N. Govindasamy
Singapore
“Sir, in the hope that the Ministry of Finance will release the funds required for the Telok Blangah community centre within the next six months, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr J F.”
“Member for Serangoon Gardens, would show that numerous criticisms were made in this Chamber. Some of the pitfalls of the education policies were pointed out and they could have been avoided.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am still a little confused. Would the Minister of State categorically state in this House whether the restructured education scheme is on or off? Even the teachers and the principals are arguing among themselves whether the restructured education scheme is on or off.”
“Sir, I have no intention of joining in. The problem here is riot a question of marrying abroad or in Singapore. The problem is still faced by people who were married in Singapore. There is the case of a woman who has been married here for eight years and has four children all living here in a Housing Board flat.”
“Perhaps when the Minister replies he will want to use it. Sir, the woman has been here for eight years. She was married in the Singapore Registry of Marriages. Four children were born in Singapore and they are now living in a Housing Board flat.”
“Sir, the Minister has set a specific number of hours and he says. "Well, if they do their part-time national service in 12 years they will have to do so many hours of work, and if we reduce it to five years, then they must perform the same number of hours of duties." This would mean that they have to go for duty practically everyday.”
The complete record
Every one of 564 lines we hold for N. Govindasamy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 12.
“Sir, in 1968, 2,302 teachers were recruited. May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary by what criteria these teachers were recruited?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary has admitted that the average income calculated since 1953 has gone up by some $40 when a late review was made in 1968. On this admission itself, does the Parliamentary Secretary not feel that it is time for a revision of the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a point of clarification. The Parliamentary Secretary has been talking about the teaching service. I fail to equate the teaching service issue with a better system of secondary education. I fail to see the connection at all.”
“All the same, it is the avowed policy of our Government that no student is to be deprived of an education because of financial hardship. A survey of the drop-outs from secondary schools, I am sure, will reveal interesting facts and figures concerning the family income of such students who have dropped out of school. I do not know whether the Government is planning to undertake such a survey, particularly in relation to the socio-economic aspect of the home environment of the students who drop out. But I do know that financial hardship is the real, if not the main reason for parents to plead for financial assistance for their children who are in secondary schools. I agree that nothing can be given free, but we must understand the plight of families who cannot even afford to pay the school fees of their children attending secondary schools. I am sure that our efficient Minister for Education will give his sympathetic consideration to the very pressing problems of the underprivileged children. 6.35 p.m.”
“If the students do not return home they have to spend additional money on some necessary refreshments. If they go home for their meals, it is necessary for them to incur additional bus fares. In giving vent to the grievances and grouses of parents in the lower income groups whose children are attending secondary schools. I am in agreement with their justified contention that the cost of secondary education could have been minimised to some extent if the Ministry had exercised some imagination in this direction. I have, therefore, two suggestions to put forward for the consideration of the Ministry. They are: 1. The creation and maintenance of a central poo1 of teaching aids and implements such as T-squares. set squares and other geometrical instruments of the type required for technical drawing. It is appreciated that consumer articles such as pencils, pins and stationery do not lend themselves to such a pooling arrangement, but a school can arrange for the bulk purchase of such material and sell them without profit to the students. This will help to save untold trouble for the parents and the students who invariably have to spend a lot of time hunting for particular types that have been recommended by teachers. 2. A more liberal policy of awarding bursaries or remission of school fees and the loan of textbooks to students whose parents are not financially well off. In making these two suggestions, I am fully cognisant of the fact that the education budget is already very high and that we cannot go on increasing the budget just to afford an opportunity for secondary education to students who may not even complete the full course of secondary education.”
“For instance, the remission of school fees for parents who are not financially well off by reason of fixing the arbitrary figure of earned income of $200 per month as a means test for qualifying for remission of school fees. It is true that the Government has a scheme of bursaries or financial assistance for students in the secondary schools. The voted provision for such bursaries this year amounts to $1.35 million, which works out to an average of $8.40 per student in the secondary classes. This, Members of the House will agree, hardly bears comparison with the actual cost of textbooks for a secondary class amounting to about $80 inclusive of school fees, Besides shouldering the expenditure on school fees and textbooks, parents also have to pay for the bus fares and pocket money of their children who are fortunate enough to be enrolled in secondary classes. The Secondary I pupils in some schools have to stay behind at least once a week for technical drawing and workshop practice and in some schools they have to stay behind twice a week because of the lack of workshop facilities in many schools. Again, in accordance with the policy of our Government to develop a rugged society, students are now required to participate in more and more extracurricular activities. With the extensions of sports and athletic meets and parades of uniformed organisations at various levels, it becomes increasingly necessary sometimes for students to spend the whole day in school. For instance, those in the morning sessions have to come in the afternoon to participate in extramural activities. For those in the afternoon sessions, it is necessary for the students concerned to come to school in the morning.”
