Ling How Doong
Singapore
“If you have six single member constituencies, the opposition has to find six candidates of equal or greater merit than the PAP, and I think it is not an easy task in Singapore to find six people that the electorate will consider to be equal or better than the PAP candidates put against them.”
“You have noticed that when I talked of GRCs, it goes against the very basic and fundamental right of the voters. It is the inability to vote for their own candidate, not so much on the minority. It is only a side issue, a supplement to the whole thing.”
“I am not changing my mind. This is to allay the fear of the minority groups, ie, the Malays, the Indians and the minorities, that they are not represented. When I suggested NCMP, what I mean is that the system should work this way.”
“As I said, in substitution of this, you can surely modify and ensure that they also come in a more representative way. At least, we know how many percent of the people support them. Alternatively, you can hold another election and confine it to all the minorities, ie, the Indians and the Malays, and decide who should represent them.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me this opportunity. Before I start, can I just briefly mention this. Dr John Chen earlier on has mentioned the fact that the advantage of a GRC is that you have more MPs in the same group. I thought this has been in practice by the PAP Town Councils.”
“If you stand in single constituencies you will be guaranteed. It is better than the GRCs. What I mean is that you come in on your own steam and you can be assured. A more equitable aspect is that you ensure both the ruling as well as the Opposition parties.”
The complete record
Every one of 367 lines we hold for Ling How Doong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 8.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I replied to him simply because he is insinuating that the standard of our medical practice is much superior to that across the Causeway. That is why in reply I was even suggesting about bomohs across the Causeway, because he was insinuating that if you pay more, you have first-class medical treatment. That is my reply. It is impossible for me to tell him the number of bomohs over there. The next point is Singapore's per capita income is about $2,000-plus. Of course, in Malaysia, it is about $300-plus. [Interruption.] No. I am sorry. It is the amount they spend. In Malaysia, the amount they spend is about $300 per patient; in Singapore, it is about $2,000 per patient at the hospital. I am drawing this comparison here. The point here is that we may be one of the richest countries in the world, but that does not follow we have no poor people. You know very well how it works. You get an amount there, add to the value below, you divide, that is your answer. I mean, you may be in a rich country, but you may be drawing $500. In Singapore, we have people drawing $300 a month. We may have a very high per capita income, but it does not mean that you are earning a lot of money. I am appealing to this Government to look more into the welfare of the few poor and needy. No more, and no less.”
“As I mentioned earlier, the purpose of this increased subsidy is to get the poorer and unfortunate people to pay less for their treatment. One example is a kidney patient. Now he is paying about $600 a month. With Government subsidy, perhaps he pays $300 a month. And for those who have prolonged illness and have to stay in hospital for a long time, instead of charging them ward charges, like C or B2 class, of $60 or $85, they pay $40. Is that not a way to help our poor and unfortunate brethren? It is very simple. I am not asking the Government to help the well-off. I am asking the Government to help the less well-off, those unfortunate brethren of this society. That is what I am asking for.”
“I really do not understand what the hon. Member, Encik Maidin, was saying. Whether you are superior or not superior, what difference does it make to the question of subsidy? Is he suggesting for a moment that in Malaysia, there are all the bomohs treating the patients and we have all specialised people treating the patients? Is he suggesting that? Is he suggesting that across the Causeway there are bomohs or the witch doctors or quack doctors treating them? We have first-class medical treatment here no doubt. But what I am saying is that we should channel more to subsidise those poor and the needy. For the well-off, they can pay. But we should help a lot of these poor and needy - those who are suffering from kidney ailment and chronic diseases. Government can do more for these people in the present circumstances. That is what I am driving at.”
“That is not the point. The point here is, as the Government, you have a duty to subsidise these people. You can afford it, you give them tuppence. That is what I am driving at. It is not a question of how long. Singaporeans have a longer life-span of 74 years. Do you mean the Government make us have a longer life? I do not think so. Look at Japan. The Japanese are known to have a longer life-span in the world and yet the government is giving them more than 8% of GDP. So the amount of percentage of GDP given is not in any way relevant to one's life-span. It is not relevant.”
“Hong Kong now, I believe, is about 5.7% and Hong Kong's income tax is also about 16%. Offhand, I think the corporate tax is about 18.5%, much lower than here. And yet the difference between Hong Kong's corporate tax and personal income tax rate is around 2 percentage points. So we are using only 1.2%; Hong Kong is 5.7%, much, much higher. What I am saying here is that if we can really afford it, we should do more for the unfortunate by increasing their subsidy. Even if we increase by 1 percentage point, it involves about 3 million people. RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Did they live longer?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as the United States is concerned, the reason why they spent about 12.4% of their GDP is that it is a litigious society. So invariably the practitioners there, in order to prevent being sued, increase their fees, resulting in this sort of subsidy going up. We do not have a situation over here where doctors are being sued left, right and centre. No. That is why their expenditure has gone up so high. And, in fact, as the hon. Member has just mentioned, we have other schemes, like MediShield and Medisave. Whether other countries have these schemes or not, I think the point here is if in fact the Government can afford it, it should subsidise more for the poor and the needy. MediShield does not come free, you pay premium. So it really makes no difference whether we come out from our own pocket to get back from the Government, which I think is wrong.”
“All we are driving hard to get at can be circumvented.”
“It may sound a bit out of place but, to me, I think it is relevant to this budget session in the sense that the People's Action Party introduced the Elected President as a mechanism to check against a drawdown on our reserve as hand-outs or to subsidise social services. With the constitutional amendment, this is taken out. In other words, in respect of certain matters, the concurrence of the President is removed, ie, any matter relating to defence and security, we do not need the concurrence of the President. I suggest here that we are back to square one. This is simply because there are no more checks for a drawdown on the reserve. In fact, the Defence budget, like all other budgets, comes to Parliament every year for scrutiny. But the difference is that in the case of any other Ministry, we have a breakdown of the expenditure. We know how much is spent for a particular programme. For example, for Education, you would say it is for the building of new schools. But in the case of the Ministry of Defence, there are certain areas, for reasons of sensitivity and security which the Government claims, they do not let you know. What is there to prevent a future Government, in order to circumvent the provision, from couching in the Defence budget a certain amount of money which is meant for subsidising social security? Parliament would not know because we have no chance to ask questions. A certain amount is put aside. It is spent on ground of security and none of us would know. I think it is a very dangerous thing to happen when the provision is taken out of Parliament. At first, with the amendment, we thought it is vested in the President. Now the latest amendment has made an exception to this rule. I think the danger is there. We are back to square one.”
