Mah Bow Tan
Singapore
“The previous generation of Singaporeans overcame huge odds together to create this improbable nation which we call home. Let this generation work as one to define our country for the next lap of our journey. Sir, on this note, I fully support the amended Motion. Page: 143”
“Like all upgrading programmes, there is a certain budget, and a certain pace at which we will build. We have completed the LUP and now we are going on towards the HIP. The Estate Upgrading Programme (EUP) is ongoing.”
“For those who cannot afford home ownership, we will provide rental flats. For the rest where there is hardship involved, that is where the safety net comes in. I do not think we should make the safety net so wide as to bring in everybody.”
“Building a studio apartment is no different from building any other HDB flat. If a person applies now and the building works start now, he can get it in two-and-a-half years to three years. We have stepped up the building of studio apartments over the last couple of years.”
“Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Health (a) how many people have signed an Advance Medical Directive (AMD) and how many have revoked them since; and (b) whether there is a need to review the current rules on AMDs which do not require a person who has revoked the AMD to inform the Registrar, thus causing uncertainty for hospitals t…”
“Parents who wish to exert more control over the maximum mobile service charges incurred by their children may consider service options such as mobile pre-paid cards. IDA is aware of the public's concerns on mobile subscriptions, and will continually review policies and look into measures to further protect the interest of consumers.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,030 lines we hold for Mah Bow Tan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 61 of 61.
“I turn to the point that was made by Mr Tang Guan Seng when he talked about the availability of TV ROs and what is the Ministry's policy in regard to this. Let me say very briefly that the Ministry is not going to allow the sale and installation of TV ROs in Singapore and the reason is very simple. In developing countries, the media - in this case the broadcast media, and in particular, television - are key instruments in nation building. In developed countries, commercial TV is primarily a money-making machine. Programmes are designed to capture maximum viewership so that advertising revenues are maximized. Never mind if in the process harmful values are purveyed. For this reason, SBC has been paying very careful attention to foreign programmes which it acquires for broadcasting. In our case, the screening has to be carried out with extra caution because we are a multi-racial and multi-religious society. So not only must we filter out unacceptable and harmful values and lifestyles, we must also be careful about programmes which may be offensive on racial or religious grounds. Against this backdrop, the latest technological development of TV ROs which will allow virtually unlimited access to foreign programmes beamed by foreign TV stations set up primarily to make money is something which has to be viewed with caution. If we do nothing, we are going to be overwhelmed by the sheer weight of the money which will be behind such programmes and by the absence of control on the types of such programmes which will be beamed. Yesterday, in this House, my colleague, the Minister of State for Education told us the reservations that other countries have about television and about the pervasive effect of television and its corrosive effect on the propagation of core values.”
“In regard to our policy of granting permits for newspapers and periodicals, annually there are about 3,000 such applications for permits to print in Singapore. In general, all of them are approved except for a very few cases. In 1988, for example, we received 2,657 applications, of which only 6 were turned down because of undesirable content. Sir, in general, the Government does not have trouble with the majority of foreign journalists. Most of them report objectively on Singapore. Often, they are critical of us and the way we do things. But this is understandable because they have different values, they have different backgrounds and loyalties. On the other hand, we do not pretend that we welcome all foreign journalists with open arms. And when a foreign correspondent publishes reports about Singapore which are slanted or, worse, distorted, or when he makes baseless and unfounded allegations about us and our institutions, then these reports and allegations will be rebutted and refuted vigorously. We are not against criticism, but it would be irresponsible for us to allow such untruths or distortions to undermine our political stability. So foreign publications are allowed to circulate freely in Singapore, provided they do not undermine our social or cultural values or disrupt our racial or religious harmony or threaten the security of Singapore or engage in our domestic politics. Again, Sir, if I may put things in perspective, in 1988, there were 750,000 publications imported, of which 0.3% were detained. This refers to books, paperbacks and so on. In so far as newspapers and periodicals are concerned, out of 4,000 newspapers and periodicals, only 3 are restricted, not banned, but restricted by us.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, with your permission, may I take some of the points that Members made in the earlier cut very briefly, without taxing your patience? The Member for Tampines GRC asked how the Ministry intends to reconcile its objective of making Singapore a major information centre as well as curbing negative influence which is generated by this inflow of information. First of all, let me say that the two are not incompatible. We can and, indeed, we have become a major international information centre without having to accept the negative influence that inflow of information can generate. And Singapore has become such an international information centre because of our excellent telecommunications infrastructure. As a result of this, there are many foreign national and trans-national news agencies such as Reuters, AP, Dow Jones, which have set up operations here. They are here not only to report on Singapore and the region to the rest of the world, but they are also here to sell and broadcast news from the rest of the world to this region. Also several reputable foreign publications such as the International Herald Tribune, the Economist and Time Magazine are printed here, again because of our telecommunications and satellite facilities. To further promote Singapore as an information centre, we have welcomed the free flow of objective information from all over the world. We practise a most liberal policy of allowing foreign journalists to work in Singapore. As at the moment, there are 93 accredited foreign journalists and photographers who represent some 50-odd news organizations in Singapore. We will continue to open our doors to bona fide news organizations and foreign journalists.”