“Thus it would be accurate to say that to maintain a student in a secondary school, it is necessary for his parents to spend about $50 or $60 a year on books and other educational materials in addition to the school fees of $6 per month which works out roughly to an average of $11 per month per student in a secondary class. At the risk of boring Members of the House, I wish to stress that the cost of secondary education is too burdensome for a family in the lower income group. I have previously referred to the remission of school fees by the Ministry of Education in the case of families whose monthly income is less than $200. Such remission is again subject to the condition that only a maximum of 10 per cent of the total number of students enrolled in a particular school are to be allowed such remission. Such a 10 per cent limit is strictly applied irrespective of whether the school is situated in the urban or rural area. It stands to reason that a greater percentage of students in secondary schools in the rural area are from families in the lower income group as compared to students in secondary schools in the urban area. Yet no consideration has been given by the Ministry to this fact in applying the rigid limit of 10 per cent of students to be given remission of school fees. Thus, on paper it may seem very grand that our educational policy permits the maximum number of children of our citizens to avail themselves of a secondary education with the assistance of the Government. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 6.30 p.m. In reality, the position is not so rosy as I have shown earlier.”
“Thus, it is not surprising that it is possible to compile a price index to show that the cost of living has gone down by 50 per cent while every housewife in Singapore has found, from bitter experience, that the cost of living has increased rather than decreased. To return to my point, however, I would say that a family with an income of $200 per month can barely afford secondary education for the children, This is more so with the introduction of compulsory technical subjects in Secondary I and II, The reason for the additional cost is the necessary expenditure of money for the purchase of drawing boards, workshop-aprons and geometrical instruments which are required for the technical subjects. From inquiries I have made, the lowest amount that is required to be spent on the purchase of such equipment is approximately $15. Besides such additional expenditure, there is the normal expenditure for the purchase of textbooks. Again, from inquiries I have made, I am able to quote the least amount of money that must be spent on the necessary textbooks for the secondary classes, The figures are as follows: Secondary I $35 (for textbooks alone) Secondary II $30 Secondary III $59 (for pure Science Stream) $50 (for non-Science Stream) Secondary IV $30 These figures are hypothetical figures based on the cheapest textbooks available. The actual figure may be around $80 when all the other equipment is bought for each of the secondary classes, as I understand each school has its own selection of textbooks to be used by students.”
“Whatever may be the actual reasons for the selection of the figure of $200 per month, the figure is arbitrary and ridiculous as a means test. Reference here must be made to the Urban Incomes and Housing - a Report on the Social Survey of Singapore 1953-54 prepared by our Finance Minister, Dr Goh Keng Swee. On the basis of data obtainable in 1953-54, the result of the survey indicates that a minimum monthly income to sustain a family of four (man, wife and two children) in bare comfort is $101.85. Such a figure was arrived at on the basis of the bare necessities, such as food, that are required for the survival of the family and do not take into consideration various luxury items such as cigarettes and entertainment. But most important of all, no account was taken of the expenses of educating the children, not even at primary level, not to speak of secondary level. Another factor that was not taken into consideration is the cost of housing for the family. Assuming that the family is occupying the cheapest Housing Board accommodation at $50 per month, it would appear that a family of four requires at least $151 to house and feed itself on the basis of the findings in the 1953-54 Report. But from our investigations, it appears that the cost of living has increased by about 20.5 per cent over the last 15 years since the conduct of the survey in 1953-54. I am quite certain that our price index and cost of living index etc. may even show that the cost of living has gone down over the past few years. I am quite aware that the price index, the cost of living index and other statistical indices can be manipulated by assigning different weights to different components in indices.”
“Others, even those whose parents are in receipt of public assistance from the Social Welfare Department, are expected to pay at least a fee of $1 for miscellaneous purposes. Thus even a student from a family with no income at all is expected to pay at least a fee of $1 per month for the luxury of secondary education, But the point I wish to make is that the conditions prescribed by the Ministry of Education for the remission of school fees from $6 per month to $1 per month are extremely rigid and restrictive to such an extent that it is possible for a student from a family in very difficult financial circumstances not to be granted such a remission of school fees. I refer, Sir, to the two conditions which must be satisfied before a student can be granted remission of school fees. The first is that the income of the student's family does not exceed $200 per month. The second is that the granting of such remission is subject to a maximum of 10 per cent of the total enrolment in each school being granted such remission. I do not know what is the basis for the selection of the magical figure of $200 per month family income as a means test for determining whether a student qualifies for remission of school fee, exemption from the miscellaneous fee and entitlement to free textbooks. I may be wrong, but it appears to me that the Ministry has chosen the figure of $200 because that is the figure mentioned in the Central Provident Fund Ordinance for the purpose of exempting an employee from making contributions under the Ordinance, it appears to be the reasoning of the Ministry of Education that if a family bread-earner can afford to pay C.P.F. contributions from his income of more than $200 per month, he should be able to pay the school fees of his children in secondary school.”
