S. Chandra Das
Singapore
“There is certainly a limit as to what volunteers can do. These organisations can do with additional funding from the Government. With additional funding, I believe the self-help groups can do much more. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister about the various support and assistance given to the self-help groups in Singapore.”
“Sir, ASEAN has come a long way since its founding. No one can deny that ASEAN as a regional grouping has been a great success. Not only is ASEAN strong in terms of regional grouping, it is also expanding. Vietnam has joined ASEAN in 1995. Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar are expected to join ASEAN before the end of the century.”
“The public will be able to know the actual expenditure incurred. The operators on their part must charge realistic fares, and any increase should be reasonable and commensurate with the level of service provided. In this way, the public will be satisfied and will not feel short-changed.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what other measures are being considered by his Ministry. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, other possible measures would include confiscating the handphone, increasing the number of demerit points or, if necessary, making phone driving a specific offence.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head V of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code VD 1500. Sir, there are many reasons for the success of Singapore as it stands today. The contribution of the Singapore civil service is an area which should not be underestimated.”
“Sir, I hope the media does not dub RAdm Teo as also "Mr No" from tomorrow. On that note, I withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $518,536,590 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $769,080,900 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head L -”
The complete record
Every one of 554 lines we hold for S. Chandra Das, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 12.
“Sir, the Team MP and the GRC concept is not designed to entrench the PAP as a ruling party forever. The Member for Potong Pasir strongly believes that this concept was thought out after the last general elections. In fact, he said "23rd December 1984". The First Deputy Prime Minister has taken great pains to explain in this House his correspondence with the Prime Minister, his correspondence with the Minister for the Environment, Dr Ahmad Mattar, and these dates do not show "1984" at all. They were well before 1984.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have discussed this GRC concept with my constituents, community leaders and some of the Indian community leaders. All of them are in agreement that we have to ensure that our Parliament remains multi-racial at all times. Some even felt that the introduction of GRC is to take a step backward in order to stand still, otherwise we will fall flat on our faces. Sir, I have discussed this matter in some detail with the Tamils Representative Council which represents 18 affiliated Tamil organizations. At the end of the discussion on 8th January, 1988, the Council issued the following statement. "After seeking clarifications, the Singapore Tamils Representative Council endorsed the view that multi-racial representation in Parliament is essential for preserving inter-racial harmony and that the proposal would enshine in the Constitutency minority representation in Parliament. The Council further emphasised that in line with the recognition of Tamil as an official language, Tamils shuld be specifically mentioned as a minority group." Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, GRC and Team MPs is a new political formula not introduced in any other country. I am satisfied that the Government has done an exhaustive comparative study of the various systems of the various countries practising a mix of both Westminster style and continental European democracies. On balance, I am prepared to accept the findings of the Government. But I would like to add a word of caution by asking a question. Where do we stop, or is this the beginning of a potentially dangerous practice of multi-racial representation in every facet of our daily life? Let this not lead to clamour or calls for allocation of jobs, scholarships and public office on ethnic grounds.”
“I think he should make up his mind whether GRC is good for Singapore or not. Whether he wins his seat or not is not the issue, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. The issue is whether he believes in a multi-racial Parliament in Singapore. The PAP believes in a multi-racial Parliament and has always fielded a multi-racial slate in all these elections since the inception of the Party. Sir, I also believe that the timing of this legislation is appropriate. It is better to introduce changes now when there is no problem than to wait for it to arise and then to come to this House to seek solutions. In fact, this Bill aims to ensure that the minority interests must be protected and places reserved for them in Parliament. This in itself is quite unique because, for the first time, the majority are guaranteeing the rights of the minority which, in actual fact, they do not have to do it. Every reasonable person must applaud this move. The Member for Potong Pasir has mentioned about referendum. He tried mass signature campaigns. Referendum to do what, Sir? Ask the majority, or ask the minority? One would like to know what has happened to his signature campaign. Nothing has been mentioned about it lately.”
“No, I am not quoting you. You can check the tape.”
“The next day he seems to welcome it and says that it will give him an opportunity to defeat the Second Deputy Prime Minister.”
“Only recently, I read in the Straits Times that London is looking at the Singapore system as a model for implementation. I am making this point to illustrate that if something is new and unique, it is no reason to reject it. In fact, some of the learned pundits opposing GRC have not offered alternatives. They say it is wrong. But what are the alternatives? The Member for Potong Pasir seems utterly confused. One day he says that it is not to the advantage of the Opposition. On a GRC basis, he feels he will lose his seat.”