“I hope the Government will seriously consider reducing the maid levy so as to enable the wife to earn extra income to augment the low income of the husband. In respect of the sale of Housing and Development Board flats, I would similarly urge the Government not to adopt the profit-oriented and cost recovery approach. There must be a subsidy. When I say "subsidy", I mean below cost subsidy and not below market price subsidy. There is a vast difference between these two. "Low cost subsidy" means the Government is building the property and selling it to members of the public at below cost. So the difference is the amount of subsidy, and not below market price. If you do a comparison here, you pay $330,000 for a HDB executive flat and $600,000 for a private flat. If you look at it that way, it is subsidy because in the open market you pay $600,000 and the HDB is only selling it at $330,000. The subsidy difference is $200,000 to $300,000. If you go on this theory, HDB in fact is making a profit out of it. When private developers sell at $600,000 they easily make 50% of that. So the actual cost is only $300,000. In fact, the HDB is selling more than the private sector when they sell at $330,000. These are factors one must seriously consider. When you acquire a piece of land for a song, you do not sell it out to your own citizens and tell them the market value is so much. That is wrong. You are dealing with your own citizens whom you are duty bound to look after them. In areas like health, education and housing, the Government is duty bound to subsidise in every way. Lastly, I would like to touch briefly on the Elected President.”
“With the present system, it involves the Government only about $10 million. So if you increase this by 100%, probably it will cost the Government $40 million. The Government has raked in $752 million from betting and sweep stakes. Can this money not be channelled to help the unfortunate? Alternatively, can the Government not organise another lottery, the proceeds therefrom could be channelled to help these poor and unfortunate? I would like to appeal to the Government here to reconsider granting medical benefits to children of women civil servants. They are doing the same job and we profess equality. Why can we not give them the same privilege and benefits accorded to male civil servants? The amount involved is only $8 million. Why can the Government not reconsider this and give the same medical benefits to the children of the women officers in the civil service? At the same time, the Government is encouraging more housewives to work. We have a lot of housewives who have no choice but to work simply because their husbands may be their only sole breadwinner and the wives may not be educated. The fact is that because the income of the husband is insufficient, the wife has been forced to work in order to augment the income of the husband. With the imposition of a levy of $330 a month, it is just not worth the while for most housewives to work at all. If you have a low education, and the income of your husband is low, you just cannot work because with the levy of $330 with effect from 1st April 1995, it is just not worthwhile for some of these housewives to work anymore. Because if you work in a factory you are paid $900. If you have to provide the maid food and pay the levy, it is not worth the while for the housewife to work even if her income is $1,200.”
“The Government should consider granting more scholarships. In granting scholarships, the Government should take into consideration the financial background of the parents of the students who are in the independent schools. As I have suggested before, and I am reiterating it now, for the well-to-do families whose children perform well in school, the Government can just award them with honorary book prizes so that the money can be channelled to the poor students for them to continue in the independent schools. I am quite sure that the well-to-do families would not object to this. But, of course, when you come to the university level, they should be given full scholarship irrespective of their financial background. The simple reason is this: when you are in the independent school, you can get all the scholarships you want and you are not bonded. You owe the Government nothing. Later on, if you do not accept a scholarship in the university, you can send the children overseas independently, whereas if you accept a university scholarship, you are bonded to the Government, you have to serve the Government. Therefore, there is the return to them. So this should not apply to university scholarships. My next point is the public assistance scheme. From statistics, the number of Singaporeans receiving public assistance is coming down. Until the last two years, probably we have about 2,700 Singaporeans receiving public assistance. Now, even with GST, a single person is only receiving $155. This $155 is inclusive of rent and food, which is clearly way, way below subsistence for these people. If we want to assist these poor Singaporeans, it is only fair that they are given a fair subsistence level and not just pay them $155 and $455 for a family of four and above.”
“Therefore, in this respect, the Government, in fact, should reduce this to reflect more equitable fees and charges for the poor and the needy. Also, in respect of ward charges like A class ward charges, the difference is around $10-$20 between the private hospital and Government hospital. Here again, one has not factored in the profit that a private hospital makes. Therefore, in health care, the Government should not adopt a profit-oriented and cost recovery approach. The Government should not adopt this approach. Government should consider comparing with the fees and charges of private hospitals and clinics and adjust them accordingly. The Government should consider the fees and charges paid by those with chronic, prolonged illness and the geriatric patients to be GST-exempt. My understanding is that when kidney patients attend dialysis treatment, they have to pay GST. Some of these patients, even if they go to the National Kidney Foundation, have to pay about $600, and to a lot of sole breadwinner Singaporeans, even with an income of $1,500, they are not able to cater to these high charges and fees for their dialysis treatment. The Government should consider all these things. Recently, I read in the newspaper that in Penang if you go to a Government hospital for an open heart surgery, you pay $275. And if you go to a first-class ward, you pay only $1,700. I call this real subsidy. This amount is inclusive of ward charges. It is not independent of the ward charges. Next, I come to education. The school fees in the independent schools have escalated dramatically. Some of them have already charged $200 per pupil while others are charging $175. It has become prohibitive to a number of poor students to pay the fees of these independent schools.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this year's Budget provides only about 1.2% of the GDP for health care cost. To me, this is too little. Recently, according to the World Bank's ranking, Singapore is ranked one of the 10 richest countries in the world. Out of these 10 richest countries in the world, we have a number of countries like Hong Kong and Japan. Hong Kong is providing about 5.7% of its GDP towards health care cost. Japan is providing 6.5%. Of course, the United States is exorbitant, 12.7%, and Germany, 8%. But we are only making a provision of 1.2% of the GDP for health care. This is clearly way, way below what the country can afford to provide. Even among those countries which were not within these 10 countries, like Malaysia, 3% of the GDP was given for health care. I am saying that it is not too much to ask that the percentage point be increased by between 1% and 2%. Instead of 1.2%, it probably should be increased to 2.8% or 3%. Government should do more for the needy and the poor and also look after the welfare of the geriatric citizens of Singapore. And we have the chronic prolonged illness among us. The Government should provide more to look after this unfortunate lot. As it is now, we could look at the Government hospitals and the private hospitals. If one goes to a Government A&E department as an outpatient, he pays $25. This is excluding medicine. And if one goes to a polyclinic, he pays $7 per visit and this is also excluding medicine. If one adds the cost of medicine in the polyclinic, he pays about $12. But if he goes to a private clinic, he pays about $14. In terms of market price, one can say that for the Government hospital, you pay about $2-$3 less. But one must not forget that the profit aspect of a private clinic has not been factored in.”