“But I must also hasten to add that our Ministry of Education has done well to fashion its policies to meet the changing economic circumstances of Singapore. The recent emphasis on technical education is in keeping with the transition of Singapore's economy from entrepot trade to manufacturing industries. The channelling of students at the end of their second year of secondary education into various educational streams, in accordance with their respective aptitudes or skills as determined from their academic records, is in consonance with the rational development of our national resources. The Ministry, however, does not appear to give any thought to the minimisation of the economic effect of the readjustment of its policies on the parents of the students concerned. To my mind, it is a singular failure on the part of the Ministry not to take into consideration the problem of human relations when effecting changes in policy, thus showing an ignorance of the problems of our citizens. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 6.20 p.m. While it is not possible for the Government to implement a scheme of free secondary education, it is reasonably expected of our Government, which subscribes to pragmatic socialism, to bring secondary education within the means of as many citizens as possible. But, contrary to such reasonable ex pectations, many citizens, particularly those from the lower income group, have found the cost of educating their children to a secondary level prohibi tively expensive. As hon. Members of the House are aware, every student in a secondary school has to pay a school fee of $4 per month plus a fee of $2 for miscellaneous purposes, thus making a total of $6 per month. The only students who are exempted from the payment of such fees are students of Malay origin.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore Government has prided itself on its pragmatic socialism and, in accordance with its socialist principles, has introduced and implemented various social projects and schemes for the benefit of its citizens. Not the least praiseworthy effort of the Government has been that in the field of education. We are one of the few countries in Asia to provide free primary education for the children of our citizens in the language media of their own free choice. It is not surprising that today in Singapore illiteracy has ceased to be a problem. The Government, however, to give it due credit, has not contented itself with merely providing free primary education but has made plans to provide similarly free secondary education for our citizens. It is unfortunate that the scheme for free secondary education could not be implemented for various reasons of national exigencies. The indonesian confrontation, followed by our separation from Malaysia and the accelerated withdrawal of the British Armed Forces, has in no small way contributed to making this scheme economically unfeasible. It is inevitable that our scarce financial resources have to be channelled away from social projects to cater for more vital needs, namely, our industrialisation programme and defence responsibilities. The generous response to the National Defence Fund from all sections of our citizens, however, is sufficient indication of the realisation and the appreciation by our citizens of the magnitude of our national problems. But while our citizens understand the problems of the Government, I am sad to say that a similar compliment cannot be paid to the authorities in charge of administering our educational policy.”
“Sir, will the Minister consider building an overhead bridge near Kandang Kerbau Market?”
“Sir, it is not a matter of old houses being valued at City Council rates, but a matter of houses in the same estate being valued at different rates and certain houses being given concessions -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am raising my query not to seek a legal opinion from the Minister but to seek clarification in respect of clause 6 (2) of the Bill. The Bill contains provisions which empower Radio and Television Singapura to make records or tape from gramophone records and telecast and broadcast the taped records. Am I right in assuming that one can make a record or tape the broadcast which has already been taped by Radio and Television Singapura without infringing the provisions of the Bill? If my interpretation is correct, will the Bill not open itself to abuse by pirates?”
“Sir, an old flat is an old flat, irrespective of the repairs that are carried out to it. Can the Minister say whether there will be a change in the prices of Housing Board flats in the future?”
“Sir, in view of the large number of applicants waiting for one-room flats, what plans has the Housing Board to rectify this position in the future'?”
“On a point of clarification, Sir. We cannot get away with by saying that we have a problem on our hands and that we do not want to have additional problems. But, as I have said, these are cases of residents who are working here and who are still here. If they were not born in the Federation, if they were born in Thailand or India, they could go to their respective Consulates and get stateless certificates and then they could get their passports here. This discrimination is only for those born in the Federation. If they have been living here for some years and if they have permanent residence and jobs here, at least some consideration should be given to them so that they can go to the Federation when they want to, especially in view of the good relationship between Singapore and the Federation. Somebody has to look into their problems to see that they are given freedom of travel.”
“I will try to be as brief as possible, Sir. This refers to persons who are non-citizens but have been residents in Singapore for a number of years. Some of them have qualified for citizenship and their cases are pending approval or disapproval. Others who have not qualified due to lack of residential qualification are unable to obtain restricted passports to go across the causeway. Sir, if these persons were born either in India or Thailand or anywhere else, they could go to the respective High Commissioner Consulates to obtain letters stating they are stateless and we would have no objection in issuing them passports. Unfortunately, the people who were born across the causeway were not given a certificate of stateless- ness by their High Commissions and we turned them away. Eventually, they will come to feel that they are prisoners in Singapore and are unable to get out even if they want to. Sir, it is easy to say that we want them to go away because they are not our responsibility but the responsibility of Malaysia. But we should not forget that they have been here for a number of years with no intention of going back and yet are unable to go across the causeway. I hope the Minister will look into these cases which are numerous indeed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Members who spoke before me have brought up some points of interest. I have similar issues which have to be looked into by the Immigration Department. In the course of my meetings with my constituents, dissatisfaction has been expressed with the manner in which the Immigration Department appears to operate. As the Immigration Department is only part of the portfolio of our Minister, I think this is the proper place to air some of the grievances.”
