Philip Tan Tee Yong
Singapore
“But from the point of view of the nation as a whole, it is better for the defence industries to do this and channel the private sector into other areas of business, rather than for the defence industries to keep their surplus capacity idle in order to give the business to the private sector.”
“Sir, I would like the Minister to consider whether this is in line with maximising the productivity of our limited manpower. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the line between what the Government should do, what the Government-owned companies should do, and what privately-owned companies should do, is a matter of degree, judgment and c…”
“Sir, is the Minister aware that ST companies are also agents for personal computers? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, yes, indeed. The SAF Enterprises (SAFE) retails many brands of PCs as well as other consumer goods as part of its business.”
“Sir, but how can we say that they are on a fair footing? The Minister should consider that there are certain factors that the Government-owned companies will have to take into account, for instance, land cost, rentals and even the attractiveness of employing people from the industry.”
“I am referring to the ST company which is the agent for the AST personal computers. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, rather than argue what advertisements have been published or not, I take the position that even if they were published entirely as the Member has maintained, I see nothing wrong with it.”
“I rest my case. TELECOMMUNICATION AUTHORITY OF SINGAPORE (Sourcing of personal computers) 2. Mr Philip Tan Tee Yong asked the Minister for Communications and Information, in line with the Government's intention that the private sector be the engine of growth, why is the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore sourcing personal computers…”
The complete record
Every one of 160 lines we hold for Philip Tan Tee Yong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 4.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand to support the amendment in the name of Dr Arthur Beng. I think Dr Tan just now was a bit confusing when he implied that the amendment was one that was trying to dash away all the measures that have been proposed by the Ministry. Looking at the amendment again, what is stated is "regrets that some of the measures are too hastily introduced and are too harsh". In other words, Dr Arthur Beng agrees in principle with the policy of car curbing but that some measures are too harsh and some are introduced too quickly. When the announcement to raise the car parking fee and to curb the car population was made, I spoke to many of my grassroots leaders and friends. All of them without exception used very emotive words expressing their discontentment. I am not surprised as I think it is only natural. Having allowed them first to express themselves emotionally and after their emotions have somewhat subsided, I put forward my case as to why the curb was necessary. Among many other things, I cited the example that as the car population increases, the Government has to build more car parks in the housing estate. Because land is scarce car parks have to be built at the expense of other amenities. In this case, beautiful green fields have to make way for car parks. A case in point, in a certain area in my own constituency, some months ago there used to be an acute shortage of car parking lots because of growing car population. It became so bad that the HDB in trying to please the car owners converted some green lands into car parks. I asked my grassroots leaders and friends, "Do we want to reach a stage that we have no green fields but only car parks?" I understand that car owners in HDB estates is only 40% of the population in any estate.”
“A vicious cycle of counter-measures can exist. Malaysia is our source of natural produce, such as vegetables and fruits, not forgetting water. We must not assume that because they have vegetables in abundance and there is a big market in Singapore, vegetables will keep on coming to Singapore. If relations are affected because of this caption amendment, there can come a time when they may stop the supply of vegetables on political grounds. This has already happened in other countries where natural foods were not allowed to be exported on political grounds. I personally think that we ought to be mindful and be more long-sighted when we come up with measures such as this. Sometimes to pay a small economic price may be in the longer interests of Singapore. As it stands now, it seems like we may win the battle but we may lose the war. Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall be brief.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no doubt that this amendment Bill will fulfill the Government's desire to reduce the revenue lost through Singapore motorists buying cheaper petrol in Johor Baru. Because of the good relations we have with Malaysia, we must ensure that the decision is not based on economic considerations alone. I have a hunch that this amendment Bill may bring about a series of consequences which may be unfavourable to us if this decision is based purely on economic considerations. Singapore has always spoken against protectionism in any form. This is understandable because we started with entrepot trade and we will continue to depend on it. This policy has made Singapore what it is today. I have no doubt that this policy will still be with us. To require our citizens to have half a tank of petrol before entering Johor Baru can be misunderstood as a subtle form of protectionism. This misunderstanding is already confirmed by Dr Lee when he said that it is a protectionist policy. We must address this issue very carefully, otherwise it will weaken our position when we next speak against protectionism. Another area that we should be concerned with is the possibility that this amendment may spark off a series of subtle measures and counter-measures by both countries. Malaysians travel to Singapore and spend their money in our shopping centres and restaurants. We must be prepared for the day to come when the Malaysian government may impose some form of restrictions on their people's spending power in Singapore. If this materializes, the net result is one which will not be good for all of us. It will be good for us even at this juncture to imagine how we will feel if the Malaysian government were to impose this measure. What will we do if this happens?”
“Sir, almost everyday we hear from the radio of traffic jams along the Causeway leading to Johor, the reason being that it is congested with heavy traffic. I believe many of these cars are Singapore cars going into Johor for one reason or the other. One of the causes of these traffic jams, I believe, could be the inadequate number of checkpoints that we have at Woodlands because these cars have got to stop at the Singapore side and then proceed on and stop again at the Johor side. I just want to ask the Minister whether the number of checkpoints at Woodlands is adequate to cope with the heavy traffic, whether the checkpoints are computerized, and whether this computerization is effective enough. I understand that the Malaysian Government is upgrading the Customs facilities at their end. I wonder what are our plans over our side of the Causeway to upgrade the checkpoints. And if so, how many checkpoints are we increasing and when will these be completed? In view of the introduction of half-tank petrol ruling that motorists must comply, are the facilities adequate to ensure that the traffic jam will not worsen?”