“It is also sad that most of our leaders say that when they first joined politics they had an ideal, they had a conviction, they had a sense of mission and sacrifice. In mid-stream, they made a turn-about. Let us not desecrate this time-hallowed tradition of mission, of service and sacrifice to the nation. Remember what the late President Kennedy said: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. 4.42 pm”
“One important factor is this. Everyone of you here, when you entered politics, you entered with your eyes open. You know what you would get by way of salary. You cannot now be heard to say, "Oh, I am not paid enough. I want to increase my salary." Imagine for a moment, if every employee in Singapore, after signing a contract, knowing the nature of his work, knowing how much he would be paid, he says, "Sorry, I am not paid enough. Please increase my salary." Can he be allowed to do that? He cannot, because he is an employee. But here we are faced with Ministers who are employers themselves. They decide for themselves. It is as simple as that. The other proposition would be this. If you think that you can make more money in the private sector, is there anything to prevent you from resigning and going over the other side and make more money? There is nothing to prevent anyone of you here from doing so. Why are you now coming to Parliament to tell us, "Oh, I am underpaid", and all these things, despite the fact that you get so much pay. Resign and go over the other side! Similarly, as has been said earlier, some of the Administrative Officers left the service because they feel they can get more money in the private sector. The Ministers can always follow suit. The problem is that while the Ministers are getting their pay increase, the people get a pay decrease in the sense that everything has gone up. Radio licence fee has gone up, COE price has gone up, GST, and so on. Indirectly, their take-home pay is lower. On the one hand, you increase your salary but, on the other hand, the lower income group is getting less money. It is a myth that the present leadership is indispensable, and that no better leaders can be had.”
“For example, before the last increment, the Prime Minister's salary was $30,000-odd, of course, with bonuses thrown in. Bonuses were variable. They were not sure whether they would get it or not. But now the Prime Minister is definitely sure of getting the bonus. It is not variable any more. It is fixed. So he is getting $96,000. Does the increase not come to 3 - 5 times? The Government bemoans the fact that the low salary of the Ministers would not be able to attract people to the rank of Ministers. But I think all of you are aware of the fact that the attraction to politics is not merely salary alone. Similarly, you have Ministers and Administrative Officers who have left the service. I am quite sure they left the service not because of salary alone. There are other factors for them to decide to leave the service. I am quite sure that salary is not the only factor that decides why people leave. Look at the title of the White Paper - Competitive Salaries for Competent and Honest Government. To me, it would suggest that only good salary would attract competent and honest Ministers. Look at countries around us - the United States, Japan - all their leaders were paid below $30,000 a month. Then you have the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand - they were all paid below $20,000 a month. Yet at every election they attracted talented people to stand for election. Why? I do not think money is the only reason. Why do you have all the people coming back in spite of the low salary? In fact, the person most admired by Singapore was the former Prime Minister, Mrs Margaret Thatcher. Why did she enter politics despite the fact that she was being paid about $18,000 a month? So it is quite obvious that it is not the money alone.”
“You start with the benchmark of the four highest earners, later on, three, two and one. It keeps on going up. Ultimately, you decide that you should be the highest paid in the land. The problem here is this. For the civil servants, the Government decides their benchmark. Who decides the benchmark for the Ministers? They decide themselves. Therefore, it is essential that they must come back to Parliament every year, not just to peg it to that of the private sector but to decide how much they should be paid. Even if we were to pay our Ministers the salary that they would get if they were not in politics, a survey would show that most of the Ministers were not getting the salary set by the benchmark. Most of them were not even getting $20,000 per month before they entered politics. How do you square out in that fashion? I can understand that if a Minister, before entering politics, was getting $30,000, but on entering politics he was getting $20,000, there is a sacrifice of $10,000. But as I stated earlier, most of the Ministers, before entering politics, were not even drawing between $15,000 and $20,000. After entering politics, they are now getting $65,000. Where is the sacrifice? It is a very peculiar situation here. In fact, with the pay increase, Ministers' pay is increased four to five times. An hon. Member: How do you get four to five times?”
“Even before the increment, our Ministers are considered the highest paid in the world. With the increase, our Prime Minister's income is four times that of the President of the United States and about five times that of John Major, the Prime Minister of England. Of course, it reminds me of the incident cited by our Prime Minister about MPs in UK. They were canvassing for all these things, not forgetting that the income of the Prime Minister of UK is only about $18,000 a month, and the MPs about $8,000 a month. It is unlike Singapore. If the Prime Minister of UK is paid $65,000 or $96,000, I do not think this thing will ever happen. So if you want to draw a comparison, you draw it that way. Similarly, for judges in the United Kingdom or the United States. If the President is being paid about $26,000 a month, I doubt very much the Federal judges will be paid more than $26,000 a month. There is no reason why they bemoan the fact that they are underpaid. What I am saying is that - I repeat - no one begrudges the fact that Ministers should be well paid. But the question is: how well, and how much? Is that the yardstick to measure? It is wrong to compare with the private sector. I think our Prime Minister will recall, not very long ago, he accused the SDP of playing the politics of envy. By comparing the Ministers' salaries with what the private sector is earning, I think our Prime Minister is also playing the politics of envy now. He talks about the private sector earning so much money. Is that not also politics of envy? I can even go one step further to say that, besides playing the politics of envy, this is a very dangerous trend for the PAP to adopt in the sense that now they are encouraging the politics of greed. You start off with $96,000 and you want to ask for more.”