“Our feeling is that there is still a long way to go before training becomes a tradition and there are quantitative targets being set for the SDF, namely, that the percentage of payroll of money to be spent on training by companies should be targetted to reach 4% by the end of 1991. At the moment, the level of spending on training as a percentage of payroll is only about 1.5%. So there is still a long way to go and on that basis alone I would not dare to say that training has become a tradition in Singapore as it has in many other developed countries, especially in Japan and also in America and the European countries. What has NPB done to assist companies to train. First of all, the SDF, which the NPB administers, runs a training grant scheme which is used to encourage companies to send their staff for training. There are many SDF schemes, things like worker training plans, emerging and critical skills development grant scheme, INTRO (Increased Training Opportunity Scheme) etc, etc. Industry training centres have also been set up by the various industry training bodies to train workers in the different industries. Hopefully, Sir, with all these efforts being put in, there will be, in years to come, a training tradition in Singapore. Finally, Sir, the Member has asked for current figures comparing productivity levels of our workers with that of the NICs. I do not have the figures readily available and if the Member would wish to get them, I would be happy to provide them. There is clarification to be sought also on what exactly would be meant by productivity levels, whether they are absolute levels, GDP per capita or they would be in the form of increases in productivity over the last few years.”
“Sir, the Member for Cairnhill has asked several questions. I think the best way for me to answer will be, with your permission, to ask the Clerk of Parliament to distribute a table of figures which I have prepared in anticipation. [Copies of table distributed to hon. Members]. Sir, I do not intend to go through all the figures and I think the Member for Cairnhill will find that the figures are self-explanatory. Suffice it to say, Sir, the productivity awareness of workers, which can be gauged by the responses to surveys that are conducted annually by the National Productivity Board, shows that since 1981, when the movement was launched, in fact, by the NPB under the then chairmanship of the Member for Cairnhill, the awareness of productivity has been very well established and the number of employees, for example, if you look at items 2 and 3 of the table, the number of employees who understood productivity as well as the percentage of employees who perceived they have benefited from productivity had both increased. Similarly, the percentage of employees who have taken action to increase productivity has also increased. The second question that he asked was regarding the number of QCCs established to-date. The answer is to be found in item 5. There has been, if I may highlight, Sir, a 21-fold increase in the number of workers who are involved in QCCs over the last six years from 2,000-odd in 1982 to 56,000-odd in 1988. He next asked whether training has become a tradition in Singapore and what assistance NPB is giving to help companies. I do not think there are figures which would indicate whether training has become a tradition in Singapore.”