“Sir, my GPC Chairman has addressed the issue of shortage of manpower in the uniformed sectors. I just want to follow up with a question to the Minister. The question is: is there a career path for each category of uniformed staff, and does the Ministry have an upgrading programme to enable existing staff work towards promotions? Is the salary scale competitive as compared with people of similar qualifications in other Ministries or in the private sector? Sir, I want to refer to a statement made by the Minister of Finance in 1986 in the Annual Budget Statement: "Government has, therefore, decided that the permanent staff complement of Ministries and Statutory Boards should be reduced by 10% from the current level over the next five years. The 10% target will apply to existing programmes and can be achieved through normal attrition, and more selective recruitment, plus increases in productivity. Manpower requirements for new services will be considered separately.' I would like the Minister to comment on this, and whether this 10% reduction has been achieved, or is the 10% reduction still valid? If it is not, then I would ask whether the Minister will be prepared to take up with the Minister for Finance as to the basis such a directive was made.”
“Make the necessary mistakes in the natural course of performing the project, being corrected, and then learn from the experience of the mistakes. I think the process and not just the end products is more important. But, Mr Chairman, this can only be achieved if all teachers who are in charge of projects are adequately trained. Very often you will find that many teachers who are in charge of projects do not know how to go about performing their project. I think the Ministry should consider training these teachers on projects before they ask pupils to perform these projects. Some areas of training in projects include, for instance, project management, which is very important, where and how can materials be found, how further research can be made and how to analyse the materials. The presentation of the project or the findings, the evaluation of the findings, and then do simple costing of the project. I hope that this will help in the making of projects a more worthwhile process of learning in schools. Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, may I take the two cuts together?”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, it is not uncommon to find relief teachers in our schools today. I believe it will continue to be so because of the difficulties the Ministry is facing in recruiting more permanent teachers. At the same time, Sir, I spoke with a few people and all of them have expressed concern with regard to the quality and standard in view of the fact that relief teachers are untrained. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister a few questions. They are: Is there a fixed ratio of relief teachers to permanent teachers for each school? If so, what is the ratio? Is there a limit to the period a relief teacher can be employed? If so, what is the period? Is there a minimum qualification before a relief teacher can teach a certain level or a certain subject? For instance, English. The few people that I spoke to give me the impression that relief teachers are usually given the weaker classes in the school. Thus I would like to ask the Minister whether it is true that most relief teachers are given the weaker classes in the school? Lastly, when does the Ministry expect that relief teachers will be replaced by permanent teachers? I go on to the aspects of training. Sir, many schools are promoting the use of projects to enhance the pupils' learning. This, in my opinion, is highly commendable. But unfortunately, many projects are measured by the end results. This medium of measurement for projects has resulted in having projects undertaken not by the students themselves but very often by parents themselves or even professionals employed by parents. I think this negates the purpose of having projects in schools. My opinion is that a pupil's learning can only be enhanced if they do the projects themselves.”
“Sir, can I take my two amendments together?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just interject for a little while? I think the Minister, when he used the two examples, those offenders had choices. In this case, the Singapore businessman has no choice. If the Minister can give them Singapore workers, I can submit all the applications of these employers to him and let him supply them with Singapore workers. They have no choice. So I am pleading for them that we must solve the basic problem, ie, the work permit. Whereas in his two examples, they had a choice. They had the choice of going to the toilet.”
“But, Sir, this Bill is going to be across-the-board. There will come a time when these people will also employ illegal workers if they cannot find workers in Singapore. So this Bill is across-the-board. It is not just geared towards the shipbuilders and the construction workers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to refer to the statement made by the Minister. Sir, we are talking about the problem of shortage of workers. The problem here is that the Singapore local businessmen cannot get Singaporean workers, and they also cannot get work permits. That is the main problem. It is not that they resort to illegal immigrants. It is that they truly cannot get Singapore workers.”
“Sir, I am a bit confused by the Minister of State's reply. Can I ask him whether there is really a shortage of Singapore workers in Singapore? He has not answered that question, Sir.”