“That is your view. Sir, given the population structure and the geopolitics of the region we are in, the answer to the first question, including my friend, Mr Chiam See Tong, is a big 'Yes'. We then come to the next question as to how we go about achieving this. Here I am prepared to accept the Government's position that our present system of elections cannot guarantee multi-racial Parliament in the longer term. Like many Singaporeans, I also agree that it will not be a problem in the next one or two general elections. But, Sir, who will guarantee that things will be the same in 15 years' time? Sir, the Government has two options. Firstly, to do nothing and pretend that there is no problem and wait till the problem explodes in our face - as it happened in Fiji recently. Everyone knows the outcome. Secondly, it can recognize the problem and find suitable solutions. Sir, I am satisfied that the Government has examined the various options available - proportional representation, reserved seats, creating an Upper House, and introducing this GRC concept. The GRC, I believe, is the best option for Singapore. The only snag is that it is unique and has not been implemented elsewhere. Surely, this is not the reason for its rejection. In fact, I am reminded of the time when this Government introduced the Central Business District concept to control the flow of vehicles into our business district by imposing a levy. It was unique. No one else had tried it before. There was a lot of hue and cry and even a magistrate in our courts ruled that it was ultra vires the Constitution. But subsequently his decision was over-ruled in an appeal. Today, Sir, the CBD is working well and many countries envy this system of ours.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity to participate in this debate. Sir, sitting down and listening to the Member for Potong Pasir, I expected a very fiery speech opposing this Bill. What we actually heard from him was really a rehash of an article that appeared in the "Hammer". I was equally disappointed that he did not even rebut some of the points which the First Deputy Prime Minister made regarding his own party. Nevertheless, this debate did not begin today. In fact, this has been going on for quite some time and many of the issues have been voiced out both publicly and privately. Sir, in debating this Bill, it is important to ask two basic questions. Firstly, is a multi-racial Parliament good for Singapore?”
“Sir, if the intention is for more Members to participate, then the obvious solution is to increase the number of sitting days, rather than curtail the speaking time of Members. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I fear this amendment will leave the impression that the Government does not want to waste time with debates in this House. In 1964 it was cut from no-limit to one hour. The proposal today is to cut from one hour to half an hour. The next amendment may be to cut it down to 15 minutes, and a subsequent amendment may be to limit it to written submissions to this Parliament. More seriously, I do not think the reduction of speaking time is a good move. If I may use a terminology from cricket, not all Members of this House bowl in the same manner. Some are fast bowlers who need a longer run-up. Some will be slow bowlers requiring practically no run-up. We will have to allow for differences in style and presentation. And it will definitely add variety to the debates in this House. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I refer to one other recommendation, ie, Standing Orders 59 and 60. I fully agree that calling for a division is time-consuming and in many cases unnecessary. Sir, we are in the age of IT information technology. The real answer is for this House to introduce an electronic method of recording votes. Sir, I would urge you to give this some serious consideration.”
“The Government then strongly made a case for the one hour time limit. The limit prevented everyone from making unnecessarily lengthy speeches. In 1964 reference was also made about Commonwealth countries like Nigeria and Australia having less than the one hour time limit. Again the same argument is extended, this time the reduction is from one hour to 30 minutes. Sir, I believe there has been no abuse as before, as was the case in June 1964. We already are a very business-like Parliament, and rightly so. Our sittings are not too frequent, like other Parliaments - the Leader quoted the Lok Sabha - and there is practically little or no waste of time. Even the Member for Potong Pasir, since his entry into this House, I believe, has only spoken for one hour on one occasion.”
“So on 10th June 1964, the then Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Toh Chin Chye, Leader of the House, in moving the amendments to the Standing Orders stated: 'It is our hope that the changes proposed in the Standing Orders will facilitate the proceedings in this Assembly, and will also assist Mr Speaker, who is in the Chair, in the conduct of proceedings.' Today, the Leader of the House also makes such a pious declaration. Sir, in 1964 the Leader of the House then went on to say: 'Previously we have had Members standing up in this Chamber regurgitating speeches written for them by somebody else and the whole period lasting seven hours. Very often sittings had to be extended to past midnight and there were occasions when many Members of this House were absent while a Member was spouting out his speech from his script and Mr Speaker had considerable trouble even to find a quorum. Well, it is to eliminate this abuse of freedom of speech in this Chamber that we have come to this arrangement in this Standing Order No. 43. I would also add that any Member in this Chamber who has anything of real value to say should be able to find one hour quite adequate to put his point across. It is to avoid tedious repetitions and diversions that this time limit has been imposed. In fact, [he went on to say] those who have ever been students before are aware that they can stand a teacher's lecture for at the most only one hour. While we do not consider ourselves to be still in class, I feel that the majority of us would consider that one hour is sufficiently adequate to listen to a Member's speech and if he has anything worth of note, he could put it in within the period of one hour.' Sir, there was full justification for allowing Members to speak for one hour.”