“They have the Administrative Service to back them up in respect of running the administration and management. Even before they embark on a project, they can call upon international help and get experts from overseas. All these are within their resources. But if you compare a Minister with a CEO of a profit-oriented corporation, the CEO is engaged to increase the profit of the company. CEOs have limited resources. They have to depend solely on themselves, unlike Ministers who are backed by all the various Government departments to run the Ministry. On top of that, Ministers have all the powers, the prestige, travel, which a CEO does not have. Curiously enough, there are people in this world who have the idealism that they want power but they do not want so much remuneration. It is as simple as that. So you cannot have both. You cannot have power as well as remuneration to such an extent. Here I am not talking of a Minister who is underpaid. Bear with me. I am not talking of Ministers here who are underpaid. You cannot draw a comparison with the private sector for this reason. Ministers, after their term, would have an opportunity to get a job outside quite easily, simply because of their experience and the stature of being a Minister before. So they are in a win-and-win situation here, not the CEO anyway. A more suitable comparison would be the salaries of Ministers in ASEAN countries, and of course tied with the cost of living there and with certain knots up. I would imagine that would be the best comparison. You cannot compare political leaders with that of a corporate executive. As regards the salaries of Singapore Ministers, even when compared to politicians of a more advanced country, the intention to increase their salaries becomes quite incomprehensible.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is about to score another first. This time round, it is to peg the Ministers' salaries to that of the private sector. In fact, we should not be discussing the formula or benchmark upon which Ministers' salaries should be calculated, for the simple reason that the philosophy behind the increase is wrong in the first place. Here are the reasons why. First, while no one disagrees that Ministers should be paid well for the job they perform, most of us are disturbed as to the meaning of the word "well". How well? Before the salary increase, Ministers have been drawing salaries of $35,000 and upwards. Even by Singapore standards, this amount not only affords a family to live comfortably but also luxuriously. The pay increase will only mean that the Ministers want to live more luxuriously. The increase in pay will also mean that half of Singapore's working population would have to work for five years to make the same amount of money that a Minister would make in one month. The Government's argument is that Ministers should be paid salaries that are competitive with what top executives are making in the open market. This is the most warped argument, if ever there was one. Top corporate executives and CEOs compete with each other for their salaries, because there is competition amongst them. They are not political leaders, but administrative and managerial leaders. For example, a CEO of Citibank may compete with the CEO of Keppel Bank. They offer similar expertise and work experience. Who do our Ministers compete with? Comparing the type of expertise is entirely a different matter. The job of Ministers is mostly as an overseer - to oversee a Ministry. They are backed up by the whole Government machinery.”
“Sir, my question is: why is there a distinction in Government policy in not subsidising people who have gone overseas for kidney transplants? It could be a case of hardship. Or they could have borrowed money and went for operation overseas and they came back. Why is there a distinction of not granting them subsidised cyclosporin? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Sir, as I said earlier, if you are a private patient, whether in Singapore or overseas, then it is difficult for the Health Ministry to subsidise such patients. There is also a further reason why we do not encourage Singaporean patients to go overseas for kidney transplants. It is because there is a high risk involved. It is a known risk. For some of them, the operation goes bad. Some have died as a result. There is also HIV risk. And in many cases, we do not even know what are the sources of these kidneys. For this reason, it is not Government policy to encourage Singaporeans to go overseas to get kidney transplants done.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, while I support this Bill in respect of detention without trial for people involved in drug abuse as well as secret society members, I am not in favour of the other provisions for the simple reason that, under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, the definition of "criminal activities" is all- catching and all-embracing. In other words, you can do away with the Penal Code and all the criminal statutes. With this Act alone, you can actually arrest anybody and put him behind bars without trial. I agree with the Minister that, without this weapon, there is no way we can check drug traffickers and secret society members. My reservation is in respect of this all-embracing law. For instance, the example cited by the Minister earlier on about gang rape. If you cannot get witnesses, you have to invoke this Act. I think this is very unfair because there are provisions where we can have the due process of law. As such, no other criminal activity should be brought under this Act other than the two examples I have cited. With that reservation, I support this Bill.”
“Would the Minister agree with me that this impinges on the right of individuals in the sense that indirectly you are saying that the Singapore money is not legal tender and a cheque from a bank is also not legal tender? Neither is postal order. It will be a very dangerous precedent to set here because there will be nothing to prevent private enterprise from imposing the same condition, more so if it is a monopolistic organisation outside. They can insist that if you want to buy this good, you pay by means of a gold bar or something else.”
“I thought GST was meant to convert the present tax system into a broad based and more equitable one. I fail to see the reason why this particular tax cannot be abolished for the simple reason that if you use more you pay more GST. If you use less, you pay less GST. The same principle should apply here.”
“Even if there is a slight increase in the number of parents being abandoned by their children, I am saying that now is not the time for such a Bill. We should wait until an opportune time when considering all these things, bearing in mind the various measures, which the Government has introduced of late, have partially addressed this issue, that is, the extension of the retirement age to 60 with effect from 1st July last year, and in seven to ten years' time, the retirement age will be extended to 67 years old; the widening of the CPF net to cover all self-employed; and the increase in the Minimum Sum to $80,000. I am sure the House will recall that at the last Budget debate, the Minister for Labour mentioned the fact that the increase in the Minimum Sum is actually meant to cope with the aging problem and to make provision for the aged in their retirement. And I also feel that, most importantly, it is the duty of a government to look after the minority of destitutes. This minority have done their share for society. They have contributed to this country. They pay taxes, dues, and the GST. I feel that there should be no shirking of responsibility to care for this small minority which comes with the mandate to govern. In my view, as there are no statistics to show that there is an increase, and we still have ample time, no effort should be let up to inculcate and imbue in our younger generation the traditional values and filial piety. I would suggest that this Bill is a very bad and sad reflection on our society which emphasises and prides on Asian values, filial piety and Confucianism. I would suggest that we wait until such time when there is a serious necessity for this Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, law should be enacted only when there is absolute necessity. You will recall at the last Budget debate, the Minister for Education, in answer to a call to introduce compulsory education, justified the non-legislation on the ground that the percentage of dropouts in school was very low. Therefore, there is really no necessity for a law to enforce compulsory education. The first attempt at legislation for provision for the maintenance of parents was made in 1984 by the Committee on the Problems of the Aged. Four years later, in 1988, the Advisory Council again put up recommendations for the introduction of this provision. On both occasions, the Government did not accept this recommendation on the simple ground that from statistics, the number of parents being abandoned by their children was very negligible. Therefore, when we consider introducing this new Bill, what should be the criterion? Should we follow the criterion, as adopted by the Government on the two previous occasions, that there are insufficient cases of this nature for the Bill to be introduced? We have no statistics to say that there is in fact an increase in the number of parents abandoned by their children. In fact, from newspaper report, of the 1,500 old folks in the voluntary welfare organisations, there was not a single case of parents being abandoned by their children. In fact, the Director of the Counselling and Care Centre, who has been a welfare worker for the last 22 years, said that he could not recall a single case of parents being abandoned by their children. It therefore behoves the mover of this Bill and its supporters to justify the need for this Bill. More so when you are trying to legislate morality, family values and traditional Asian values.”