“They say, "Look, I paid somebody. Somebody tells me that you go to this place, everything will be arranged for you. You just go there and work and you just send your money back to feed your family." I think we have got to take that into consideration when we talk about caning these people. They are not criminals. They are honest workers. I am also told that caning is not allowed on women. You cannot cane those below 17 years old and those who are above 50 years old. Even if you have mandatory caning, I am just wondering whether it will be really effective to check those illegal immigrants that we do not want. Mr Speaker, Sir, as it is impossible to spell out the diverse circumstances in which these simple folks are in, I would suggest that caning should be made discretionary by the judges, and not mandatory. I want to refer to the proposed amendment to section 57 which says: '(8) Where a person who has acted in contravention of section 6, 15 or 36 or the regulations is found at any premises or place, other than premises used solely for residential purposes, and is in possession of any tools or implements or engaged in any activity which may give rise to the inference that he is doing any work ....' This is very vague. I think we are putting too much power on the people who will be policing this so that if you see somebody with any tools or implements, which can be anything, these are the only evidence he needs to make an arrest. Secondly, I think that we got to relook at this because it can abused by one disgruntled employer against another. So this is something which I hope the Minister will relook at this. 2.52 pm”
“A lot of businessmen in Singapore are suffering because of policies that we have announced or implemented in isolation. It is a fact that a lot of foreign companies have set up shop here. It is also a fact that they have soaked up many hundreds and thousands of Singaporean workers and thereby a lot of local businessmen find it very difficult to get local Singaporeans to work. For example, it is very difficult to get Singaporeans to be mechanics, panel beaters or to work in garment factories and so on. It is a very serious issue. Because if this law comes into effect and I have no doubt that we can effectively eradicate these illegal immigrants, then the question that we must ask is: how are these businessmen going to survive? There is work, but no workers. This is an issue that I cannot answer. The First Deputy Prime Minister's revealed that all policies and decisions are made by the Cabinet and I believe then that the Cabinet owes us a duty to relook at this issue of work permits. Sir, I turn to the section on punishment. Personally, I think the punishment for illegal immigrants is too harsh. We must always remember that when we deal with such people, sometimes we make the mistake of thinking that these people have the same mentality as we have. Do not forget that many of these illegal immigrants are simple folks, living in the countryside, who may have not seen the city-lights but were told that if you go to the city, you can earn money and you do not have to till the ground and labour until the sun goes down and you still cannot get a penny's worth of labour. So they come here with simple-minded intentions. And when they come here, they find themselves being arrested. The sad thing is that some of them do not even know why they were arrested.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this amendment. But I have a few points which I would like to bring up for the Minister's attention. Sir, first of all, we must ask ourselves a question as to why there are illegal immigrants. The impression that we have been given is that these illegal immigrants here are criminals. But if we go along with what the Senior Minister of State has said, that we must strike at the root problem, if we analyze the root problem, then we will come face to face with an issue that is actually larger than it seems. Many of these illegal immigrants are here because they are looking for a living. And many Singapore employers, especially those who are small, truly cannot find Singaporeans to work. Even yesterday in my Meet-the-People session I received standard letters from the Work Permit Department to say that, "I regret that the application has been rejected." This standard letter is very frequent. I checked with my fellow colleagues who said that they too also received such letters. This means that there is a real need for workers. If the Work Permit Department or the Ministry of Labour is willing to tackle this situation and allow the proper procedure to be effected by giving work permits, I think this illegal immigrant issue will not be an issue today. My point is, Mr Speaker, we are not tackling and solving the basic issue. I feel that work permits can be freely given. When we give work permits, we can actually monitor the workers better than the situation now. If work permits have probably been given, then I think the punishment levied on the employers will be very effective. Financial punishment will be very effective on the employers and to check such illegal immigrants. Sir, I say this with very serious intention.”
“Sir, I rise to support my colleague, Mr Chandra Das, in rejecting the amendment. Sir, Dr Lee just now stated that thousands of Singaporeans are out of job. I really do not know where he got the facts from. But if it is true, Sir, I would ask him to give me the information and I would direct him to the Singapore Manufacturers Association, the Defu Manufacturers Association. In fact, one of my colleagues just now came to me and said that he could not find enough workers and that is why he has shifted his factory to China. So if he has the numbers that he has, I would like to help him in that area.”
“Time and money are wasted besides the feeling of frustration. This need not be the case. Their loss in time and money is also a loss to the nation. I personally believe that if our university can offer classes preparing them for such examinations, the nation in the long run will be better off. Some years ago, I was told that we did not have the financial resources. Now with a comfortable economy and a healthy reserve, I urge the Government to look into this issue again. Sir, I support the motion. 1.58 pm”
“The recent arrest of illegal foreign workers suggests that tough policies against illegal foreign workers will also include the employers of such workers. A Bill to that effect has already been tabled. I dare not speculate what these local entrepreneurs will do next. In my view, the Government is not tackling the basic problem these local businessmen face. These local businessmen could not find enough Singaporean workers to work in the various industries and this is the reason why they resort to foreign workers. And with such policies, they are actually at their wits' end. Mr Speaker, Sir, the above suggest that these policies were not well coordinated and thought through. The problem faced by one Ministry is actually created by another. The sum total is the miserable nightmare for the local businessmen. I strongly urge the Government to better coordinate the various Ministries when future policies are conceived. In the meantime, as a gesture that the Government view the local businessmen as an important part of our economy, I suggest that the Government call for an emergency joint meeting of the three Ministries to consider ways to alleviate their present difficulties. Sir, I wish to turn our attention now to another topic, part-time tertiary education for working adults. For various reasons, many Singaporeans entered the workforce without tertiary education. With the emphasis on meritocracy by the Government and the maturity that these workers have attained after working many years, the need to further oneself has become very acute. At this moment, part-term tertiary education in our university is almost non-existent. Many take up self study for the professional qualifications and before long, they find it so tough that they give up.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am happy to note that the Government, while continuing to attract more foreign investments, has announced its policy to assist local businessmen. However, I believe that local businessmen will welcome this news with caution. This is because many are experiencing difficulties on account of various Government policies and departments. Let me elaborate. The Ministry of Trade and Industry implements policies to attract multi-nationals set up manufacturing plants and offices here. Being better organized, better managed and better financed, these multi-nationals naturally attract thousands of Singaporeans, from workers to professionals. And because these multi-nationals have existing home markets and using Singapore only as an extension of their workbench, they definitely can and willing to pay more. As a direct result, very few Singaporeans, both workers and professionals, are left for the local businessmen. These resourceful entrepreneurs then resort to workers beyond the shores of Singapore and they thought they have solved their problem by recruiting workers from the approved nations. Unfortunately, their happiness is very shortlived. Lo and behold, the Ministry of Labour rears its ugly head with its policies making employment of foreign workers very difficult. Work permits not renewed. Very few work permits are approved and high levies are levied. What can the local entrepreneurs do? The resilient entrepreneurs then resort to employing illegal foreign workers. They thought that they have solved their problem by having illegal foreign workers. The efficiency of the Ministry of Home Affairs cannot be doubted when they effectively arrested many illegal foreign workers.”