“May I enquire from the Minister if further negotiations will be conducted between the Ministry of Education and other categories of teachers on similar findings of the Commission which do not appear to have taken into adequate consideration the recommendations made by the Government, as well as by the employees' unions? Sir, in the private sector, if both the employers' and employees' unions agree that a certain category of posts can and should be considered as promotion posts, the resultant negotiations conducted by the parties involved are confined to the quantum of remuneration for the pro motion posts. In other words, the dispute centres on the fair and equitable remuneration that is payable to the holders of the promotion posts. The terms of the negotiated settlement are then incorporated into a collective agreement which sets out the salary scales for such posts and it is duly certified and registered by the Industrial Arbitration Court~ In the Ministry of Education, there are two issues which merit similar treatment and yet the Harvey Salaries Commission has somehow overlooked the recommendations made by the employers as well as by the employees' unions.”
“In view of the circumstances which I have just set out, I hope the Minister for Education will take the necessary action to remove these anomalies by entering into negotiations with the unions in order to bring about an amicable and equitable settlement of the issues. As a matter of fact, the Harvey Salaries Commission has recommended in paragraph 198 of its Report that the structure and reorganisation of the Ministry of Education must be looked into. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I, at the same time, congratulate the Ministry of Education on being far- sighted and willing to rectify mistakes made by the Harvey Salaries Comniission. I refer to a newspaper report yesterday that the Ministry of Education had entered into negotiations with the Malay Teachers' Union on the unduly and unreasonably depressed salary scales recommended by the Harvey Salaries Commission for religious teachers in Singapore. Sir, we recognise that no one, not even a commission of eminent persons, is infallible. It is quite obvious that the Harvey Salaries Commission has, unintentionally or unwittingly, made some recommendations which are not in keeping with the aspirations of our Republic and or with the recommendations of the various Government departments and the employees' unions. It is commendable that the Government has accepted the Commission's recommendations with some modifica tions. There is scope for further adjustments of the recommendations as the negotiations going on at the moment between the Ministry of Education and the Malay Teachers' Union clearly indicate.”
“However, with the intensification of the school-building programme, the shortage of senior and experienced teachers for promotion as principals became so acute that, as a temporary measure, the practice of appointing one principal for both morning and afternoon sessions was adopted. Unfortunately, this temporary measure became, with the passage of time, a permanent policy of the Ministry of Education and, at the moment, there is only one principal for both the morning and afternoon sessions. Where principals cannot be present throughout the whole of the afternoon session, senior assistants are then appointed to manage the school for and on behalf of the principals. These senior assistants are not given additional remuneration although they are made to shoulder additional responsibilities. After repeated representations by the unions, the Ministry of Education agreed with the unions that it was an inequitable situation which had to be rectified and that a recommendation to this effect would be made by the Ministry to the Harvey Salaries Commission. But it appears that the Harvey Salaries Commission has not given any consideration to this recommendation made by both the unions and the Ministry. The Ministry of Education is the only Government department where promotion posts do not carry different salary scales but only allowances. This practice is still continuing in spite of the fact that the Ministry of Education as well as the unions have agreed on numerous occasions that it creates injustices in many ways.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, prior to the setting up of the Harvey Salaries Commission by our Government, the Ministry of Education administered numerous salary scales for various categories of teachers with resultant anomalies and injustices. It was hoped by all that with the publication of the findings of the Commission, comprehensive and effective measures would be adopted to do away with, once and for all, the innumerable ramifications of the prevailing anomalies and that a unified salary structure would be drawn up. It is true that some anomalies have been rectified, but the overall position in the Ministry of Education remains as unsatisfactory as before. There were a number of issues which were considered not only by the unions representing the employees but also the Ministry of Education and: the Treasury to be in dire need of an equitable rectification. But the Harvey Commission appeared to have overlooked the representations made by the Ministry of Education as well as by the unions representing the teachers. I am sure it is not too late to rectify the anomalies since both parties - the Ministry of Education and the unions representing the teachers - agree that there is a need for rectification. In particular, there are two outstanding issues that should be resolved without any further delay: one, remuneration to the senior assistants and two, salary scales for promotion posts in the Ministry of Education. Sir, in the 1950's, all schools that operated two sessions had one principal for each session.”
“Point of clarification, Sir,I just want to find out whether the Parliamentary Secretary is wearing imported underwear or locally- made underwear.”
