. And if you think about it, when the labour movement talks about helping our workers to live a better life, it is completely in line with the PAP Government's objective of making Singapore the best home for all Singaporeans. It is because of this complete alignment of our interest that we have this symbiotic relationship, this harmony in tripartism. In the labour movement, we believe that the best way to serve the interest of our workers, as our Secretary-General has said many times, the best welfare that we can give to any worker of Singapore, is to give him a job. The best protection we can give to our workers of Singapore is to achieve full employment. Because in a full employment situation, no employer would be able to try to exploit the workers even if he wants to. Guided by this end objective of protecting and looking after the interests of the workers, who are also the citizens of Singapore, the tripartite partners have always worked together under this spirit of mutual support and mutual respect. As a result, let me remind this House that since 1973 to 1996, over this period of about 23 years, according to labour statistics, the real income of Singaporeans has gone up by 5.4% a year over the last 23 years. I believe that this is an achievement no other country is able to match. Sir, having talked about how tripartism has succeeded up to now, I would like to touch on the future. Why do we debate this motion in this House?”
“These 21 members are elected by the 260,000 union members that we have through their delegates once every three years. Of these 21 Central Committee members, a majority of them, in fact, two-thirds of them, are grassroots leaders, leaders who are respected, like Cyrille Tan, and so on. Basically, anybody who wants to go into the Central Committee would have to gain the trust and the respect of the labour movement, of the members, because if they are not elected, they cannot be in the Central Committee. Sir, the Secretary-General of the NTUC - I want to make it very clear - is not appointed by the PAP Government to be Secretary-General of the labour movement. He is elected by the labour movement and elected by the Central Committee to be its Secretary-General. Some may have the impression that if the MPs are advisers to affiliated unions, the labour MPs are running the unions. Here again, I would like to point out that under the NTUC, we have 78 affiliated unions and the affiliated unions do not have to be affiliated to NTUC if they do not see the benefit of being affiliated to the NTUC. There is no law in Singapore to say that unions must be affiliated to the NTUC. Secondly, the affiliated unions are run by the Presidents and the General Secretaries. Take, for example, the electronic unions. NMP Cyrille Tan is the General Secretary of the United Workers of Electronic and Electrical Industries. So he is the CEO of the union, and therefore it is not right to say that the affiliated unions are being controlled or managed by the labour MPs. My main point is this - even though the labour movement is an independent movement, it does not mean that we must adopt a confrontational approach towards tripartism.”
“The French union recommended that the government should reduce the working hours from 39 hours to 35 hours a week by the year 2000. The socialist-led government endorsed the proposal. The employers' federation objected violently to that proposal. Finally, the head of the employers' federation decided to resign. His members called on him to stay on. But his comment was, "What you need now is not a negotiator, not a collaborator. What you need now is a fighter to be your leader." Basically, the tripartite partners in France had decided to go to war. Two months ago, I was in Japan to attend the biennial convention of RENGO, which is the equivalent of NTUC, in Japan. When the new leader of RENGO was elected, the next day he appeared on the front page of a Japan newspaper and the headline was something along the line that "RENGO new head calls on SDP to quit LDP." Basically he was quoted as calling on the SDP to end its alliance with the LDP, so that the opposition parties can go against the government. Here is another example of how tripartism is not working in a harmonious manner. I have made use of these two examples to illustrate that at the end of the day, if the tripartite partners cannot work well together, it is the people, the workers, who will suffer. In the case of Singapore, the NTUC, the Government and the employers' federation would always work closely together under a spirit of mutual support and mutual respect. But sometimes, unfortunately, this spirit is being misunderstood as the labour movement under the control of the Government. I want to take this opportunity to highlight, firstly, that within the labour movement, the highest level of decision-making is the Central Committee of the NTUC, comprising 21 members.”