“Sir, last year, the Public Assistance payments to the assisted persons were increased from $140 to $150 for the individual, and from $400 to $430 for a four-member household. It is true that with effect from 1st April, there will be between 3% and 5% increase to take into account the effect of GST. In my view, even before this 3% to 5% increase, $150 for an individual is just not sufficient for the basic necessities of these people. If you will recall, the Minister for Labour in his ministerial statement said that for the creation of the Minimum Sum or the Retirement Account, the retirees or the old people would need $230 per month as the minimum level of subsistence. I am trying to compare. When we assist these people, they are being paid $130 a month. When we come to the Retirement Account, we require $230 as the minimum level of subsistence. There is a contradiction here. I seriously hope the Minister will review and increase the payments to these 2,700-odd assisted persons to coincide with the coming into effect of GST, that is, 1st April this year. If I remember correctly, the Acting Minister during last year's Budget session said: `There are compelling reasons why we should and can do more for the disadvantaged.' In the light of all this, I urge the Minister to seriously consider reviewing and increasing the Public Assistance rates with effect from 1st April, in order to alleviate the hardship of these people.”
“This indeed can be very easily achieved in the area of mobile and wireless services like pagers and handphones. I find it hard to learn that in Singapore there is only one pager service whereas in a city like Hong Kong there are many pager companies. In the case of mobile telephones, even Kuala Lumpur has more than one system. I believe they have three systems. Furthermore, the service level of the Singapore Telecom mobile service can be improved. I have received many feedback complaining about the poor coverage of our mobile phone system with many blind spots as one travels around the island. I believe Singapore Telecom can give many, many technical reasons to explain away the problems. However, I believe that if we allow competition in this area, the service level will improve by leaps and bounds. Sir, I think it is time to provide our people with a choice and a better service in the telecommunication area.”
“If we do a mental experiment, it is very easy to see that bidders of COEs under the pay-as-you-bid system will be more conservative in submitting their bids resulting in a more orderly and less volatile market. Over the long term, Sir, it does not matter which system we adopt. On a steady state basis, the quota premium will be determined by supply and demand. However, by dampening the rapid movement, I think the speculative element can be removed. The fundamental justification of the COE, as I said, is to control the number of vehicles on the road. However, by making the COE system a completely free tendering system, the end effect is that for the senior citizens in our country who have got used to owning a car in the past, they have been priced out of the market place. So I would also ask the Minister whether in the COE system that is being implemented, can we make a special provision for people, like our senior citizens who have retired, to give them a special place in this bidding system? In conclusion, I would like to urge the Minister to try his best to moderate price fluctuations. We should give the pay-as-you-bid system a try. Sir, the next topic I would like to speak on is liberalisation of the telecommunication services. Sir, Singapore Telecom is now a private company. As a private company, its obligation to its shareholders, first and foremost, is to maximize profit. Therefore, to ensure that there is a balance between price and services, competition in the telecommunication service sector must be brought to bear. I urge the Minister to speed up liberalising the market for various telecommunication services and open the market to other private operators.”
“However, as the speaker before me has said, the quota system did not start off as a means for the Government to raise revenue. I would also echo Mr Chia's point here that an increase in transportation cost is a burden to everyone, directly or indirectly. It raises the cost of doing business in Singapore. It is a sponge that soaks up the liquidity in our economy. Over the past 12 months, more than $800 million in COEs has been collected. With so much money mopped up by COEs, it is not a surprise that there is actually very little money left in people's pockets to spend. This could be a major contributing factor to the poor performance of the retail industry in 1993. Another major complaint about the COE system is actually the very rapid ramp-up of the COE quota premium, in particular, the increases experienced during the second half of 1993. During that period, the increases were in the order of $5,000 per month. Since then, the bid prices have turned downwards giving motorists a temporary respite. Nonetheless, the March 1994 COE prices which have just been announced still exhibit significant variations and volatility. To me, Sir, this volatility illustrates that under the current Dutch bidding system, the quota premium is very responsive, maybe too responsive, to market demand. From the motorist's point of view, this fluctuation is undesirable. I believe it would serve the interest of all buyers of vehicles that speculative meddling of the bidding system be minimised. I would urge the Minister to reconsider the merit of converting back to the pay-as-you-bid system.”
“With the reduction of the road tax and the ARF, and the MAS stepping in with this restriction, the price of COE will come down because there will be less takers bidding for it. And with the pay-as-you-bid system, the price of COE will come down. This is what will happen with the pay-as-you-bid system. I would also suggest that the Government do away with COE for taxis. I have read some reports that the taxis also cause obstruction. But COE and private cars are a different kettle of fish here because taxis are doing a service. It is a service-oriented form of communication, unlike a motor vehicle which is used for pleasure or business. So I would therefore urge the Minister to consider doing away with COE for taxis. With the increase in the price of COE, the next step is that the taxi driver who hires the taxi would have to pay more hiring fee and he would pass that on to the commuters, resulting in the commuters paying more for the taxi fare. It would only enrich the Government's coffer. They are indirectly asked to pay to the Government. Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Sir, I would also like to join in the debate on the issue of COEs. However, as I listened to Mr Ling, I did get a bit confused. So hopefully my speech will be more coherent. Sir, the objective of the vehicle quota system is to control the number of vehicles on the road. I would like to congratulate the Ministry for successfully implementing this very innovative system, being the first in the world. Its success can be attributed to the fact that Singaporeans by and large accept the rationale for the quota system. Despite the many complaints about the escalating quota premiums, there are actually very few complaints about the need for a quota system to keep our roads free.”