“If this is the last time, one has an opportunity to speak for one hour. I definitely do not intend to take one hour. Sir, in general, I am in agreement with most of the amendments as set out in Appendix I of the Report. As the Leader of the House pointed out, most of the amendments are of a consequential nature and I give it my unqualified support. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to confine my remarks mainly to the amendment of Standing Order No. 44 whereby the speaking time of Backbenchers (I repeat, Backbenchers) is reduced from one hour to 30 minutes. Sir, I do not see the wisdom in reducing the Members' entitlement to speak, from one hour to 30 minutes, and in the same breath it allows Government Members (Ministers, Ministers of State, Senior Parliamentary Secretaries and Parliamentary Secretaries) to speak for one hour in reply. That means maintaining the status quo for Frontbench Members and reducing the time from one hour to 30 minutes for Backbenchers. Firstly, this is discrimination, and secondly, the argument advanced does not hold water. Am I to understand, Sir, that office holders need longer time to explain issues raised by Backbenchers? From my own experience in this House, it has not been the case. If MPs have to say their piece in 30 minutes, then I suggest the others do likewise. I suppose if an MP speaks for one hour, he is considered longwinded and wasting everybody's time. On the other hand, when office holders speak for one hour, they are merely responding fully to Members' views. Sir, I believe this is a pure case of double standards. My main point, however, is to ask the necessity to reduce the speaking time to half an hour, in the first instance. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, prior to 1964, there was abuse.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am much obliged to you for allowing me to participate in the debate on the Report of the Standing Orders Committee. At the outset, Sir, I wish to assure you that I will not take the full one hour.”
“With increasing business complexity and the introduction of off-balance sheet financial instruments - you have your NIFs, RUFs and what have you - rotation of auditors of public companies will provide the public with additional safeguards. Such a measure, which may be unpalatable to most auditors I believe, would spur them on to higher levels of professionalism. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore's future as a financial centre hinges on investors' and public confidence in the financial statements of companies operating here. Right now, with the vigilance of MAS, CAD, SSA and other regulatory bodies, we have not had serious mishaps apart from the Pan-El saga. The question for us now is: how do we ensure that there would not be another Pan Electric? The Singapore Society of Accountants has promulgated the establishment of audit committees for publicly listed companies. Sir, I submit that the rotation of auditors will provide us with another check and balance. Sir, I support the Bill.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, last year when we debated the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill, I touched on two points which are pertinent to other professions as well. These are, first, a professional society must be led by professionals of impeccable integrity and character and not by men who have been convicted of fraud or dishonesty. And, secondly, there should be lay representation in the disciplinary committee. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am pleased to note that these important principles are included in the Accountants Bill before this House. The Ministry of Finance and the accounting profession ought to be commended for this responsive action in coming out with such a thorough overhaul of the old Accountants Act which was drawn up as far back as 1963. Sir, as an emerging regional financial and manufacturing centre, Singapore needs all its professionals to be relevant and responsive to our national goals and objectives. They must also strive to maintain and uphold the highest standards of professional conduct and technical competence. As auditors and increasingly as business advisers, the accountants must not only be independent but must also be seen to be so. Sir, the Public Accounts Committee in 1979 recommended to Parliament that commercial auditors of statutory boards should be rotated every five years. I believe this recommendation has been adopted by most statutory boards and this has proved to be a good move in several ways. I am told cases of inefficiencies and wastages have been discovered and corrected. Sir, familiarity and long-term relationships can lead to laxity. I would urge through the Minister for Finance that the Securities Industry Council and the Stock Exchange of Singapore seriously consider rotation of auditors in public listed companies.”
“Do you know them? Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes. We meet them in the Bar room. Just on purely humanitarian grounds, I think I owe a duty to these 15 people. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and thank you all for coming here to listen and to participate in this debate. Question proposed.”
“Do I have to believe you? You must be joking!”
“Work Permits Regulation (10) That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead RK-01 of the Main Estimates.”
“Employment Services (8) That the sum to be allocated for Head R be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead RJ-01 of the Main Estimates.”
“Media Relations (8) That the sum to be allocated for Head I be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead IE-02-1210 of the Main Estimates.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, since the Member for Fengshan has already touched on the question of the MRTC, I would like to inquire from the Minister on the progress made, particularly on the joint venture contracts awarded by the MRTC. Firstly, I would like to know how many such joint venture contracts have been awarded so far. Secondly, what is the value of such contracts? Sir, of late, we have read in the newspapers of one of these joint ventures running into some problems. So I would like to know from the Minister how many such joint venture partnerships have broken up or are in trouble so far? Lastly, and more importantly, how successful has been the transfer of technology from the foreign companies to these local partnerships, as this has been the main objective in encouraging joint ventures and the award of these contracts?”