“Of course, the OHQ (Overseas Headquarters) Tax Incentive has also been formulated to attract leading MNCs to use Singapore as their operational and management centre for this region. Sir, as a result of all these promotion efforts, the following results have been achieved. In 1987 there were 50 service projects that were committed. In 1988 the corresponding number is 70 and I have asked for a list of the service projects that were promoted in 1988. Again it is a rather long one. So let me just take the top three. Under the Category of Exhibition Services there is the Suntech Exhibition and Convention Centre with a fixed asset investment of $1 billion, there is the Tang Village Theme Park with a fixed asset investment of $50 million and recently, the Member may have read about Cecci Gori, an Italian film production company with a fixed asset investment of $34 million. In addition to the fixed asset investment, these projects have also brought in total business spending generated of $200 million a year in 1987 and slightly more, $260 million, in 1988. The net result is that this multi-agency partnership approach has borne fruit. It has got encouraging results and it has provided us with the competitive edge in attracting these service sector investments. The Government will continue to enhance this multi-agency network and will ensure that Singapore continues to be an attractive location for services.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, may I respond to the Member for Eunos GRC's question of EDB's promotion of services. First of all, as the Member is well aware, the services sector has been identified as one of the twin engines of growth; the other being manufacturing. The Government has therefore given it the same level of support in terms of incentives as well as promotional efforts as it has done for manufacturing. As he has also pointed out, individual service industries come under the purview of various Ministries and statutory boards - financial services under MAS, telecommunications under Telecoms and so on. So what EDB has done is to adopt a multi-agency approach to the promotion of services. To coordinate this multi-agency approach, a Services Promotion Division was set up in EDB in June 1986 and a Services Sector Policy Committee, a multi-agency committee, which is chaired by the EDB Chairman, was also formed to coordinate all these promotion efforts. A third body, the Services Sector Advisory Panel, which comprises key individuals from the private sector, provides feedback on Government polices affecting the services sector. The Member has also asked what are the various services, the areas that the EDB has found promising for further promotion. The list is a rather long one, but let me just take the top, perhaps four, which the EDB has targetted. There is the Agrotechnology Services, Information Technology and Telecommunications Services, Medical Services and Leisure, Entertainment and Exhibition Services. The various tax incentives that are being used: Pioneer Service Incentive, Investment Allowance Incentive, Export Incentive for Services which were previously available only to the manufacturing sector have now been extended to the Services Sector.”
“This study will produce at its conclusion a recommended ideal limit for Singapore's carrying capacity taking into account such factors as social, geographical and economic considerations.”
“The targets are achievable if we intensify our overseas promotion efforts and our PR efforts and if we capitalize also on the gradual fruition of the tourism development projects mooted under the $1 billion tourism products development plan over the next five years. If STPB feels that there is a possibility of supply falling short of demand, as is the case over the next three to five years, it will make known its projections to the private sector and also liaise with URA to release adequate number of sites for the private sector to develop new hotels. But ultimately, Sir, whatever the projections, it is up to the private sector to look at these figures, to do their own sums, and then to use their own business acumen and judgment to make their own decisions. Sir, the Member for Cairnhill also asked if the Government has made any studies on the adverse impact of tourism on our social and on our morale values. Sir, I am happy to inform the House that there are no indications that the local population is under threat of adverse social effects resulting from the influx of tourists to Singapore. In fact, this observation is supported by a study carried out by the NUS entitled the "Economic and Social Impact of Tourism on Singapore, 1987/88". The study was carried out by none other than the Member for Cairnhill himself in conjunction with a Mr Habibullah Khan and Mr Chou Fee Seng of the NUS. Sir, on that authoritative source the study concluded that the social benefits of tourism far outweigh any adverse impact. May I add that the STPB is in the process now of commissioning a definitive study on the social and economic implications of tourism in 1989 and the likely impact of tourism over the next five years.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, in response to the Member for Tiong Bahru GRC, I must say I do sympathize with him. And since he obviously feels very strongly about this matter, although I would not claim that the buck would stop at the Ministry of Trade and Industry, nevertheless I should make sure that if he files a question for oral answer, he will get a satisfactory answer. Incidentally, I do not think this is what my Minister had in mind when he appointed me Chairman of the Economic Policy Review Committee. But I do not think the Member deserves to be given a run around this time. Next, may I turn to the questions posed by the Member for Cairnhill. First of all, let me assure the Member for Cairnhill that the Government does not encourage hoteliers to increase their rates. However, neither can it discourage and prices are left to the market to decide. But what it does do is to monitor through the STPB the supply and demand. So what STPB does is to monitor the supply of hotel rooms in Singapore and it does so regularly through half-yearly surveys of hoteliers and developers as well as to keep in close contact with the relevant approval authorities such as MND and URA. And, of course, it also projects the demand; in other words, the number of tourist arrivals. On this point of tourist arrivals, maybe I should answer the question posed by the Member at this point. He asked what are the Government's projections of tourist arrivals over the next five years. Last year, FY 88, we enjoyed a total number of 4.2 million tourist arrivals. STPB estimates that there will be an annual growth of between 7% and 8%.”