“Sir, Singaporeans must realize that we cannot take chances with our destiny. We cannot do what the big powers can do. Let us not be fooled. We need not offend the foreign powers, but we need not be subservient to them either. All we ask of them - respect our desires to do our own things within the rules we have agreed upon. Sir, with this, I support the motion.”
“Can we afford to have thousands of our soldiers killed and still have a viable military force? Can we take chances? Can we afford to supply weapons and be still well-equipped? We will remember the debate we had on the acquisition of EC-2s. Can we take chances? Can we afford to give financial aid and not be bankrupt? We took 10 long years before we decided on the MRT. We have to resort to wage freeze when we have a recession. Whereas America has the power to ask other countries to change when US faced deficit problems. Can we take chances? We can see that Singapore cannot take chances. Survival is at stake. If Singapore goes under tomorrow, where will we go? Singapore can become an industrial and economic desert. This is a very real possibility. The recent uncovering of foreign powers trying to alter the politics in our country is a case in point that Singapore must be vigilant, sharp and swift to act. It is unfortunate that some of us want to experience the consequences if the Government has allowed the secret meetings to blossom and still have the option to turn back the pages of time to endorse the Government's action. Unfortunately, we cannot see the end from the beginning. At best, we can learn from history and imply from data available. Take, for example, from the coverage on Francis Seow in foreign press like Asian Wall Street Journal, Asiaweek, Far East Economic Review, Bangkok Post, the Nation (which is published in Bangkok) and the South China Morning Post, some dating as far back as June 1986. From these, we can only imply that the campaign is a well-orchestrated scheme - to give a negative image of Singapore and also a signal to those who are used by them that support will be there in whatever form.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there are many areas in our lives we can afford to take chances. Sometimes we win, sometimes we lose. Even if we lose, it is not a life-and-death issue. When it comes to the issue on the survival of a country, only big countries can afford to take chances, and even if they lose, they will still survive. Take the case of America and Russia. They can take chances with their soldiers. America has lost thousands of its soldiers in the Vietnam War. And yesterday the BBC announced that the Russians have revealed the casualties suffered in Afghanistan; and the figures. If I heard it correctly, it goes something like this: 13,000 dead, 35,000 wounded, 300 missing. Sir, in spite of these great losses, America and Russia are still very strong militarily. They can take chances with weapons. They can supply large quantities of planes, missiles, tanks and guns to support friendly nations. When these weapons are lost in battles, replenishment is made swiftly. In spite of this, America and Russia still have enough to give more. They can take chances with their monies. They give economic aid to the poorer countries, a very commendable gesture, but they also give monies to escalate civil wars. But, of course, they always claim that they are bringing peace and justice to the countries or the recipients. Yet, Sir, they never run out of funds. America today is still the richest nation in the world. But the question we have got to ask ourselves is: do these countries do all these for altruistic reasons? Against such background, some Singaporeans are infected by the big stakes these big powers play. The question all Singapore citizens must answer is: can Singapore afford to take chances like these big countries?”
“(8) We should realize that for certain matters, we cannot have a standard rule for all. Hence, we have different rates for CPF contributions. The CPF funds used for investment in stocks and shares and gold is one example. And the scheme is open to all. But the statistics show us that only 3% of the eligible members have used the funds. My colleague said that we must look after the poor. True. The scheme for investment in stocks and shares and gold is meant for all. But the statistics show that only 3% made use of it. Similarly, by allowing CPF funds to be used for education, it is also open to all CPF members in Singapore, the rich, the middle income and the poor. As regards raising CPF rates, I do not think it is a fear. Because we are talking about CPF for education as an option. If it is an option, we do not need to raise CPF contribution rates. I trust that with these points in mind, the Minister will consider the proposal favourably.”