“Sir, I used to remember in the early days most of our missions abroad used to have information officers. Maybe we can look at the possibility of reinstating them selectively at some of our missions abroad. Right now, Sir, just distributing Government publications is not sufficient. Also, one or two letters by our Ambassadors and Heads of Missions is also not sufficient. I am aware of manpower constraints, which is what the Minister would say. Nevertheless, I still feel some positive steps should be taken in this direction to protect our business and other political interests.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I would like to congratulate the Minister for the stand he has taken in curtailing the circulation of TIME magazine and, recently, the Asian Wall Street Journal. Sir, we may be a very small country but I think it is important to demonstrate our independence on matters affecting us and not let foreign newspapers dictate what we should do and what we should not do. Sir, I, for one, find it extremely difficult to understand why a respectable financial paper, like the Asian Wall Street Journal, is unwilling to correct an error, an error pointed out not only by the Government but also by a number of independent bodies. Mr Chairman, Sir, the people in Singapore understand our position, and rightly so because our local newspapers have given adequate coverage to the Government's position as well as that of the Asian Wall Street Journal. However, Sir, internationally, people are only treated to the Asian Wall Street Journal version of the case. Last month I happened to be in Karachi for a business meeting and was surprised to find how well informed were some of the businessmen on the so-called Asian Wall Street Journal affair. Unfortunately, Sir, they were only treated to the Asian Wall Street Journal side of the story. The Singapore side of the story was totally missing, although my group was able to put across the Singapore side. Certainly one does not expect the Asian Wall Street Journal to put up the Singapore side of the story. Sir, in view of this, I am wondering whether the Minister in conjunction with his colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, has any plan to get our side of the story across, not only on this issue but on various issues which affect Singapore, at least in the capitals where we have major business and political interests.”
“Solid Waste Management (4) That the sum to be allocated for Head M be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead MC-02-1210 of the Main Estimates.”
“Sir, apart from the scare tactics which they have used, they have also informed us that they are going to upgrade the service and maybe it is not necessary to privatize. However, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to review this request from the Ang Mo Kio East Town Council most sympathetically. Sir, the main objective of the Town Council is to serve residents better. So I ask the Minister, why not give us a chance to try instead of trying to scare us? A very positive answer from the Minister will help the growth and promotion of Town Councils in Singapore.”
“Sir, I have to declare my interest. I am speaking in my capacity as Chairman of the Ang Mo Kio East Town Council. Sir, at the outset it must be stated that the Ministry of the Environment provides a very useful service in that in our Town Council refuse is cleared daily. Although I must confess that this service may not be perfect, nevertheless, it is satisfactory and I would like to thank the Ministry for this useful and dependable service on behalf of the Ang Mo Kio East Town Council. Sir, the 19 town councillors in the Ang Mo Kio East Town Council together with the Member for Cheng San, the Member for Jalan Kayu and myself, we feel that the same job can be done, maybe a little more efficiently if this job was handled by a private contractor. In fact, Sir, for the same price, $5 per month, we are convinced that we can get a higher level of service if this activity is privatized. The private contractors have also convinced us that they have a better system for collection and removal of rubbish on a daily basis. For example, the use of compactors. I also have just been given to understand that the Ministry of the Environment is also seriously thinking of upgrading its service and is seriously considering the installa- tion of compactors. Although a little late, I am quite happy to say it is better late than never. My officers in the Town Council have discussed this question of privatizing this activity with the officials of the Ministry of the Environment, and the tactics adopted by the Ministry is one of frightening the town councillors and the officials. The Ministry of the Environment has not totally rejected the idea of privatization, but, Sir, at the same time they are not too enthusiastic about it, and understandably so.”
“Financing of the Institute of Education (29) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LF-01 of the Main Estimates.”
“Primary school students? At Primary 1 level? At what level?”
“Sir, I have only one query for the Minister and this is in relation to streaming of students both in primary and secondary schools. I am not referring to the streaming which the Member for Ayer Rajah was referring to. Sir, I for one am a strong supporter of streaming of students by academic ability. I believe this is absolutely necessary so that the right pace can be set for children of equal or similar ability. During my days in school in the late fifties, students were streamed simply by academic ability. I still remember my year in Secondary 4 there were eight classes, Class A to H. The first 40 students went to Class A and the next 40 to B and so on. I understand the practice is somewhat slightly different today. Pupils are not only streamed according to academic ability but I am told they are also streamed according to choice of their second language. Hence, streaming, apart from academic ability, also takes into account choice of the second language of the student. I believe this may be done for some administrative convenience or because of shortage of second language teachers. But whatever the reason, Sir, I am told this is a practice prevalent in many schools and I would like the Minister to confirm whether it is the official policy of the Ministry to stream students by choice of second language or is it just administrative practice undertaken by the schools themselves. Sir, if it is official practice or official policy, then I would like to question the wisdom of this policy. However, if this is done for administrative reasons, then I would urge the Ministry to have a second look or serious look at this before this policy causes more damage in building up a multi-racial society.”