“So while we may be more stringent in selecting projects to be promoted as our economy matures and, in fact, as our resource constraints become more binding, EDB has to continue with this investment promotion effort, simply to make sure that existing activities are continuously replaced by higher value added ones as we go along. And this is really a necessary part of our self renewal process. Mr Bernard Chen: Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I would just like to take up a point that the Member for Tanglin raised just now and I will try and do so within the time that you have allocated me. The Member expressed reservations just now about the EDB continuing to promote investments while we are facing a labour shortage and he asked what the priority industries that the EDB was targetting. As I answer this question, I am also reminded of similar reservations that the Member for Brickworks raised during the budget debate. In fact, he went further to suggest that a board of investments be set up to regulate and evaluate foreign investment flows to Singapore. I think, first of all, we must recognize that Singapore's economy has always been based on free market principles. So allocation of resources like labour and land has always been done through the price mechanism and is not centrally regulated by Government. Similarly, businesses are free to take up any project and bid for these resources. In other words, investment flows are allowed to come in freely. And the investor himself is the best judge of whether he will locate his project in Singapore and whether it will provide him with the comparative advantage over other locations. Sir, this free market approach has worked well for us and has ensured efficiency in resource allocation and use. I do not believe there are any compelling reasons for us to abandon this approach. The EDB supplements this mechanism through its investment promotion programmes and it brings in high quality projects which are compatible with our economic development strategies and objectives. So many of the new projects that EDB is targetting would incorporate higher value added activities like design and R&D. And in so doing, the value added per worker is raised.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 8, lines 3 and 4, to leave out "(b), (c), (d) and (e)". as the word "industrial" in the main body of section 19 will also have to be replaced by "business". This was overlooked earlier. Amendment agreed to. Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed. ADJOURNMENT”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 8, line 2, after "sections", to insert "11(3)," as the word "industrial" in section 11(3) of the existing Act will have to be replaced by the word "business". Section 11(3) has been left out earlier. Amendment agreed to.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, after line 5, to insert - "(b) by deleting the words "an industrial" in the definition of "underwrite" and substituting the words "a business". Sir, this paragraph has been erroneously omitted earlier. Amendment agreed to.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may respond to the first point made by the Member. I agree with the Member that in view of our scarce resources it would not be a good idea for EDB and TDB to impinge upon each other's territory. I would like to reassure the Member that this is not going to be the intention. In fact, the EDB has made it very clear that it seeks to have a cooperative effort in all its promotion endeavours. In this particular case it is cooperating actively with the Trade Development Board in the promotion of exportable services. This is what I mentioned in my Second Reading speech that the EDB is primarily concerned with the tradable exportable services. As far as the second clarification that was sought by the Member, the creation of a CEO post, this is actually a streamlining of the organizational structure within the EDB and it does not have any further repercussions. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2”
“The opportunity is also taken to make the following amendments to streamline the Board's operations and to provide administrative flexibility, as well as to bring them in line with the practices of other major statutory boards: (a) Section 5 of the Act is amended: (i) for the Board to comprise the Chairman and not less than 4 and not more than 11 other members instead of the present provisions for the Board to comprise the Chairman and Director and not less than 4 and not more than 10 other members; and (ii) to allow the Board to meet at such times and places as it may determine instead of the present provision for monthly meetings; (b) Sections 7 and 11 are amended to give the Board the discretion to determine the designation, duties and responsibilities of the Chief Executive Officer; and (c) Sections 23, 24 and 25 are amended and a new Schedule inserted to incorporate model provisions on matters of audit laid down by the Auditor-General which all statutory boards are required to comply with. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The roles and responsibilities of the Economic Development Board (EDB) have broadened substantially since the Economic Development Board Act was last amended in April 1975. In 1986, the Economic Committee identified the services sector as an important and key growth sector for Singapore. The responsibility for promoting internationally tradeable ser- vices has been assigned to the EDB. In addition, EDB has also taken on the responsibility of promoting the development of local small and medium enterprises (SMEs). To provide EDB with the additional mandate to promote the services sector as well as to develop SMEs, the Bill proposes to: (a) amend section 17 of the Act to include a broader definition of "services" which is not covered under the existing Act; and (b) to replace the term "industrial enterprise or enterprises" wherever it appears with "business enterprise or enterprises", as defined in the amended section 2. The Bill also proposes a new section 5A to specify the Board's functions which were not defined previously.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I was responding to the Member's point that the root cause of the illegal immigrant problem in Singapore is that there is a shortage of workers and therefore the solution is to relax the controls to allow foreign workers into Singapore. I was trying to explain and reiterate the point that this is not in our interest and because we cannot allow an unceasing flow of foreign workers into Singapore, therefore, that is not a solution which is tenable.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I also point out that if we were to have the solution as proposed, whereby the Ministry of Labour were to allow all foreign workers into Singapore on request, whether it is for local or whether it is for foreign, companies there really is not any difference in consequences. When we allow foreign workers into Singapore, one of the first things they are going to do is to depress the wages in Singapore and I do not think that is in our interest.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to respond to one of the comments that was made by the Member for Paya Lebar as well as other Members of this House, and that is, the suggestion that the root cause of the problem of illegal immigrants is the shortage of workers in Singapore. The words used were "there is work but there are no workers." However, may I take this opportunity to point out that this is not a debate on the foreign workers' problem arising from a shortage of workers. This matter has been debated in this House already and my Minister last week in this House reiterated the Government's stand on the question of foreign workers. It is perfectly clear that if we were to use the foreign workers as a solution to our problem on shortage of workers,then I am afraid there will be many, many other problems that are going to arise. First of all, there is the question of wages. I do not intend to go into all the arguments again but the problem is that if we allow an unceasing flow of foreign workers into Singapore our wages are going to be held down permanently and in fact the reason why there are so many foreign workers in Singapore is that we have high wages here. The foreign workers levy is another reason why we have had this problem of illegal immigrants. It is not merely a question of the supply of foreign workers. It is also because we have had to raise the foreign workers levy and I suspect that not a few of the illegal immigrants or the contractors or the employers of illegal immigrants do so because they wish to escape the foreign workers levy.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I explained in my reply just now, the forecast was made at the end of 1987 and, as it turned out, actual growth, as the Member rightly pointed out, was much more. But there were extenuating circumstances as to why the forecast in the end turned out to be wrong. As I have indicated earlier, MTI will revise its forecast on a quarterly basis. INCREASE IN BUSINESS COST (Fear of recession) 8. Mr Choo Wee Khiang asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether he will comment on the fears expressed by some members of the business community that the increases in the foreign workers levy, the employers' contributions to the Central Provident Fund and road tax may drive up business cost and push the economy into another recession.”
“Sir, MTI forecast growth for 1989 at 6-7% and the Member realizes that this was only released some three weeks ago. Barring unforeseen circumstances and in the light of the data that we have, I must advise that the estimate is the best that is currently available. But of course, as I said, if we are proven wrong and growth exceeds our forecast we will be glad.”