“So it is not affluence. You can only say affluence when you can pay a lump sum to purchase a property, not when you can pay $20 and get a fan or $10 for a washing machine. It is not affluence. Therefore, I suggest the pay-as-you-bid system. At the same time, the MAS should step into the picture and regulate car financing. Anyway, MAS has already done in respect of credit cards. At one time, if your income was $1,500, you could get an ordinary credit card. If your income was $2,000, you could get a gold credit card. MAS has stepped in to impose a minimum income before you can get all these things. Why not introduce this in respect of car financing? Because it is not only that you can get 100% financing for hire purchase, but the period of repayment has been extended to 10 years. In the past, it was between two and three years, depending on whether the vehicle is new or second hand. But now, for a second hand car over 10 years, you can even get a 10-year repayment scheme. It is no wonder that COE keeps going up and you get more people buying cars. 3.45 pm The MAS should step in and impose a minimum income before a finance company can give a loan to a motorist. If you want to buy a car, you must be able to pay at least 50% of the purchase price, including the COE. Therefore, those who are going for status symbol, they pay for it. It will make Singaporeans more prudent. They will seriously consider whether they are in a position to buy a car. Before they decide to buy a car, they will look into their coffer to see whether they have enough money to pay for the downpayment. That would restrict those who do not seriously need a car, but rather as a status symbol. I hope the Minister would look into this aspect.”
“Sir, various measures were introduced to dampen the growth of the car population - the ARF, high road tax and parking fees, especially the $60 fee for a private parking lot. And there is the ad valorem duty on petrol, culminating to COE. Now that the car population has been brought under control, the Government ought to reduce road tax as well as ARF. In my view, to regulate the increase in the car population, the Government should put in practice the pay-as-you-bid system. This has already been mentioned by a number of my colleagues. Next, the MAS should regulate car financing. The Prime Minister has mentioned the fact that despite high COE prices, people could still afford to buy cars. He is suggesting that this shows that Singaporeans are very affluent. I beg to differ in this respect, simply because it is not so much the affluence that people are able to purchase cars, it is more a case of the ease with which people can buy cars. Because most of the finance companies in Singapore now give 100% financing. You can pay $8,000 or even less to drive away a brand new car. Therefore, the increase in the COE makes no difference whatsoever to the people intending to buy motorcars, simply because they do not have to put a heavy downpayment. They put an initial small sum, there you are, they can drive away a car. It is more or less like a hiring basis. They pay on a monthly basis and when they are unable to meet the hire purchase instalments, they just give up the car. If you work out the transport and communication costs in Singapore, I doubt you will lose very much on that. Singapore is slowly becoming a hire purchase and instalment payment society. You can pay for everything by instalment or by hire purchase, from electrical appliances right up to a house.”
“And if the bus company is in no position to cope with the situation, then more licences should be granted to private bus operators to fill the lacuna and to operate bus services from housing estates to the city area.”
“Sir, in the 1950s, we had about a dozen or so bus services in Singapore. When the PAP came into power, the transport system was revamped and restructured resulting in a duopoly now. The purpose of the restructuring and revamping of the transport system was to improve efficiency, better service and to prevent duplication. It was more a case of service-oriented than profit-oriented. Of late, the bus company in Singapore has been either re-routing or taking off a number of routes which have been scheduled for quite some time. And there were cases where a normal one-bus route had been changed into a two-bus route. In other words, before the change, a passenger travelling from destination A to B would need to take only one bus, but now he has to take two buses which, invariably, increase his bus fares. I wonder whether this is due to the fact that we have a duopoly in Singapore. Monopoly, or duopoly, invariably leads to exploitation. When there is no competition, the commuters are left to the mercy of the bus company running the services here. I am quite sure that Members here would have noticed that, especially during the rainy days, there are more cars on the road. I suspect this is due to the fact that in the dry weather, these commuters would normally be taking the MRT or bus service. But because of the rain, and the inconvenience of having to carry umbrellas, they have to travel from their homes to the bus stop or bus interchange, resulting in congestion of the roads. 3.30 pm I would suggest that the transport committee inquire into why certain bus services have been taken off and causing inconvenience to commuters.”
“Sir, the award of scholarships in secondary schools, especially independent schools, should not be based on performance alone. One should seriously consider the financial position of the student. As can be seen, even in December last year, the fee for the independent schools has increased. One would expect the fee to continue to increase. Therefore, the poor and needy aspect of it should be considered. If the student wants recognition, honorary book prizes can always be awarded. Of course, in the case of university or postgraduate scholarships, it is a different proposition entirely. This is simply because if scholarships are being awarded for postgraduate studies they are automatically bonded. When they come back they must serve the Government. This is not in respect of the secondary school scholarship. I would imagine that, more often than not, scholarships are awarded to secondary school students and some of them would not even later on get a scholarship or serve the country. Whereas the poorer students who have received scholarship from the secondary school, in all probability, would go on to accept a scholarship to go to tertiary education. Therefore, in this respect, I urge the Minister to reconsider whether this could be done to help the poor and needy.”
“It is not a denial of admission to the University. The fact that you cannot get admission to the local University here, I doubt you can get a scholarship. I do not think you can get a scholarship to go overseas. No way. This is the inequity. Could you just address the inequity?”
“I agree and I endorse meritocracy. I agree with that 100%. But you have not answered me regarding the example I have cited - the poor and the rich going to the University. Give me an answer. Prof. Jayakumar: If he knows of anyone who has been denied a place in the University solely because of financial consideration, he should come and tell us in this House.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I really do not understand. With this arrangement, how can you ensure that the good ones will come in? I have already emphasised the fact that if you have 70 applicants who are qualified to come in, how do you make a distinction as to which 20 must go out and which 50 must come in? And how do you explain that, to a certain extent, only the rich can be doctors and lawyers, but not the poor?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the thrust of my speech in respect of this is in two areas. One, as spoken by Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon before, is the inequity. The question is: when you restrict to 50 of Second Class Upper, what happens when you have 70? That is what I am worried about. How do you go about choosing from 70 applicants who are of equal merit and say, "Okay, 50 of you are qualified to come, the other 20 are out of the picture." That is the thrust of my speech. The second area is that, as I mentioned earlier, the admission criteria to the National University of Singapore are very stringent. Therefore, there could be a number of qualified applicants who have been rejected. They could have secured good results but, because of the limited vacancies in our University, they were rejected. If they had gone to the United Kingdom, they would have been easily admitted to one of the 15 universities. The inequity comes in here. You have one parent who is well off and you have another parent who is poor. The rich one, by virtue of being rich, can be a lawyer, but the poor chap cannot be a lawyer. That is my thrust.”