“Overseas Missions (5) That the sum to be allocated for Head O be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead OA-03-1210 of the Main Estimates.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for his answers. I would only like to make one suggestion. We should make the ASEAN awards more attractive so that these awards will be taken up. On this note, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0 be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead OA-01-3310 of the Main Estimates. Sir, I have just two queries for the Minister on this. Firstly, there is a reduction in the ASEAN training awards from $240,000 to $200,000. I am just wondering whether this reduction is because of a lack of takers or is it because we are on an austerity drive. My second question to the Minister refers to this allocation of $4.5 million in terms of Technical Assistance to Philippines. Maybe the Minister could elaborate on the details of this technical assistance.”
“Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs for his very clear statement on the three issues which I raised. As for the Second Minister's remarks on the move to Raffles City, I am not very convinced. The question of cost really does not arise because I think Treasury Building is largely owned by the Government. Raffles City is a commercial building. It is paying from one pocket to another pocket. I understand there is time constraint and therefore the Ministry has to move. The point I want to make is that the Ministry has made the wrong decision. On this note, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“If the Ministry has to shift from City Hall, I ask: why not to Treasury Building or other Government buildings? Frankly, Sir, I see no compelling reason to move the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to Raffles City. I also find it very difficult to understand how the Ministry of the Environment can occupy a very prominent place in Scotts Road. A more suitable location for the Ministry of the Environment, I believe, would be near the incinerator in Tuas. However, Sir, I am very reliably informed that, to correct this image, the Minister for the Environment will be very shortly moving his residence near the incinerator and the Minister for the Environment must be congratulated for his foresight. Maybe the Minister for Foreign Affairs has some good reasons for agreeing to move to Raffles City.”
“The personal bond of friendship established between President Suharto and Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew has been built over a long period of time and this to a large extent has brought about the present level of relationship between the Republic of Indonesia and Singapore. Sir, it is common knowledge that both Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and President Suharto are getting on in years. And I am wondering what the Minister for Foreign Affairs and his Ministry is doing to build on this relationship so that the younger leaders of the Singapore Government can continue to expand and further develop this bond of friendship developed by our two current leaders. Sir, fourthly, I would like to touch on a point and express my personal unhappiness in that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is moving away its office from the City Hall to Raffles City. The only thing that is common in this shift appears to be the word "City". The comparison, I am afraid, ends there. Mr Chairman, Sir, I have travelled extensively to most of the world capitals. I think I will be correct in saying that Singapore may be the only country to have the Foreign Office located in a commercial building. Sir, the move from City Hall to Raffles City in my judgment is an unwise one and is definitely not in keeping with the status, the dignity of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I only hope that when they are in their new abode, foreign dignitaries and visitors to the Ministry will not be unwittingly directed to Sogo Department Store and the managing director of Sogo Department Store be mistaken for a senior official of the Ministry or even the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Sir, I must also point out more seriously that this move is also seen in some quarters as an attempt to fill up the empty space in Raffles City.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head O be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead OA-01-1100 of the Main Estimates.* Sir, in moving this amendment, I have four general points to raise with the Minister. My first point refers to the so-called landmark Vladivostok Address made by the Soviet Chief, Mr Gorbachev, last July. Sir, since this statement was made, Soviet foreign policy seems more relaxed and pro-active. Of late, Sir, one gets the impression that the Soviets are taking most of the initiative, particularly in Arms Control talks, talks on Afghanistan and the Cambodian conflict. Sir, I am wondering whether the Minister for Foreign Affairs sees this as a substantial shift in Soviet foreign policy worldwide and, in particular, with special reference to our region. Sir, apart from this new Soviet style diplomacy, there has also been a hive of activity in Southeast Asia very lately. Here, Sir, I am particularly referring to the visits of the Soviet Foreign Minister to Australia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Laos and Kampuchea and that of Mr Natwar Singh, the Indian Minister of State for External Affairs, who in turn visited Indonesia, Thailand, Brunei, Malaysia and Singapore. What I would like to ask the Minister is whether these visits are mere public relations exercises meant to create activities without substance, or are they positive steps taken to end the long-drawn Kampuchean conflict? Sir, my third query refers to our relations with Indonesia. Particularly, I am referring to the successful state visit of President Suharto to Singapore recently.”