“Instead, let us encourage them to venture but leave their hearts behind, to make their mark on the world stage, but always to keep their links. And let us welcome them back - whether they are footballers, singers, scientists or managers - when they are ready to return. Sir, I highlight the emigration issue because I believe it is one of the key factors that could affect our long-term growth. The brain drain may only be a trickle now, but let us make sure it does not turn into a flood. We cannot stop anyone from leaving, but if we can fulfil his potential and his personal aspirations - whether it is owning an apartment, or a car, or holidays abroad or more leisure activities - why should he leave? If we can give him hope that tomorrow can and will be better than today for him and for his family, why should he subject himself and his family to the uncertainty of the future in another country? Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, if we can make him feel that he has a role to play and a contribution to make to the development of his country, that he belongs here, that this is his home, I see no reason why we cannot meet the realistic aspirations of all Singaporeans during the next decade and achieve our vision of a Nation of Excellence. Sir, I support the motion.”
“As the Member for Siglap mentioned a few days ago, "they feel constrained and restless." They want less regulations, more freedom. I hear people complain that ours is a "one-mistake" society with no room for failure, no second chance. They do not want their children to be pressured in school. They do not want to be told to excel. In short, they want to opt out of the rat race. Unfortunately, Sir, some of these people discover too late that they have opted out from one rat race only to land in another, but with different rats. Sir, we aim to be a Nation of Excellence. There is nothing for us to be apologetic about. As the Minister for Communications and Information put it recently, excellence for all does not mean all of us being number one, but each one of us fulfilling our potential and being the best we can be. Nobody can quarrel with this. Perhaps it may have been misunderstood, in which case we should make it clearer. However, I sometimes wonder whether it is only a matter of more freedom, less pressure, or whether it is also a perception of being able to get greater or even the same returns for less effort. Is it possible? Can we get more for less? Experience has shown that this may be sustainable in the short term, but not in the long run, no matter how well-endowed the country. How else then can we, a country with much less natural resources, make it except to reward talent, effort, resourcefulness and hard work? Maybe there are those who feel that the pyramid is too narrow at the top, that opportunities are not available here for them to fulfil their full potential. If this is the case, then we should not discourage them from leaving or make them feel that they are traitors to the cause or close the doors to their return.”
“Two days ago in this House, Sir, we heard the Member for Bukit Timah talk about "child ownership" when he meant "car ownership". Maybe he did not make a mistake after all, for to some Singaporeans a car is almost as precious as a child! Then there are those who feel that Singapore is too cramped, too small. They long for the wide open spaces, the long drive in the countryside, the rolling hills and the plains. We may not have much to offer in this respect, although I must add that we should not short change ourselves. Four million tourists must know something that we do not. However, given the real desire to get away from it all, we can create the environment and the opportunity for Singaporeans to hold good paying jobs, still have enough time left over to spend their holidays in countries with wide open spaces and rolling hills and plains. Sir, as we have made the world our market place, there is no reason why we cannot make it our playground. Apart from this quality of life, there is also the quality of our work life. We spend the greater part of our waking hours at the work place. The Government cannot intervene directly at the work place. But it can provide the encouragement, the incentives, for companies to improve the quality of work life for their employees. Government can look after the basic housing, medical and educational needs of the population. Companies, however, should be encouraged to supplement and complement these with schemes of their own - housing/renovation loans, better medical benefit schemes, and retraining and skills upgrading programmes for their employees. Sir, there is yet another group of people who decide to leave because they feel they cannot cope with the pressures of our lifestyle.”