“Thus, I hope the Government will find some way and the neces sary funds to take care of our citizens who are hapless through no fault of their own. But, at the same time, I wish to congratulate the Government on presenting a reasonable Budget. The only trouble, from my viewpoint,, is that it leaves too many loose ends to strangle the ordinary citizens. 3.23 p.m.”
“It may be interesting if the Minister can arrange for the publication of data relating to the median distribution of gross domestic expenditure. Judging from the percentage of the population who have no other sources of income than the meagre allowances doled out by the Social Welfare Department, I would estimate that one-fifth of our population has a per capita gross domestic expenditure of not more than $400. We must also remember that non-citizens are not entitled to any Social Welfare relief. My point is that every year the Government progressively and in-directly reduces the vote allocated for Social Welfare relief, with the result that those dependent on the dole find it increasingly difficult to survive. The' vast majority of these unfortunate people are in their present predicament not because they are malingerers but because they cannot obtain employment. Some cases are particularly tragic because they represent the casualties in the transition of Singapore's economy from entrepot trade to manufacturing industry. There is no retraining scheme for the retrenched employees of import-export houses which closed down as a result of import quotas and tariffs. As these employees have meagre savings or are too old or possess unwanted skills for alternative employment, they have no choice but to go on the dole. In view of these circumstances, it would be extremely cynical of the Government to pursue its policy of promoting a rugged and robust society to the logical conclusion of starving the unemployable citizens to death. With the present rates of Social Welfare allowances, the recipients are condemned to an equally miserable fate of living death.”
“The Budget contains, for instance, a proposal to levy a 15 per cent tax on the sale of liquid petroleum fuel for cooking purposes. The justification is that such fuel is being sold at too competitive a price in relation to the rate charged for the Public Utilities Board gas. But the point is that vast areas of Singapore are not piped for the supply of P.U.B, gas. If the residents of a huge private housing estate, such as Serangoon Gardens, for instance, were to make applications for gas connection, it would be years before their applications can be considered. I would imagine that the Ministerial reply would be that the residents in private housing estates are more affluent and, therefore, in a better position to withstand the economic squeeze than the residents in Housing and Development Board housing estates. The only way to disprove such assumption is apparently to conduct a survey on the per capita income of the residents in the respective estates. If such a survey is not feasible or practical, then a rough count of the per capita distribution of cars, excluding those for commercial usage, may be of some help. This brings me to my last point, which concerns the state of the economy. The Minister has proudly pointed out that the economy of the Republic, while not exactly booming, has developed at a satisfactory rate and shows every indication of maintaining its momentum. A reference has been made, however, to the per capita gross domestic expenditure of Singapore as standing at $1,940 which represents a six per cent increase over that of last year and which conceivably gives Singapore a standard of living second to that of Japan in Asia. The figures cited, however, relate to the average pattern of distribution of gross domestic expenditure.”
“It may also be mentioned that the Minister has wide powers to impose quotas and other restrictions at any time whenever he deems necessary. Such quotas and restrictions only lead to a spiralling cost of living in the absence of any legislative restraint. The industrialists, however, would be fools if they do not take advantage of the artificial, near- monopolistic situations handed to them on a silver platter in the sacred name of development. The remedy is for the Government to enact legislation on quality control and retail price control or restrictions. The need for legislative restraint on our industrialists and developers is imperative, particularly from the long-term point of view. The Minister has, for instance, proudly referred to the number of hotels mushrooming in Singapore. Yet, in knowledgeable quarters, it is widely held that Singapore hotels are on the way to pricing themselves out of the tourist trade in this region. The damage done to Singapore's reputation as an inexpensive tourist centre, when the present shortage of hotel accommodation in the region is over, would be disastrous and irreparable. I have been given to understand that the organisers of packaged tours catering for major segments of the tourist trade are already beginning to leave Singapore out of their itineraries, as the high hotel prices in Singapore eat into their profits. Such being the situation, it is high time that the Government took some measures to balance the short- term interests of the entrepreneurs, who invest their capital here for profits, against the long-term interests of the ordinary citizens who make Singapore their home. It is said that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Substitute "monopoly" for "power" and we will not be too far wrong.”
“The licence to plunder given to the local importers and their business associates would not be so damaging if it were not for the fact that a resultant near-monopolistic situation is created for the local manufacturers of a range of protected goods. It is ironical that the local taxpayers who subsidise the so-called "pioneer" industrialists by way of tax exemption are abused and slandered if they try to get their money's 'worth by buying imported goods rather than contributing to the bulging pockets of the local industrialists. It is not surprising that the Singapore Manufacturers' Association is full of praise for the Budget which enshrines the principle that money begets money. The ordinary citizens who form the vast majority of the population have repeatedly been admonished by the Government not to rock the boat and to place national interests before their own selfish interests. Yet the local manu facturers, who continue to churn out inferior quality goods, such as "Malcoa", which are no substitute for imported brands, such as "Milo", and which have to be forced down the throats of the local consumers, are frequently complimented on their profit-orientated attitude and their non-competitive incompetency. The ridiculousness of the whole situation may be summed up by reference to commonplace goods in daily use, I refer to "Lux" soap, for instance, which when imported costs 25 cents a piece but when locally produced costs 60 cents a piece and looks less like soap. I should think the credibility talk about the benefits of industrialisation becomes more increasingly apparent and painful to the local consumers who must foot the bill both ways - tax exemptions as well as higher prices.”