“They are merely requesting for permission to use their own funds to invest in further education. Why borrow when you have the funds? In this respect, I want to refute the Member for Kebun Baru when he referred to the welfare state situation in the West. May I remind him that here we are talking about our own funds, not a central fund. We are talking about a fund like the Medisave scheme which, I think, he has no quarrel with. (3) I appreciate the Government's concern that old age should be taken care of. But is it not true that these people will have enough for their old age if one were to compute the high CPF contributions and the various safeguards preventing the depletion of funds? (4) The Government, in emphasizing the need to save for old age, may unconsciously make people become indivi- dualistic, to each his own. Is this not contrary to the Government's aim to foster family ties as taught in the Confucian ethics where it is the duty of the children to care for the parents, whether they have CPF or not? I thought that we should emphasize on the young to care for the parents. (5) I have confidence that Singaporeans who have gone for further education with their parents' financial support will not forget the gift of love. (6) By allowing parents to make use of CPF funds for their children's education, the available cash on hand will allow these parents to enjoy part of their fruits of their own labour now. (7) CPF for education has always been used as a scapegoat to promote the fear that other uses for CPF will be forthcoming. May I suggest that CPF for education is not the culprit. If we reflect for a while, we will realize that the earlier schemes have started the ball rolling, not CPF for education.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the proposal that CPF be used for education. Sir, as a developing country, education ensures that we have adequate necessary manpower to service the ever-changing technology related requirements. It is within this context that Singaporeans place so much importance on education. We see parents frantically searching for tutors for their children even though they may be in Primary 1. This parental concern is unlikely to change. It has become a way of life. Tertiary education has been added to the end-goals of parents. The reason is simple. They want their children to excel so that the children can care for them in their old age. There is another group of Singaporeans, who, for some reasons, are not able to go for higher education. They enter the employment market straight after secondary school or junior colleges. After having worked for a number of years, the need to be relevant to the changing economic needs becomes acute. In the West, opportunities for further education are plentiful for this group. But it is not so in Singapore where they have the drive but not the means. This desire to upgrade and the parental concern for their children's further education are beneficial to Singapore in the long run. But, Sir, further education not only demands hard work but it is also a very expensive affair. Against such a scenario, I would urge the Government to consider the following points: (1) Since parents are prepared to sacrifice for their children's further education and those who went to work straight after school are prepared to commit themselves to the rigours of study, CPF fund for education will make their ventures less onerous financially. (2) They are not asking the Government for grants or subsidies.”
“Sir, I want to take up this issue again because the Senior Parliamentary Secretary used the word "quiet" and yet he says the HDB estates have enough infrastructure to serve them. Do you agree that in the housing estates at the moment now there is almost zero social life.”
“Sir, will the Senior Parliamentary Secretary agree that the reason for the Tourist Promotion Board in bringing the pasar malam to the riverside or to the Rasa Singapura was to bring back life to those areas? So is it not true that if you have pasar malam in the housing estates, social life will increase? I think we have got to measure the advantage of having social life with merely controlling the hawkers.”
“Sir, I am glad that the Ministry of the Environment has made our housing estates cleaner and more hygienic as compared with the situation 10 years ago. However, Sir, this has unintentionally created a less vibrant housing estate. As you will probably know, if you go to many housing estates at night, it is a very dead situation. There have been many attempts to bring back life to the housing estates by the various grassroots organizations. Unfortunately, the activities cannot draw the bulk of people who prefer to stay indoors and watch television. May I suggest to the Minister a proven way in bringing back life to the housing estates, and this is in the form of the erstwhile pasar malam. To me, I think, with the pasar malam, the human interaction will be greatly increased. This will supplement the other activities planned by the grassroots organizations. I would be happy to hear the Minister's comments on this.”
“Sir, can the Minister of State also tell us whether the teachers in the Pre-U centres are experienced teachers, or are they actually fresh graduates from the universities?”
“Sir, whilst I agree that we should not lower the standard of admission which, in turn, ensures that the academic standards are high, I think it will be very informative to know the basis the requirement of admission is based on. If this basis is peculiar only to NUS, is the standard reasonable? Or is it unrealistically high? If the basis is based on the average admission requirements by overseas universities, then I cannot reconcile the fact that a student who is rejected by NUS will find no difficulties in entering an accredited overseas university either in Australia or in Britain. As for academic standards, the irony is that many students who fail to get admission into NUS are able to get degrees awarded by the accredited universities overseas. Some even get excellent results. Surely these degrees have obtained the required standards, otherwise the Government would not recognize them. Does this not show that our admission requirements may be unrealistically high? The Minister once said that the long-term solution is to have better schools so that our pupils will be better educated and the standards will be higher. Sir, will the Minister assure this House that NUS will not raise the admission requirements when better results are achieved? Otherwise we will be back to the situation we are now in. I hope the Minister will consider reviewing the admission requirements by NUS.”
“Sir, could the Minister tell the House the steps HDB will take to assist those who are in arrears of rent and those who are in arrears of instalment payments?”
“Sir, the Minister always says that I am not listening. I think he is also not listening. I was actually referring to the definition of the word "subsidy" in his speech. When he said that as long as you sell below market price, that is subsidy. I think not. It is still a discount. You may disagree, but I hope that some lecturers will intervene. Apparently, he says that the word "subsidy" means that HDB has subsidized the flats because they are sold below cost. I do not quarrel with it. But if this definition is applied to HDB flats, that they are sold below cost, then it must follow (because the definition must be consistent) that, when you apply it to HUDC flats, they are also sold below cost. The question is: is it real that HUDC houses are sold below cost? The other point is he said why should the people still want to buy HUDC houses and not private houses at that time? I think time has elapsed and we have forgotten a lot of things. We all remember that at that time CPF was allowed for HUDC houses only but was not for private houses. Subsequently, when CPF relaxed its rules, people started shifting from HUDC houses to private houses.”