“If they perceive that the gains are not commensurate with the effort they have put in, or the sacrifices that they have made, I believe they will seek out new opportunities where these aspirations can be realised, in their life-time. The challenge that the government faces is how to create opportunities and options for Singaporeans to realise these personal aspirations, given the constraints that exist in Singapore. When our forefathers came to Singapore, it was in search of the good life. This they have achieved for themselves through their sacrifices, their hard work and their trust in good, strong government. But just as our forefathers came to Singapore for the better life, so too the younger generation are seeking first the economic rewards in the country that their fathers have built. There is, however, one major difference, then and now. Today, the young Singaporean, well-educated, highly-skilled, literate in English, has many options open to him - Canada, United States, Australia, New Zealand. In my conversations with Singaporeans, professionals in their early '30s, I sense this strong urge, this desire, to acquire the symbols of the good life - among other things, a house, a car; especially a car. Some professionals jokingly tell me that when their friends or relatives from abroad visit them, they often ask, "So you earn a good salary... where's your car?" Sir, the challenge in our case is this. Given that we have limited road space, given that we need to keep these roads relatively congestion free, can we work out some viable options such that, within these constraints, Singaporeans can still be able to afford to own a car, the modern-day symbol of the good life.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there is another voting pattern that is developing which suggests to me that all is not well. I am referring to those who voted not with their hands but with their feet. I am reminded of the remarks that the Member for Ayer Rajah once made in this House during the last Parliament, and I quote: 'Running a country is not like running a company. We cannot sack our people if they are less effective.' The Member for Ayer Rajah is correct. We cannot "sack" our people if they are not good enough. But let us not forget that there is nothing to stop them from "resigning" and leaving the country if they feel that we are not good enough. Like any good management, I suggest the Government should take a closer look at what is going on. We should do so not only because we are losing precious manpower and talent, a loss that we can ill afford. We should also do so because it tells us why it is happening and what we can do about it. Who are leaving? Why are they leaving? What are they looking for? What are their hopes and aspirations? It is possible that we may not like some of the answers that we get. But I am reassured because it has never been the nature of this Government to shy away from the truth no matter how unpleasant. To ignore this problem, Sir, is to ignore a time bomb ticking in our midst. Sir, every generation has its own aspirations, built on the foundations laid by the hard work of the last. Young Singaporeans have grown up in an era of political stability and high economic growth. They want to enjoy the fruits of what their country has achieved.”
“The reason is very simple. It is to protect Members of Parliament from being accused of benefitting from such inside information. Sir, may I return to the dream? Over four years have passed. One term of government has been completed. We are almost one-third of the way towards 1999. How have we done so far? Are we on the right track? Are we on schedule? Our economy has shaken off the problems of the recession and emerged stronger, fitter and more broad based. Our national wealth has grown by 6% per annum, notwithstanding the years of zero and negative growth. The City is being transformed not only by the building of the new but also by the restoration of the old. The MRT has moved smoothly into our lives. Exciting plans for Marina City have been revealed. The people turned up in full force to celebrate National Day 1988 and an unprecedented 250,000 people turned Orchard Road into the world's biggest disco one hot August night last year. Sir, I believe we are on the right track and on schedule to our dream of a Nation of Excellence by 1999. And yet, Mr Speaker, Sir, all does not appear to be well. The results of the last General Election tell us something. We have all done our analysis of the voting patterns and we have all come to our own conclusions. But one message is coming through loud and clear, that Singaporeans want to see some Opposition in Parliament, even as they want to have a good government. I therefore strongly support the Government's intention to not only review the NCMP scheme but also to increase the number of NCMPs. I believe that not only is this sensitive to the wishes of the people, but that it will also educate the people on what makes for good government.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by the Member for Siglap, thanking the President for his Address to Parliament. Mr Speaker, Sir, the President began his Address to this Seventh Parliament with these words: "My Government's goal is to create a better life for all Singaporeans." Simple, short and sweet. In this one sentence, Sir, is captured the reason that brings us together in this House. In it also is captured the hopes and dreams of all Singaporeans. However, realizing this dream is far from simple. It is certainly not achievable in a short time and the measures to be taken may not always be sweet. But I remember a line from a poem written by an American, Carl Sandburg, which went something like this: "Nothing happens unless first a dream". We have such a dream. It is up to us to make it happen. In 1984, the Government unveiled a Vision - a vision to build, by 1999, a Nation of Excellence and a Society of Distinction. Then we had the National Agenda discussions, a process of consultation, of fine-tuning, of arriving at a consensus, of making sure that we are all dreaming the same dream. Finally, out of all this came the Agenda for Action. Sir, while on the question of consultation, yesterday the hon. Member for Fengshan criticized the Ministry of Communications and Information for not discussing the diesel and road tax increases with the GPC beforehand. Yes, the Government is committed to a consultative process of decision - making and of building consensus. The Member must know that the Government has done much to facilitate this process. But as an experienced Member, he must also know that there are certain issues which the Government cannot discuss beforehand. And one such issue is the timing of tax increases.”