“I do not think one can make a statement as a Minister one day and state that these are internal matters and the next day criticize a foreign government as a politician on the same issue. Maybe I would suggest that such politicians find other ways to ensure re-election and do not make use of Singapore as a whipping boy or a useful scapegoat. Sir, one of my colleagues from the GPC will elaborate on this subject even further. It will suffice for me to ask the Minister to tell this House the position of the Malays in our Armed Forces today as compared to the time when we became independent. I am posing this question not to placate any foreign government but really for our citizens to understand the situation and also what we are up against.”
“It must be clearly understood that if somebody breaks our laws, he is not above the law in Singapore, whatever his position may be. Again, Sir, we are told how we should conduct our foreign policy and who we should invite and who we should not. I suppose next, we will be told with whom we can have and cannot have diplomatic relations. And finally, Sir, in the last few days we are now told how we should manage our Armed Forces. Sir, it was reported in the Straits Times that a foreign politician has strongly criticized BG Lee Hsien Loong's statement on the position of Malays in the Singapore Armed Forces and this strong statement was made second time in a row. This apparently is a political answer by this politician. Unfortunately, Sir, it was the same politician who earlier in the month said that he regarded the statement as "purely an internal affair." Apparently, this was his diplomatic answer. This is an example of straight talking from a politician of a friendly neighbouring country. The statement of BG Lee, it seems, is a serious statement and it involves the question of the Malay race. If one were to extend the same logic, it would mean that if tomorrow some statements are made regarding the Chinese then it becomes a major question of the Chinese race and the PRC government must then interfere. Similarly, if it involves the Indians, then the Indian government must intervene because the Indian race has been hurt. Of course, they all say that these are internal matters and yet they feel compelled to take issue with us. I would urge foreign politicians to refrain from meddling in our domestic issues.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head K be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead KA-01-1100 of the Main Estimates.* Sir, the Defence budget of $2.3 billion for the financial year 1987/88 shows an increase of 5.1% over the financial year 1986/87. It is pertinent to note that the increase in expenditure for Education is 5.9%, ie, an increase from $1.67 billion to $1.76 billion. The budget increase for the Health Ministry is, in fact, 15.8% and that is from $455 million to $527 million. Sir, the above clearly shows that we are not increasing our defence expenditure at the expense of our other social services like education and health. The increase in defence expenditure is modest, affordable and, more importantly, necessary. It may be worthwhile to repeat what the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Defence stated in this House last Friday. He mentioned that we are too small to threaten anyone and we are not preparing for war. What we are doing is really to have a defence capability in place so that we are not caught unprepared when confronted with the eventuality of having to defend ourselves. Our basic aim is to strive for peace which in turn will ensure that we can continue to build our economy and our social infrastructure for the betterment of our people. Sir, in moving this amendment, I would like to raise an issue which has attracted much attention of late. Being small and peace-loving, we have been minding our own business and getting on with the job of improving the life of our Singaporeans and we sincerely hope that we will be left alone to go on this course instead of being told, firstly, on how we should handle criminals - criminals who break our laws.”
“Two cases in point - Government divestment of shares to UIC and National Iron and Steel Mills. I believe, Sir, there were business groups, companies that were interested in taking over Government interests in these companies. However, Government in its own wisdom decided to place its holdings in UIC in the London market and sold its holdings in National Iron and Steel Mills to DBS which, in turn, placed some of its National Iron shares, I am told, in a foreign market. By this exercise I am again told that Government received a reasonably good price. Selling National Iron shares to DBS is not privatization by any stretch of imagination. I would urge the Minister to allow interested groups in Singapore to participate and benefit from the Government's divestment programme. I also understand, Sir, there is no single system for divestment. But Government must be seen to favour, if not treat, local businesses on priority, instead of placing their shares in open international markets. Placing of Government-owned shares in international market is an easy way out. And I would seriously urge the Minister to resist this temptation. Sir, in conclusion, I would like to urge the Minister to give some consideration to the points I have made and I would like to support the motion standing in the name of the Minister.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before lunch I was touching on the question of one of the Economic Committee's recommendations regarding employee share scheme. Sir, both Government and employers feel that the employee share schemes and share options is a good one and it is a good way to foster commitment of employees to companies. At present gains from such schemes are fully taxed. The Economic Committee in its report on page 95 stated: 'It is recommended that, for approved share option schemes and approved productivity-related employee share schemes, the gains made by employees be progressively exempt from tax based on the period the shares are held. The incentive should apply to all companies, including start-up companies, to encourage them to make wider use of such schemes.' Mr Speaker, Sir, so far the Government has not reacted to this recommendation. I am wondering whether the Minister for Finance could make some comments on this employee share scheme as recommended by the Economic Committee. Sir, the third area which I intend to touch on is the question of privatization. I think the privatization report has just been released. I think it is embargoed until today. Nevertheless, Sir, the Minister in his statement dwelt at some length on the privatization programme of the Government. The point I would like to make is that when the Government went into business in the 60s and 70s, I believe, Sir, profit was not the main motive. Although I believe it is essential for businesses to be profitable, whether they be private or government. Similarly, when it is time to divest I also believe that profit should not be the overriding criterion. Some unhappiness has been expressed in the business circles by the way Government has divested so far.”