“But when it comes to' enacting legislation to restrain the greed of our domestic breed of entrepreneurs, the Government seems to drag its feet. Yet time and time again, it has been observed that the increase in the retail price of any goods on which a tax is imposed is more than proportionate to-the amount of the tax. To illustrate this point from my actual experience, I inquired about the price of a certain imported brand of briefs and singlets the day after the publication of the' Budget, and I was not surprised to find that the price had increased from $1.20 to $1.60 a piece, representing a jump of 33 1/3 per cent. If I have to pay this 33 1/3 per cent increase, I would rather that it goes into the Government revenue to be utilised for the general benefit of all than for the particular enrichment of a few. The insult to injury is compounded when it is realised that if the Government were to' rescind the 15 per cent tax next year, the price of the brand of underwear to which I have referred would be decreased by not more than ten per cent, if at all. This is borne out by our sad experience after the devaluation of the sterling in November 1967. The Prime Minister optimistically affirmed that by maintaining the parity of the Singapore dollar the workers of Singapore were given, in effect, a 14 per cent increase in wages. It would be interesting to know how many imported British goods had their prices reduced by 14 per cent, if at all. I would not be surprised if the answer is none, given the avarice of the entrepreneurs who hold Singapore to ransom.”
“It is with some temerity that I attempt to point out such disincentive effect, as the Minister has thrown out a challenge to us to say that the proposals contained in the Budget are not necessary or correct. It is my intention, however, to try to avoid the challenge by restricting myself to pointing out the omission from the Budget of proposals that seem equally necessary and correct to me. I am concerned with the effect of, for instance, the imposition of 15 per cent tax on made-up garments which include underwear. Two reasons have, been advanced for such a tax. One is that it helps to promote our local industries. The other is that those who prefer imported foreign goods can very well pay for their preference. Granted that the reasons are valid, I do not think the duty of the Government should end with the imposition of tax alone. The reason why local consumers prefer to pay more for foreign goods than for the locally manufactured equivalent is simply that the former is far superior in quality. That being the reason, there seems hardly any justification that the taxpayer should in- directly continue to subsidise our local manufacturers who have been accorded enough privileges or incentives to make' the other citizens appear to be second-class, as it were. The need for some sort of quality control of locally manufactured goods seems reasonable before the Government starts penalising local consumers for alleged bias against local goods. In conjunction with quality control, it seems equally reasonable that there' should be some sort of retail price control or restriction The Government has not been averse to enacting legislation to curb fringe benefits obtainable by our workers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in admiration, but not wholly in support, of the business-like Budget that has been forcefully and persuasively presented by the Minister for Finance. The Budget, as I see it, can be divided into two parts. One deals with the need for an increase in the Government's revenue. The other spells out the precise manner in which the increase may be effected. There is no denying the validity of the Minister's contention that with Singapore assuming the responsibility for its own security and defence, it is necessary to find funds to train our citizens and equip them with the military hardware for our own defence. That is, as the Minister has pointed out, defence in the event of limited warfare - not warfare involving the super-powers. A convincing case has been made out for such realistically qualified defence of our Republic. It follows logically that new taxes have .to be imposed to make possible such defence. A snag here is that taxation does not seem to be conducive to the promotion of industrial development. The difficulty has been overcome, however, by adopting a policy of indirect taxation which is to be borne by those sufficiently affluent to bear it. The general impression seems to be that the Budget is as fair as can be in the circumstances. But I prefer to leave it to those Members in this House who represent the interests of the employers to point out in detail how the Budget is not expected to have any disincentive effect on the economy. For my part, I prefer to touch on the disincentive effect of the Budget on the workers of Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the comment contained in paragraph 198+ of the Commission's Report, will the Government consider setting up another commission to inquire into the basic reorganisation of the structure of the Ministry of Education? + Paragraph 198 reads as follows: 'A basic reorganisation of the structure of the Education Service as proposed by the Ministry of Education's Scheme would not be within our Terms of Reference, and although we make no specific recommendations with regard to this matter, we consider that the Scheme warrants further serious consideration.'”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the Government's proposal to create two new Superscale posts, that is 'A' and 'B', does it mean that in future, we will have a Permanent Secretary who will be placed in any one 'of these three Superscale grades, i.e., Superscale 'A', 'B' and 'C'? If it is the intention of the Government to create different grades of Permanent .Secretaries, does the Government propose to determine the grade of each Permanent Secretaryship on the basis of the importance of the Ministry to which the Permanent Secretary is attached, or on the basis of the personal merits of the holder of such a post?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Government's acceptance of the recommendation of the Salaries Commission for a unified salary scale for non-graduate trained teachers imply that the Government also accepts the Commission's recommendation in paragraph 202* of its Report for a lower commencing salary for technical teachers * Paragraph 202 reads as follows: 'We recommend the following points of entry on the basic Timescale for Trained Teachers, Non-Graduates :- (i) Technical $295 (ii) School Certificate $315 (iii) Higher School Certificate, Craft, Domestic Science and Physical Education $385 (iv) Technician Diploma - we recommend that posts of Teachers, Non-Graduates. (Technician Diploma) should be included in the Review which we recommend for all Technical Grades in the Civil Service mentioned in paragraph 323. Meanwhile, present incumbents of the posts should be emplaced on Scale 18A in Division III $580x20-660/725x20-805/830x30-980.' as compared with academic teachers? If that is the case, does the Government not consider the acceptance of such a recommendation incompatible with its avowed policy of promoting technical and vocational education rather than purely academic education?”
