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 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.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 8 of 12.
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Enlistment (Amendment) Bill. Sir, at the outset it must be pointed out that any extension of the present period of 40 days will indeed inconvenience both the reservists as well as the employers. But, Sir, I believe that this is a necessary inconvenience in the overall interest of the defence of Singapore. Although the number of key reservists, as mentioned by the Minister, is small, I think it is necessary for both Government as well as employers to appreciate and recognize the contributions of key reservists towards national defence. Although there is appreciation on the part of Government and enlightened employers, I feel much more need to be done. Open and generous recognition by employers of contributions of such reservists will boost morale and motivation of key appointment holders. Employers should take the lead to publicize the efforts and contributions of such key appointment holders in their in-house newsletters, for this will be clear testimony of commitment and recognition by top management of the contributions of such reservists. Besides recognition by top management will have the added effect of influencing other reservists to assume greater responsibilities in their own reservist appointments. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, whilst I agree with the Minister that this Bill should be seen as a demonstration of appreciation of work done by key reservists, I feel that this alone will be insufficient. I would urge the Government to be more generous by offering liberal incentives to key appointment holders.”
“In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would also appeal to the Front Bench that while these amendments are meant for the legal profession, I think similar provisions should be looked into for other professional bodies. 3.27 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, all I am saying is that Mr David Marshall can continue to serve Singapore in other areas. He did not seek office in the Law Society. That is the only point I am trying to make. Sir, this reminds me of the case of a British Cabinet Minister who had to resign from his Defence portfolio because he lied in Parliament. He resigned and he never contested any elections. And instead, he spent all his energies on social work. I think it was a couple of years ago that the Queen found it necessary to bestow an honour on this particular former Minister for his public service. Mr Speaker, Sir, my second point refers to the provision for a wider representation in the Disciplinary Committee. I welcome this move to bring in other professionals such as accountants, engineers and doctors to the Disciplinary Committee. While self-regulation may have served us well in the past, I think the time has come for us to change it. The Singapore Stock Exchange, as was previously alluded to, is a case in point where self-regulation led to a number of problems and adequate measures had to be taken to put this right. I am also told that the accounting profession in the United Kingdom has "lay observers" in its Investigating Committee as well as in its Disciplinary Committee. And by having such lay observers or laymen, not totally members of the legal profession, this will allay any public fears of trying to hide things under the carpet. Mr Speaker, Sir, the work of professionals involve most sectors of our society and it is only reasonable that disciplinary proceedings of professionals must not only be fair but also be transparent. This transparency, I believe, Sir, will be provided with the appointment of non-legal members on the Disciplinary Committee.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not say that. I was just stating what he said as reported in the newspapers. Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes. Is that not correct?”
“Six months, all right. And I think it is not for defrauding clients. After his debarment, he came back to continue his practice and he did not seek office in the Law Society.”
“Mr Marshall was barred from practice for a period of time.”
“Let me finish and then you can have your chance. Sir, I still think the Member for Potong Pasir has done Mr David Marshall a great disservice.”
“I am not denying. I am just repeating what you said as reported in the newspapers.”
“I am not accusing. I am just saying that you have done Mr David Marshall a great disservice. That is all I said.”
“This amendment, Sir, only disqualifies a member from holding office in the Law Society if he has been convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty. Sir, I repeat, it only disqualifies anyone convicted of fraud or dishonesty. The question to ask is: Do we want our professional societies to be led by men who have been convicted of fraud or dishonesty? Sir, if the answer is yes, then something is gravely wrong. Surely, if one is convicted of fraud or dishonesty and subsequently allowed to practise his profession, does this then become a testimonial for holding high office in the professional body? Sir, I believe a distinction must be made between allowing a person to practise one's profession after conviction to earn a livelihood and that of becoming a leader-man of the professional body. The Member for Potong Pasir, I think it was reported in the newspapers, had accused the Government of applying double standards as regards Mr David Marshall. I think the Member for Potong Pasir has done a great disservice to Mr Marshall who retired as an eminent member of the Bar.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Firstly, I would like to commend the Second Minister for Law for committing the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill to a Select Committee after today's Second Reading. Sir, it is important that the proposed amendments in the Bill are fully discussed and debated by all interested parties and that they be given this opportunity to express their views and make appropriate recommendations. This will also give the legal fraternity another opportunity apart from the Extraordinary General Meeting scheduled for tonight. Mr Speaker, Sir, apart from the legal fraternity, there have also been discussions on this subject by other professional groups. So it is my hope that many people will come forth and make their views known. Notwithstanding the commitment of this Bill to a Select Committee, I would like to make my comments on two issues. The first point refers to what the Society in Singapore in general expects from our professionals. And secondly what I believe our professionals owe to Society. As we all know, professionals are well respected and trusted by society at large because of their training, competence and, most of all, their integrity. Professional bodies are set up, among other things, to ensure that this trust and respect is maintained at all times. This applies to all whether they are lawyers, architects, accountants or engineers. If professional bodies are to supervise the conduct of its members, Mr Speaker, Sir, I firmly believe that it is necessary for such bodies to be led by men who are above the slightest possible reproach. This, I believe, is an accepted norm in any society and I do not think any rational man can quarrel with this accepted standard.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have one question for the Minister. I am just wondering whether it will be necessary for a member to pledge his property to CPF if he decides to withdraw all his savings.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. Sir, if I read the motion correctly, it has got to do with sale and resale of HUDC flats. It has nothing to do with the buy-back policy of the HDB. Is the Member speaking on the motion or is he introducing some other subject?”