“So I think the terms that we have and the prices that we have fixed should enable almost anybody who holds a steady job to be able to afford a flat. Even those who cannot manage their finances will still be able to afford because they can pay it out of their CPF. This is one of the advantages. The money is not with them. It is with the CPF so they can use it. There is an automatic deduction every month. I think the present terms - 25 year loan, 5% downpayment and the pricing of the 3-room flat - are such that it will be very difficult for any reasonable person in Singapore to say that these are terms that will not put a flat within the reach of our workers. In fact, I think there is no country in the world where somebody who starts work after leaving school can expect to buy a home for himself within two years. People in other countries think in terms of buying a home when they are about 30 or 40 years old. Here, they can buy a home two years after they start work, and most HDB purchasers do not pay off their loan over 25 years. They pay off their loan in 10, 12, 15 years though they may start with a 25-year loan. Because of the annual increments and so on, they pay off very quickly. I think by any measure, our present terms are more than adequate to meet our objective of a full home-ownership society.”
“Otherwise why should people buy HUDC flats? They could have bought flats from any private developer at the time that they were sold. What the situation is today, of course, is different. The market has changed. Some of the flats have fallen in price but that is a different story. At the time they were sold, they certainly were subsidized, in the definition that I used. I was not the one who made the statement but I think it still fits the definition. As far as HDB rental flats are concerned, how do you bring about 100% home ownership? First of all, we always use the term "full home ownership society." There will always be some people who will be occupying rental flats because they are going through a transition. They rent first and later they buy. Some, as I said, may never be able to buy. By any definition which covers the whole of the economy of a society, if you can reach about 95%, you can more or less consider that you have reached the maximum or full ownership. I do not think that the present terms of HDB are onerous. I think the Member can do the calculations for himself. If somebody earns $500 which is at the lower end of what many who work in factories earn, such a person should easily be able to afford a 3-room flat where the monthly payment, depending on where it is and what kind of 3-room flat, would vary from something like $110 to $130 per month on a 25-year loan. He can easily meet that from his CPF deductions. If he falls within the category of people who earn between $500 and $800 per month, he has to pay only 5% downpayment which is about $1,300 to $1,800. If he works for about two years, he will have that much in his CPF.”
“I believe finance is the deterring factor. And I still have not heard the answer from the Minister as to how the Government is going to achieve 100% home ownership if these people were to continue to live in rental flats. Is there not a case when I said yesterday that we should look into the possibility of increasing the subsidy for maybe the 3-room flat which is the best fit for the lower income group? Increase the subsidy for this flat so that these people can buy it at much lower prices and thereby you can achieve the 100% home ownership. Mr Dhanabalan: It is only 12.15 pm, Sir. So I hope the Member for Paya Lebar will listen carefully to me. It is still early in the day. HDB sells its flats below its cost. It buys land from the Government at market value. It constructs flats on that land. I have showed a table which clearly illustrates that about 40% of the flats were, in fact, sold below construction cost, let alone covering the cost of land, whatever the definition you want to use for land. So at least, whatever definition you want to use, those 40% of the flats were subsidized. But I said as far as HDB's accounts are concerned, and I think the Member for Paya Lebar has studied the accounts, what it gets from the sale of the flats is less than what it costs HDB. Even by your definition it is subsidized, although I do not accept your definition. That is quite clear. As for HUDC houses, I do not have the details here. But I certainly would say that HUDC houses would fall within the definition of the word "subsidy" that I used because if it were not so, people would not have bought HUDC houses with all the various restrictive conditions that HUDC houses had, ie, HUDC sold those flats below what equivalent flats could fetch on the market.”
“Sir, yesterday I was discussing the word "subsidy" and referred to the definition of the Minister, and today the press reported as "subsidy" and not "discount". I want to make a correction here - that I was referring to the Minister's definition. If his definition stays unchanged, it must be discount. It cannot be subsidy. From the economic point of view or the accounting point of view, if you sell a flat below the market price and if it is still above cost price, then it is a discount and not a subsidy. I was referring actually to his definition. Then again, he repeated that his definition stays. Assuming his definition stays, then I think he did not answer my question when I referred him to the question that I put forward. Some months ago or maybe a few years ago in this House on the question of subsidy on HUDC houses, I remember the Minister said that HUDC houses were subsidized. If that is the case, then I take it that all HUDC houses, like those in Pine Grove, Gillman Heights, are constructed at a very much higher cost. But I have a simple arithmetic. I was judging the price of private houses in those days and the HUDC houses people could buy in Pine Grove. You had to pay almost $300,000 for a flat in Pine Grove against what you could get a private condominium flat around that area for $200,000-odd. I think private developers will not sell their flats at a loss. I believe the private developer makes less profit instead of a loss. If that is the case, I find it very difficult to accept the fact that the HUDC houses are subsidized. Sir, on the question of subsidy again, this morning the Minister of State said that there are still many people in the rental flats who for some reason or other are not able to buy a flat for themselves.”
“I would suggest that the Minister seriously consider some form of compensation for the shopkeepers there and also for those who have gone out of business because of all these problems that have arisen.”