“Will the promotion prospects of an employee who opts to remain in the present salary scale be prejudiced merely because he has so opted?”
“No, Sir, they arise out of my first question.”
“Sir, I have a series of questions to ask.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to seek some clarification in respect of employees who opt to be on the existing salary scales and draw variable allowance personal to themselves. Will the Government give an assurance that such variable allowance will not be altered in any manner whatsoever to the prejudice of the employee who has so opted for as long as he remains in Government service?”
“That is acceptable to me, Sir. The Chairman: Mr Rajaratnam, do you wish to reply?”
“I am just suggesting to the Government whether they would, in their amendment to clause 53, delete "sections 43 and 44" appearing in the fourth line of sub-clause (3) and in place thereof insert "Part IV".”
“Since the Government by its subsequent notice of amendment finds it desirable to give better effect to our intention as expressed in the amendment to be moved by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee, I wish to avail myself of the opportunity to clarify the correct intention underlying our amendment to clause 53 of the Employment Bill. If the Government has no objection, may I suggest that the expression "sections 43 and 44" appearing in the fourth line of sub-clause (3) proposed to be added to clause 53 of the Employment Bill be deleted, and the expression "Part IV" be inserted in place thereof? 6.30 p.m. Such an amendment would give effect to the true intention behind our amendment to clause 53 and, at the same time, remove a clear and unintentional discrepancy between the provisions of clause 53 of the Employment Bill and those of clause 7 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill.”
“But when we had a closer look at the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill which was introduced on Wednesday, 10th July, 1968, we found that our amendment ran contrary to the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill by being unduly and unnecessarily restrictive. Clause 7 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill provides that collective agreements covering workers in specified industries established after 1st January, 1968, shall not contain terms and conditions of service more favourable than Part IV of the Employment Bill. But the effect of our amendment to clause 53 of the Employment Bill and the Government's amendment vis-a-vis the amendment to be moved by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee is to prohibit all collective agreements, whether covering workers in the specified industries established after 1st January, 1968, or otherwise, from containing terms and conditions of service more favourable than all the provisions, excepting clauses 43 and 44, of Part IV of the Employment Bill. Moreover, the power of the Minister to approve the provisions in a collective agreement more favourable than Part IV of the Employment Bill seems to be exercisable only in cases where clause 7 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill applies. Such specific reference to the Minister's power to grant exemptions in relation to Part IV of the Employment Bill and to clause 7 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill can only denote that the over-riding intention of the Government in respect of the Employment Bill and the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill is to ensure that the export-orientated and tourist industries in Singapore are not hamstrung by a continuously increasing level of terms and conditions of service of the employees engaged in such industries.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to comment on the Government's amendment vis-a-vis the amendment tabled by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee to clause 53 of the Employment Bill. The Government's reason for making this amendment is apparently to give effect to the intention of the amendment. There is no denying that the Government's amendment is logical and valid in relation to what the Government seems to construe as the intention of the amendment tabled by the Member for Bukit Ho Swee. But our intention is not so much to make clause 53 restrictive to the application of Part IV of the Employment Bill as to ensure that an employer does not use clause 53 as a pretext for not granting his employees more favourable terms and conditions of service in relation to Part IV of the Employment Bill. In retrospect, it would appear that even the wording of our amendment does not reflect our true intention. I must admit here that to a certain extent we have been confused by the widespread publicity given in advance by the local press on the proposed Employment Bill and the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill. At the time we drew up our proposed amendment to clause 53 of the Employment Bill, we were under the distinct impression that the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill would contain a provision cutting across all collective agreements, whether existing or otherwise. It was in anticipation of such a radical provision that we decided to move an amendment to clause 53 of the Employment Bill to ensure that in two areas where the collective agreements contain far more favourable benefits than are provided for in the Bill itself, workers would still continue to enjoy their benefits after the Industrial Relations Ordinance has been amended.”