“A Singaporean is likened to Qing Shi Huang ( ). You know the building of the Great Wall of China. But how much did it cost to build the Great Wall of China? Thousands and thousands of people died and were buried just to build the Great Wall of China. Perhaps we need Meng Jiang Nu ku dao wan li chang cheng ( ).”
“What happens if you have 70 of them, all having Second Class Upper Honours? How do you pick 50 from the 70 graduates when they are of equal merit? How do you pick them? One more salient point here is this. Because of the stringent admission criteria of the National University of Singapore, some applicants would be rejected. But of those applicants who have been rejected admission to the National University of Singapore, some would have made the grade had they gone overseas, and they would have no problem getting a Second Class Upper overseas. Here comes the inequity. You have two applicants, for example, both of them were rejected by the National University of Singapore because of the high standards for admission here. You have two applicants - one is from a well-off family, while the other is from a poor family. If these two persons have gone overseas to one of the 15 universities, they would have been admitted and would have achieved a Second Class Upper. They would come back and be qualified to take up the Diploma course. But the parents of the boy or girl from the poor family do not have the financial means to send the kid to the university in England. He or she will have no chance to be a doctor or lawyer. Is it fair that this should happen in Singapore? I am asking this House: is it fair? If the Government makes a ruling that only those who do not qualify, fair enough. But the point is some could even go by way of the back-door, ie, go to UK and come back. We are drawing a distinction between the rich and the poor. I hope the Government will really look into this and consider this factor. I have observed that this Government is so obsessed with accumulating more and more surpluses that it is giving less and less in subsidy to Singaporeans.”
“Honestly, I find it hard to believe that the Public Service Division could make such a boo-boo when they declared that those who have opted to remain under the old scheme would not be given any increment. I find it hard to believe that such an efficient Government of ours could make such a boo-boo there. The next point I would like to mention is this. The Singapore Government practises meritocracy. They believe and endorse equal opportunity for all and they believe in equality. I find it hard to believe why the Government is not prepared to offer the women civil servants the same medical benefits for their children as the male civil servants. There is no reason at all. Financially, it involves only $8.1 million. We must practise what we preach. Set a good example. Before I move on to the next point, I would like to declare my interest first. I am a practising lawyer. I have a son who is a practising lawyer and I have another son who is a third-year law student. The Singapore Government is well-known as an ardent advocate and exponent of the free market economy, and of free opportunity and it is against protectionism. The recent amendment to the Legal Profession Act to restrict or cap the number of lawyers is something which I would like to highlight. In Singapore, it is the wish of the parents, as the Chinese saying goes, wang zi cheng long ( ). It may be the dreams of the parents and the aspirations of the children to become doctors or lawyers. But now, with the recent amendment, it would appear that some of them would have their dreams shattered. As Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon had spoken before, with the amendment, the Singapore Government would take in 50 from the 15 recognised universities in the United Kingdom.”
“I read in the newspapers that the Government will be making a lump sum payment into the Medisave accounts of about 400 to 500 civil servants who have got five years or less to go before their retirement, but the amount has yet to be worked out. My question is this: what about the other 64,000-plus people, especially those who have served the Government, and who have 10 years or more to go before their retirement? Members will recollect that during the debate on the revision of salaries of the Ministers and civil servants, the emphasis was all the time on market rate. It was all the time on bridging the disparity between the public and private sectors, ie, how the income of the public sector should be brought as close to the private sector as possible. On this package deal, if the Government says that Divisions II, III and below have been paid more than enough and they are actually on par with the private sector, that is a different matter entirely. If it is not, then it must be a factor to be considered. Can the component of the increment not be broken down? Some of the civil servants get 7.1%. Let us have the components broken down, and say, "Okay, to bring you in line with the private sector, we need to give you 3% or 4% increment. And in view of the fact that you have chosen to be under the old scheme, you would not get the other component, which is meant as compensation for those who have opted for the new medical benefits scheme, ie, either under the Comprehensive Co-payment Scheme or the Medisave-cum-Subsidised Outpatient Scheme." Would the Minister consider this and let the civil servants decide on this point? Either way, I would say that for those who have opted for the old scheme, they should be given the increment.”
“It is precisely that we have no unemployment, why do you want to retain the people's money? I give due credit to the Government for creating a society where employment is not a problem. But my point is this. That being the case, what is the necessity of retaining the people's money and not allowing them to have their hard-earned money? That is the point. You contradict yourself. Another point is that Singapore brags itself that it wants to achieve a society where almost every Singaporean will own a property, for example, a HDB flat, and the value will keep going up. That being the case, why cannot this property, an asset of the people, be considered as a pledge for their old age, instead of retaining their money? Of course, the Prime Minister made a statement, "Oh, they do not want to sell the property". If the children are not bothered with the parents and if the parents are the owners of the flat, sell it by all means. What is there to bother? Quite obviously, he must be in a financial strait. The money can be withdrawn over a period of time and when he dies, the Government can repossess the whole flat, set off this amount with interest, and the balance can go to whoever he has willed. The policy of the Government has a very uncomforting insinuation about these old people, and it could be us by that time. We are considered as dregs and are of no use to society. That is why you say, "Sorry, we have to withhold your money because you would become dregs in time to come." We are these 600,000 people of tomorrow. Sir, I would now like to move on to another topic.”