“To me, the shopkeepers have every reason to believe that the location was Hougang Town Centre and not Neighbourhood II Centre. First reason: the road sign showed "Hougang Town Centre" and this was changed to "Hougang Avenue 1" only in September 1986, which is after they have got their shops that is, I think, some two years after the third phase tender was called for. Second reason: the Singapore Street Directory, which is the official directory for roads shows the name very clearly "Hougang Town Centre" in the location in question. Third reason: there were a few metal-embossed signs with the name "Hougang Town Centre" nailed to some of the blocks in Neighbourhood II Centre itself now. Of course, after this matter was brought up, the HDB went around taking down the name plates but little did they realize that the shopkeepers were very smart. They had already taken photographs of the name plates, and I think I have submitted the photographs to the HDB. I have also photographs to show that the signs were there and that they were taken down after this matter was taken up. Fourth reason: There is a bus interchange in that area and this bus interchange is quite a large one. I think the planners would not have planned an interchange of that size if it was not originally intended to be a town centre. On 12th August 1987, the shopkeepers, a bit frustrated with no results, went to see the Feedback Unit and the Feedback Unit wrote to the HDB and supported the case. And one of the reasons they gave is: 'HDB has unwittingly misled the shop tenants at Hougang Street 21 into thinking that their shops are located at the town centre.' Sir, I think it is very clear that the shopkeepers are misled by the HDB. To-date, the matter has not been resolved.”
“Sir, two or three days ago, the Minister in his policy statement said that HDB will hand over the management of its industrial estates to the JTC. If I am not mistaken, such a statement was made some months ago in this House. I just want to seek assurance from the Minister that this transfer will be done quickly because this matter concerning Defu Estate has been on since 1984, before I became the MP for Paya Lebar. I think three to four years is definitely a very long time for a businessman to wait. In this respect, I would also urge the Minister to encourage the HDB officials to understand and try to appreciate the problems of local businessmen and to expedite things that will help them in their already trying conditions of earning a living in Singapore. The second matter that I want to raise is with regard to Hougang Town Centre. On 26th March 1986, I wrote to the HDB that the shopkeepers in Hougang Street 21 claimed that they tendered for the shops believing that the location would be called Hougang Town Centre. Obviously, in a town centre the rentals are higher, so they claimed. They later discovered that the name "Hougang Town Centre" has been changed to "Hougang Neighbourhood II Centre". There is a world of difference between a town centre and a neighbourhood centre. It took some 1r months later for the HDB to reply on 14th May 1986. HDB replied that the shops in Hougang Neighbourhood II Centre were completed in three phases commencing mid-1982. The second and third phases were completed in late 1983 and 1984 respectively. In the letter, HDB claims that the tender documents stated "Hougang Neighbourhood II" but the plan which was attached to the document was inadvertently, so they claimed, stated as "Hougang Town Centre".”
“I want to make one point clear. I am speaking for those who already have found jobs. The Minister says that about 24 months have lapsed. This is precisely the point. 1985-86 was the time when they were out of job. So during this time lapse because they did not have the money. But now they have a job. But they are not highly paid jobs. Definitely they have accumulated arrears of over 20 months. Then it seems to be better for him to be jobless than to have a job because if he is jobless he can tell you, "I am jobless." But if he has a job now as a factory worker and earns $500, you say, "Look. You have a job now. You have to pay 50%." Where is he going to get the 50%? I am saying that for such people who now finds a job, you must be flexibie and allow them to pay in equal instalments. Mr Dhanabalan: Sir, I do not know what is the problem. Maybe it is getting late in the afternoon and everybody is feeling sleepy and not listening to what I am saying.”
“Of course, not. So this is the problem and the arrears accumulate until today. A lot of these people, because of retrenchment, were jobless and they do not have income and, of course, they accumulate their arrears until it gets large today. And now, when they have found a job and they go to the Area Office, of course, they cannot pay the 50%. They say, "I have a plan of instalment payments. I try to pay you now the current payment and, on top of that, pay you whatever is in arrears within the limits and capabilities I have." But I do not think the HDB will accept this. The second point is downgrading. The way we talk about it as if it is as simple as changing clothes - if we do not like this clothes, just go and buy a cheaper one and put it on. Downgrading is not so simple and straightforward. If a person has a 4-room flat, he probably would have done all the renovations and so on. But after one or two years he got into arrears. If you downgrade him to a 3-room flat, it may be even more expensive for him because he still needs money. He does not have the money to renovate. He does not have the money even to move. And even if he were to give back the flat to the HDB, HDB will deduct all the arrears. After deducting all the arrears, I wonder how much he has left. I think there is a case for HDB to accept this instalment plan by these people who say, "I cannot pay you a lump sum. Let me pay you by equal instalments and continue to pay you my current amount." I hope the Minister will consider this.”
“I would like to further clarify the point of subsidy. I want to declare my interest here. If the Minister's definition is right, that is, subsidy means that HDB has subsidized the flats, am I to take it that the HUDC houses are subsidized by the HDB, which means that they are also sold below cost. Sometime ago, we asked about the subsidy on HUDC houses and we were told that they were subsidized, if this definition still holds for HUDC houses. On the matter of arrears, we all remember that retrenchment set in in 1985 and many of the people who ran into problems were jobless during 1985-86. A lot of them were unable to pay their instalments during that period. The Minister has said that if such a person goes to the HDB and says, "Look, this is my plan of repayment because I am jobless", they will be sympathetic. I do not think so. Because if a person is jobless, he goes to HDB and says, "Look, I have this problem. I can pay you in X number of months. But I can start paying only when I get my job", I do not think the HDB will say yes to him. An hon. Member: Of course, not.”