“The more I think of it, the more I cannot help concluding that the amendment is intended to serve as an easy way out for bureaucracy which is too lazy to provide, or is not up to the exacting task of providing, for unforeseen contingencies in drawing up work rosters. For the Government to move such an amendment is to compound the error of bureaucracy that has gone crazy. May I request the Hon. Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Labour to state categorically how this time-off during holidays and public holidays and off days for one or two hours a day would be compensated in the form of a day off in lieu of a working day?”
“Firstly, the Employment Bill presupposes, in so far as overtime payment is concerned, that the managerial and executive staff of private establishments should be able to draw up a work schedule in the establishments in such a manner as o minimise over-time work. If such managerial and executive staff fail to make sufficient allowance for unforseen contingencies or to engage sufficient workers, then the penalty of overtime payment is incurred. But the Government does not seem to have any confidence that similar grades of employees may be able to discharge their administrative function s without causing the Government servants and the statutory board employees to incur unnecessary overtime payment. The position becomes more ridiculous when it is realised that the public daily-rated employees are entitled to 11 public hoilidays both in the past and under the present Employment Bill. A most pertinent question that may be asked is, why does the Government find it necessary to make such a provision for itself when it considers that the vital export-orientated and tourist industries can do without such a provision? The other ground of my objection is that the provision of the proposed amendment is patently unfair to the Government and statutory board employees who come within the scope of the Employment Bill. An employee who is required to work one hour or even ten minutes on a public holiday would find that the holiday is spoilt for him and his family. Giving him another hour or 10 minutes off on another day would never make up for his spoilt holiday. It is also true that overtime payment for so working on a public holiday cannot make up for the spoilt holiday, but the overtime payment serves as a compensation which can be utilised by him and his family in many ways.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to comment on the proposed amendment by the Government to clause 38 of the Employment Bill. Clause 38 provides that employees of the government and the statutory bodies are not to receive overtime payment for working on a public holiday but to receive, instead, another day off. The proposed amendment by the Government goes further by providing that such employees who are required to work for one hour on a public hoiliday would be given one hour off instead. This particular provision affects members of the various statutory bodies, especially the daily-rated employees who at present do not seem to be in good standing with the public because of their ill-considered and irresponsible conduct in the past. But I am most concerned that their interests might be unnecessarily prejudiced. In the course of the debate on the Employment Bill in this House, I have the impression that Members approached the question of overtime payment compensation for overtime work. But there is another aspect of overtime payment which is equally important and that is, overtime payment as a penalty on an employer against his making his employees work overtime. The object of overtime payment in this respect is to ensure that an employer does not necessarily require his employees to work late in the evenings on rest days and public holidays. In the context of Singapore's economy, the Bill not only provides for overtime payment but also restrict overtime work to 48 hours per month in order that more employment opportunities may be created through an employer obtaining more staff rather than making his employees work more overtime. My objection, therefore, to the proposed amendments is based on the following two grounds.”
“We from the trade unions vote for the Bill but with the amendments we propose, and I am sure this House will not fail to note that the trade union movement has responded positively to the call for sacrifice. All we ask in return is that this House and the Government think again on some of the objectionable provisions so that this Act of Parliament will be a law based not on a panic decision but on a rational analysis of what is best for Singapore at this particular time. 4.54 p.m.”
“Minister also indicated yesterday that the Government will be making amendments to clause 38 to ensure that where an employee working in essential services of the Government or a statutory board is required to work part of a rest day, he shall only be entitled to part of a day in substitution. Sir, we agree that work essential to the community must be carried on every day of the week. But we must point out that if an employee is called upon to work on part of his rest day, then his rest day or holiday is completely spoiled. If this amendment is proposed, the trade unions will request that if an employee is asked to work on part of his rest day, he should be entitled to a complete day off in lieu. We are confident that the Government will be magnanimous enough to grant this request. The Employment Bill has no doubt placed restrictions on trade union practices in obtaining fringe benefits, but the trade unions in the private sector are free to enter into negotiations with the employers for better wages. But what about the employees in the public sector? In the past few years, every claim of the civil service for wage adjustments or removal of anomalies in the salary structure of the civil service has been brushed aside and the civil service has been told to wait for the findings of the Harvey Salaries Commission. The Commission's recommendations have been in the hands of the Government for some time. What is the intention of the Government with reference to the recommendations? Are the recommendations going to cold storage, or is the Government going to accept them? I hope the Minister concerned will make a statement on this during the course of this debate.”