“The second recommendation of the Economic Committee which I would like to refer to ---”
“Secondly, Sir, I also strongly suggest to the Minister that all these schemes should be combined into large comprehensive schemes by basic objectives, such as financial assistance for (a) acquisition of plant and equipment; (b) consultancy and business development; and (c) marketing schemes. This would, in my opinion, avoid duplication of schemes offered by the various agencies in Singapore today. Sir, I next turn to the question of the Economic Committee's recommendations. Many of the major recommendations of the Economic Committee have been implemented in part or in full since the Report was published in February 1986. However, it is my opinion that there has been no response to a number of recommendations made. Specifically, I refer to two recommendations and would like to know whether these are being considered by the Ministry of Finance or whether they have been flatly rejected. Sir, first, I refer to third country trading. The Economic Committee recommended that profits arising from third country transactions should be taxed at the reduced rate of 10%. It was felt that our present tax regime discouraged third country trading from being based in Singapore. If we reduce the tax on income derived effectively to 10%, we believe that we can be more competitive with Hong Kong. Further, the Committee felt that if such remittances were taxed at the current rate, not only the money but also the expertise and the activities will be parked away from Singapore. In his statement to the House, the Minister had accepted the Economic Committee's recommendation of 10% income tax on income on export of services and I would like to know why this cannot be extended to income from third country trading.”
“The number of schemes are good but I am afraid local business is suffering from some indigestion and they are unable to take full advantage of all the schemes because of lack of knowledge or lack of necessary management expertise. In fact, Sir, it is very common even for medium-sized foreign companies to take better advantage of tese schemes than our own local companies. Mr Speaker, Sir, looking at all these schemes, one can make the following observations. Firstly, there is duplication in the incentive schemes. There are market-orientated schemes under the EDB which operates the business development scheme and the Trade Development Board which operates double tax deduction scheme. Consultancy-oriented schemes are offered by the Economic Development Board, SISIR and the National Productivity Board. Secondly, Sir, the criteria for qualification to apply for these schemes are not clear. For example, productive assets of $8 million. Should it be net book value or should it be the original cost? Thirdly, Sir, incentive schemes should be integrated and coordinated. For example, once when a financial assistance scheme is given for equipment acquisition, then other schemes should fall in place, ie, scheme for management training and scheme for proper marketing. Sir, in view of the multiplicity of schemes and the various bodies administering it, I would like to suggest that it may be useful for the Small Enterprise Bureau (SEB) to become a sort of liaison office so that it can screen and coordinate all applications for assistance.”
“The Economic Development Board, the Trade Development Board, Singapore Institute of Standards and Industrial Research, National Productivity Board, Export Credit Insurance of Singapore and Monetary Authority of Singapore, all have schemes to help and assist local business. I would like to take this opportunity to brief this House on the various schemes that are in place today. Under the Economic Development Board, the following schemes are in place. Firstly, you have the Small Industries Finance Scheme (SIFS). Then there is the Capital Assistance Scheme. There is a scheme for Venture Capital. There is another scheme which is known as "Initiatives in New Technologies (INTEC)". Another scheme is the Product Development Assistance Scheme (PDAS). There is the scheme for Robot Leasing. There is another scheme for Small Industries Technical Assistance Scheme and a newly-introduced scheme, Business Development Scheme. There are eight schemes under the Economic Development Board. Under the Trade Development Board, there are the Market Development Assistance Scheme and the Double Taxation Deduction Scheme for participation in trade fairs, overseas offices and international trading offices and so on. Sir, under SISIR, we have a scheme for short term advisory services. Under the National Productivity Board, there is a scheme for developing consultancy programme. And finally, under the Monetary Authority of Singapore, we have the Export Bills Discounting Scheme. Sir, from the above, one can see there is no dearth of schemes and the Government's commitment to help local business.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to congratulate the Minister for Finance for the Budget statement. Sir, this year's Budget statement has been given various labels, starting from Procreative Budget, Growth Budget, Baby Budget and even a Vatican Budget. However, Sir, I would like to remember this year's Budget as one that helped to consolidate the recovery that was set in motion with last year's Budget statement. Sir, as stated, there are no surprises. It has addressed both short-term problems as well as taken into account longer-term issues, in particular, Singapore's position vis-a-vis the world economy. Mr Speaker, Sir, for this debate, I would like to confine myself to three areas. First is the question of local business. The second issue which I would like to dwell upon is why some of the recommendations of the Economic Committee have not been implemented. And the third question which I would like to raise with the Minister concerns privatization. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister, in his statement, stated and I quote: 'Local businesses occupy an important role in our economy. We must build a solid base of thriving and resilient local businesses.' And he went on to add: 'Local businesses can be assured that the Government will give them every possible help to upgrade and modernise their operations to cope with the changing business environment. But Government help will not be enough. Our businessmen must have the will to adapt and adjust to changes, so that they can play their rightful role in the modern economy of Singapore.' Mr Speaker, Sir, over the years, the Government has repeatedly stated its objective to help local business, particularly smaller business. I do not think that there has been any lack of trying on the part of the Government.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would urge the Government agencies responsible to explore this area with some urgency. Sir, I support the Bill.”