“I understand that there are terminals at the various Area Offices, and through these terminals there are people who can get access to private and confidential information of residents. So at that terminal itself, who are the authorized people, and what safeguards there are to prevent other people or unauthorized staff from getting access to the information?”
“Not discount. It is subsidy in this case. This is in line with the Government's objective of achieving 100% home-ownership in the long run. I observe that the bulk of our citizens, something like more than 500,000 workers in Singapore, are working in factories and in those industries which give a lower-income. For such people, it is rather difficult for them to buy flats and pay their instalments in the long term, if there is a retrenchment exercise. If we want to achieve this objective, I would urge the Minister to increase the subsidy for these lower-income people to enable them to buy these flats as soon as possible and to repay them in the shortest time possible so that they can be helped to get out of the poverty trap that we have always been taking about. I also want to ask the Minister in case of a retrenchment, will the Minister favourably consider assisting such citizens when they have to pay their arrears? At this juncture, I would like to ask the Minister whether he will consider allowing those who are in arrears to pay their arrears by equal instalments without insisting on the 50% lump sum payment because this is really a difficult problem to them. If they are already in arrears, it is impossible to expect them to come out with a 50% or 70% lump sum payment.”
“Sir, my first item is on the new accounting system and I would like to know whether the computerization of the accounting system has been completed and whether the objective to have a better accounts presentation has been achieved, for example, on the cost allocation and the costing of flats. I also assume that the computerization includes information retrieval. Will the Minister enlighten us on the safeguards against unauthorized persons having access to confidential information through the terminals in the various HDB Area Offices? The second topic is on subsidy. Yesterday the Hon. Minister gave his definition of subsidy. I thought the word "discount" will suit his definition better than "subsidy" because, in my view, if you sell a flat at a price lower than somebody else's, you are actually giving a discount. A subsidy is when you have to subsidize because the price at which you sell is below what it costs you to build. I think that is a more accurate definition of "subsidy" and so what he has said about subsidy must truly be said to be a discount. Sir, as a follow-up to the issue of subsidy for the lower-income citizens, which I spoke on two or three days ago, I would like to know whether the subsidy for 3-room flats is substantial. If not, I would urge the Minister to increase the subsidy. An hon. Member: Discount.”
“Then I am to take up items (m) and (n) later?”
“Sir, can I take these four items (b), (c), (m) and (n) together in one go instead of taking them separately?”
“Caution is his virtue and I personally think it is a good virtue for a leader, and I hope the Government will do something about it.”
“But there are almost no opportunities for such people. These citizens are usually lower educated, no special skills and earning basic wages. If they cannot supplement their income, I do not think that they can come out of the poverty trap. Let me share with you a case to make my point clearer. Some months ago a middle aged man came to see me at my regular Meet-the-People session. As he entered my room I saw that his eyes were red as though he had been crying. Crying or not, he certainly looked drained, worn out and sad. I could sense his sadness and disappointment with life when he handed me a note and started to relate his problem. He worked in a bakery and earned about $400-$500 a month. With this he has to support two school-going children and, I think, two aged parents, a house and utility bills. He can hardly make his ends meet. His kind employer suggested that he could sell some bread at the void deck to supplement his income. This he did. But little did he realize that this ironically made him poorer. You see, the note he handed me was an HDB notice for illegal hawking. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I want to ask: where and how in Singapore can this man supplement his income without resorting to crime? The answer is a bleak one. Can we help? I believe so. I support the Member for Kebun Baru when he called for the formation of a Council for the lower income. I want to add here also that we should not develop into the undesirable social conditions like that of America and Japan where the countries are rich but the majority of the citizens are poor. I am also grateful to the First Deputy Prime Minister when he said that he needs more time to analyse whether anything can be done before he commits himself.”
“However, I am concerned that if our local businessmen continue to be just supporting industries, we will run into serious economic problems if the next recession were to hit us. With a breathing period of substantial foreign investment commitments, the Government should look into ways and means to nurture our local businessmen to be export orientated. The incentives which are presently available for the local businessmen are directed at upgrading so as to serve the multi-nationals better. The incentives are not sufficient for them to compete overseas. The local businessmen not only lack finance but also management and marketing expertise. Incentives like the Product Development Assistance Scheme may be a good start where the local businessman is given a grant based on his proposal to market overseas and for a given period if he makes profits to pay back the grant. A faster way is to encourage existing local businessmen who have the finance, management and marketing expertise to start or increase their business overseas. They can become the pace setters and serve as models for others to follow. I see the Economic Development Board as the most suitable body to spearhead this move. But the incentives package must be generous and flexible. Needless to say, time is the essence and sense of urgency the rule of the day. We certainly wish to look forward to a day when we can have both foreign and our own multi-nationals existing side by side. This is really a challenge for the younger leadership. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I want to move on to another subject. It is a very sound policy that every abled citizen should earn his own keep. However, there is a group of lower income citizens who have to supplement their low income in order to make their ends meet.”