“It is necessary for us always to preserve a sense of public service, as even Mr Chiam and Mr Ling have pointed out. But you have to be realistic about what is necessary in order to make it possible for people to give public service. If this is unnecessary, then we would be able to see able people coming forward to say, "No, I not only do not want your pay, I will give you all the pay I have." As Mr Ling said, missionaries often do, and run the country as a religious order and a calling, and the country will prosper. I think we can find one or two such people. Can we find 81 to be MPs? I have not seen any in the Opposition who says, "I'll forsake my privileges or rights." So that is a real problem. We pay for what we get, what we want. Whether the incumbents are up to that, that is a separate question which Singaporeans must decide. But that is what we are aiming for. We try to get Ministers who will meet that level. Singaporeans have to judge whether we have been successful. I think the right solution is, if you say that the Minister is not up to it, you change the Minister. I do not think the right solution is to say, "This is a cheap Minister. We will give him half pay." You might apply that on both sides of the floor and where would that leave us? None of the Opposition Members have spoken up vigorously today. Neither Mr Ling nor Mr Chiam nor Mr Low. I hope they remember this silence when next they hold an election rally. [Applause].”
“It is not just running the organisation but also the political responsibilities, justifying, conceiving, explaining, persuading, carrying people along. It is a big job. What sort of men do you want to hold this job? People are paid in Singapore from $500 to $3-$5 million. If you pay $1,000, I am sure there will be people who will queue up to be Ministers. If you pay $10,000, there will also be people who will queue up to be Ministers. Or $100,000. What sort of people do you want? I think you want people near the top. If you are in the legal profession and stagnating around the middle of the profession or the lower middle of the profession, conceivably, if you became a Minister, you would be a totally adequate Minister completely on top with your job and able to carry all that weight of responsibility. There might be some people like that, but I do not know how many. I know that we have searched and we have not found many. I think Mr Chiam has searched and he has found Mr Ling How Doong, Mr Cheo Chai Chen and Dr Chee Soon Juan. So when people say that there will be many people outside - if you do not want to come in, that is fine - there will be many outside who are prepared to do the job for less. That is good. Show me your team. Then Singaporeans will be amazed by the quality of your candidates. It is not possible. It is a real problem. We have to find the right sort of men to hold this job. And the right sort of men will be at the top of their careers. You will be a successful banker. You will be a successful lawyer. You will be a successful executive in an MNC. You may be a successful accountant. And you may still not be a successful Minister. But the chances are better and that is what we are aiming for.”
“We hit that point and we maintain that point from year to year. I think we should establish these points clearly and explicitly so that each time we make a salary revision, we can refer back to these benchmarks and know whether we have made progress or not. Mr Ling, Mr Chiam and Dr Soin have said you should not compare with the private sector. But we have to make the comparison. If not with the private sector, with what? Mr Chiam says this looks a lot. He does not begrudge it, but it looks a lot to a man from the grassroots. How much is enough, Mr Chiam? Should it be half? Should it be quarter? Should it be the same as a lawyer's pay which Mr Chiam earns? Or is that already too much? Because that may be 30 times what a worker earns. Has either Mr Chiam or Mr Ling who has made a big issue of this, and said that since they are politicians, this pay is of no consequence and will be given away? I remember on one occasion that point came up before this House when Mr Chiam met Mr Rajaratnam and they had a challenge. Mr Chiam said, "I'll give up my allowance if you give up yours." Mr Rajaratnam said, "I'll give up my pay if you give up yours." There was no answer. So what is fair? What is fair is what sort of job is it, what sort of men do you want. I think that a Permanent Secretary's job is any time higher, more complicated, more responsible, than all but maybe 10-15 CEO jobs in the private sector, at most. If you are running Defence, if you are running Education or Finance, not only millions of dollars but lives and the economy. You make a mistake, the consequences are disastrous. There may not be a financial bottom line which shows whether you have made a bad mistake or not. But we will still pay if you do. The Minister's job is even bigger than that.”
“As I pointed out just now, Ministers at $64,000 rank after local manufacturers, before car distributors. Oil company executives are understated because it so happens that several of the large oil companies had expatriate bosses. But, in fact, when they have Singaporean bosses, the Singaporeans will be paid as much as the expatriates. That is where Ministers stand. The Permanent Secretary, Grade C, does not have to be compared to the top man on this table, because he has just entered the permanent secretary grade. But he is at least comparable to an average second man on this table. If you describe him as a chief operating officer of a big firm, I think that is an under description, because the Permanent Secretary would be looking after a Ministry. He may be looking after a statutory board. He may be responsible for a big company like Singapore Telecom, and any time equal to a second line job, in the middle. He is not even at the bottom of the third. Permanent Secretaries today are second last, before car distributors (number three man). Permanent Secretaries, after revision, will have $29,000 and will move up some. He will rank 8th behind the number two man (oil company executives), and ahead of the car distributors, ahead of the engineers, and the multinational manufacturers. My point is we have to set reasonable benchmarks and we have to aim to hit them and revise them. What is an objective basis for deciding their salaries? It is a certain level compared to the private sector, not the top, neither the bottom, but one which is somewhere in the middle with a certain discount, because this is a public service. It is not as volatile as the private sector. There is a certain amount of public service sacrifice which is expected, and I think fairly so.”
“And PSC will be discussing this with PSD and we will be taking it up. That is along the way. When you reach the top grade as a Permanent Secretary or as a Minister of State or a Minister, your ranking is not just with your age group, but really with everybody in the workforce, regardless of age. Because if you are a Minister, you may be the only one of that age, but you are really competing with other people who may be younger or older than you, but doing the same job, carrying the same responsibility. So you must make the comparison regardless of age in the workforce. What do the figures show? At the bottom of Annex II, Minister of State, Permanent Secretary Grade C, before the revision he ranks 1,096. Ministers, 130, DPM, 59, PM, 38. After the revision, there is an improvement, but actually still not where we stood in 1989. These are comparisons which have to be made. The other comparison you can make is Annex III (Cols. 1287 - 1288), which is what we showed you back in 1989. This is updated, and it shows you what top executives in the private sector are earning, generally, on salaries. Some of them like architects, doctors, lawyers, stockbrokers may be partners. These are not individual companies. But for each profession, we took three big firms. In each firm, we took three men - top man, the second man and the third man. We took their salaries, we averaged it for the three firms. So that is what you see in the table. On the right hand column, you see what the top man in that profession is earning. Annex III - AVERAGE 1987 & 1991 MONTHLY INCOME OF THE TOP THREE LOCAL EXECUTIVES IN A SELECTION OF COMPANIES AND PROFESSIONAL FIRMS (Cols. 1287 - 1288) Architects are earning $250,000 a month; doctors, $168,000; bankers, $158,000, and so forth.”