“Sir, it is our hope that we will not be punished further for adopting these restrictions by more restrictive trading practices and conditions in our developed markets. Let us hope that our trust is not misplaced. Sir, the second point I would like to make is to refer to the question of parallel imports. During the Second Reading of this Bill in this House I urged the Minister to seriously look at the question of parallel imports. It is very gratifying to hear the Minister when moving this Bill in this House a few minutes ago that he has given serious consideration to this request, and I am sure the necessary changes introduced will benefit consumers as a whole. This will definitely discourage price-fixing and will be in the general interest of all Singaporeans. Finally, Sir, I would like to look at some positive aspects as a result of the enactment of this Bill. Some manufacturers and businessmen will necessarily go out of business with the coming into operation of this Bill. I think Government agencies like the Economic Development Board, the Trade Development Board can do much to help some of these businesses. Government should identify such companies and assist them to enter into licensing or franchise agreements with holders of the original rights so that these works and items can be manufactured or produced in Singapore legally for consumption not only in the Singapore market but also for consumption in the regional market. Whilst this will definitely keep some of our businesses alive, it does also help to reduce prices. If these works can be produced in Singapore as a result of franchise or licensing arrangements, it will be beneficial not only to consumers in Singapore but also our regional market.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to make some comments on the Copyright Bill as introduced by the Minister. Sir, firstly, I would like to congratulate the Minister and his officials for the breakneck speed at which this legislation has come before this House. A tremendous amount of work was done in the Select Committee as it can be seen from the 34 written representations received from the various organizations and interested groups. Sir, it must be pointed out that there has been considerable pressure from developed countries, particularly the United States of America, for the enactment of this piece of legislation. Whilst we have done everything possible to comply with the demands of the developed countries, I think it is necessary for the developed countries to recognize the swift action taken by the Singapore Government. I only hope, Sir, that the speed at which the Singapore Government and its officials reacted to the US request will not be reciprocated by the US Congress passing through 300 or 400 trade restrictive Bills at the same breakneck speed. Sir, the US and other developed countries hopefully will reciprocate the action taken by the Singapore Government with more liberal trade policies towards Singapore. Many countries have paid lip service to the question of copyright and protection of intellectual properties. Some countries, I am told, have acceded to all the requests and pressures by the US by enacting the necessary pieces of legislation. But, Sir, we know, in practice, this will be totally disregarded. Unfortunately, Sir, the case in Singapore is slightly different. I am sure the Government will strictly enforce the legislation once it is passed in this House.”
“For example, key appointment holders could be given generous allowances during the stipulated period of training and possibly also be sponsored by the Singapore Armed Forces to membership of prestigious clubs in Singapore. I feel that this tangible form of appreciation would go a long way. Sir, one other suggestion which I would like to make for the Minister's consideration is for SAF to dispel the idea that reservist training is indeed a holiday camp. Although SAF has over the years encouraged employers to visit their officers during training, I feel there is room for improvement in this area. In particular, Sir, when key appointment holders are actively engaged in training exercise, top management of key reservists should be invited to visit the camp and see the relevant training. Interaction by top management with key appointment holders in the field during exercise is bound to contribute to more understanding and, hence, foster greater rapport between key appointment holders and respective management. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would urge top management and employers to take advantage of such opportunity to visit reservists during their training. It is not enough to visit sick employees in hospital. Time has come for company welfarism to be extended to reservists during in-camp training.”