“Thank you, Sir. So the son asks the father again, "Yes, I understand all these components. But how do they link together?" So the father says, "Son, don't expect me to teach you everything. Just observe how we interact among ourselves and you will understand the relationship." That night, in the middle of the night, the son was trying to sleep but could not, still thinking about tripartism. Then he heard his baby sister crying very loudly for quite a while and somehow nobody attended to her. Finally, he decided to call his mother. He went to the master bedroom. His mother was sound asleep. The strange thing was that his father was not in the bedroom. He thought, "Okay, since mummy is sound asleep, maybe I should call the maid to attend to my sister." He groped in the dark and went to the maid's room. Before he could knock on the door, he heard his father's voice in the maid's room. And the maid was telling his father, "Sir, please leave me alone. If not, tomorrow morning I am going to report to your wife." He went on to the baby's room and found that the reason why his baby sister was crying was because she did a big job. Anyway, he went back to sleep. The next morning, during breakfast, his father asked him, "Son, have you figured out what is tripartism?" His son said, "Daddy, it is very simple. When the government is sleeping, the capitalist will try to exploit the labour. The people will have to grope in the dark, and the future will be in a big mess." Sir, I use this story to illustrate the point that it is not easy to achieve harmony in tripartism. In fact, if you look at the world today, because of rising unemployment, tripartism today is under even greater stress. In June this year, I was in France.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this motion is about tripartism in Singapore and how we can strengthen tripartism to prepare Singapore for an even more challenging future. But it is not easy to understand what is tripartism. So a little boy asks his father, "Daddy, what is tripartism? How does it work and how does it affect the life of the people and their future?" The father says, "Son, it is very simple. Look at this family. I represent the capitalist. Your mother, she is the government. You represent the people. Our maid, she represents the labour. And your baby sister, she represents the future." Mr Chiam See Tong: Can I interrupt, if Mr Lim is willing to give way? Mr Lim Swee Say resumed his seat.”
“Let me highlight this point. In this House, many Members of Parliament proposed cuts to the budget of the Ministry of Trade and Industry. Why did we propose cuts? Because we wanted the Minister for Trade and Industry to give a very specific response on what the Government is doing to retrain and upgrade the workers. Sir, it is sad to say that on those days when we were discussing workers' upgrading and training, I did not see Mr Jeyaretnam in this House. Firstly, I do not think he is very sincere about his interest in the upgrading of workers. Secondly, if he showed interest about that, why did he not propose a cut on the budget of the MTI? From that, when Mr J B Jeyaretnam proposed the setting up of an All-Party Committee to review costs and so on, it is very clear in my mind that the real interest in his mind is not the interest of Singapore citizens but his political interest. On that note, Sir, I cannot but submit to this House that we must reject this motion soundly.”
“I am more than happy to respond to that, Sir. Take, for example, in this House, opposition Member Mr J B Jeyaretnam just now mentioned again about the workers and appears to be very concerned for the workers of Singapore. When I first came into this House, I gave the benefit of the doubt to the opposition Members when Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr J B Jeyaretnam commented about the importance of training workers. I said very good. At least, we have opposition Members of Parliament who are equally concerned for the workers of Singapore. [Interruption].”
“And it is very good that Singaporeans aspire to have a better life because that aspiration is a driving force behind the progress of Singapore. And as responsible Members of Parliament, I feel that it is our responsibility here to understand the aspirations of the people and to work with the people of Singapore and see how Singapore can move forward faster and better, so that we can realise this vision of having a better life, rather than to turn this into something negative. Sir, let me conclude. I learnt a lesson today that there are three types of people in this world. The first type are people who make things happen. The second type are people who let other people make things happen. And the third type ask, "What happened?" As Members of Parliament from the ruling party, our mission in life is very straightforward. We want to make things happen and we are charging forward all the time. As Members of the opposition party, I can understand that they choose not to do their best to make things happen because of their political interest. But I hope, at least in this House, they would behave as responsible Singapore citizens, at least let other people make things happen, rather than to keep on asking what happened and propose forming an All-Party Committee to try to slow us down. Because at the end of the day, if we cannot work together as one united country to move forward at a pace that we want to move forward, eventually, all Singaporeans will end up worse off.”
“$1,050 is still higher than $1,000. But Mr J B Jeyaretnam twisted the words of the Secretary-General and said that the Secretary-General said that we should keep the wages down. When the man-in-the-street hears this he will say, "Wow, how can the Secretary-General of NTUC tell the workers this year you earn $1,000, next year keep it at $1,000, better still at $950." That obviously is not the case. We are talking about managing our wage increase. This is number one. Number two is what Mr J B Jeyaretnam did not mention. He said that in Singapore 40% of our population have an average household income of $1,492. But what he did not say is that the real income of the Singaporean workers has been going up 5-6% every year for the last 10 years. What he did not say is that if you look at the world today, at all the OECD countries with high income today, in Europe, US and Japan, have their real wage increase gone up 5%-6% a year for the last 10 years? I dare to challenge Mr J B Jeyaretnam. Take a look at the number and I can assure him that the wage level in Singapore is going up by at least twice the rate in all these countries. Sir, the bottom line is this. I would submit that, yes, many residents in Singapore obviously are concerned with cost of living. The reason is not so much because they feel that they are not able to sustain the present standard of living. They are talking about wanting to have a better standard of living and they want to have more of the better and faster. And I think there is nothing wrong with that. After all, what is the role of the Government? The role of the Government is to make sure that every Singaporean can live better tomorrow than today.”