“Your Demokrat is being published. Don't tell lies.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst I rise to support the Securities Industry Bill, I would also support the call made by hon. Members for Whampoa, Alexandra and Jalan Kayu that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee. Sir, I sympathize with the Hon. Minister for Finance that time is not on his side as a result of the Pan-Electric debacle, I think it is important that a number of other quar- ters need to be consulted before this House passes this as law. I would seriously urge the Minister for Finance to consider referring this Bill to a Select Committee. Sir, next I want to turn to the call I made during the debate on the Budget Statement. That is the opening up of the stock market. Sir, allowing the four banks to take up seats in the Stock Exchange, is a welcome move. But what has really happened is that no new business or no new activity has been created. In fact, they have taken up the businesses which were done by stockbroking firms. Some of the stockbroling firms will be in receivership shortly. I suggested to the Minister that it is opportune to open up or invite international stockbrokers into the Stock Exchange of Singapore. This can be limited to two or three large firms. The Minister in his reply suggested that some of them could take up equity participation up to 49%, giving the local stockbrokers 51%. Sir, if you really want our Stock Exchange to have an international status, I think it is important to have international stockbrokers having total or 100%-owned seats on the Exchange. This not only will give us the added image of an international Stock Exchange but I believe, Sir, it will also add on and bring in additional professionalism which is presently lacking.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Minister consider allowing CPF members, particularly those who have failed in their businesses and who are currently unemployed, to at least draw their interest income from CPF in order to continue a simple living?”
“Maybe the Minister can throw some light on this matter.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to place on record the sincere appreciation of a number of my constituents for the help given by the Job Placement Unit of the Ministry of Labour. Sir, not only were the success rates very high but the speed and the manner in which my constituents were treated, is something other Ministries, statutory boards and Government departments may want to emulate. Having said the above, I am a little concerned whether the department can carry on its good work. In fact, for the coming year, Sir, there is a slight reduction in the manpower cost but with the same level of manpower in the estimates. For FY 86, I believe the services of this department will be utilized even greater. There will be more demand for its services in view of the current recession. I am sure most Members of this House will have noticed the increase in request for jobs in our meet-the-people sessions. In view of the increased demand for the services of this department, I hope that the quality of the service rendered by the Placement Unit will be maintained. And I am just wondering how this can be done with the present level of manpower. Maybe the Hon. Minister has some plans to redeploy some of the other members of the staff to this Unit. I hope the Minister will pay some attention to this request. Sir, at the same time, I find that the manpower for the Work Permit Department is maintained at about the same level. In fact, there is a slight increase for FY 86 from $2.18 million to $2.2 million. I would have thought that with the recession we have in our hands, we will be very stringent and, in fact, issue less work permits. So if less work permit applications are being processed, I am questioning the need to maintain the same level of staff as for FY 85.”
“In view of the above, I would like to ask the Minister, Sir, how much has been expended on this programme. Secondly, whether this programme has been cost-effective. Thirdly, Sir, are there adequate safeguards taken for computer security? Sir, my next topic relates to the Commercial Affairs Investigation Department. The hon. Member for Jalan Kayu has already raised the question on manpower. Sir, I believe the move to set up this special Department to investigate commercial fraud and abuse is a welcome one. This is all the more important since we are trying to build up Singapore as an international business centre. All our promotional efforts will come to nought if fraud and abuse were rampant and was the order of the day in Singapore. Sir, in view of the Pan-El debacle, the Singapore investor or investors looking to the Government for some form of protection for his investment. Thousands of shareholders from Pan-El are made to pay for the mistakes of some. My question to the Minister is whether this Commercial Affairs Investigation Department is a reactive organization, ie, move in only after the event, as in the case of the Pan-El case, or does it have the resources and the authority to be more pro-active. Maybe the Minister can elaborate to this House on the work and functions of the CAID so that it will give added confidence to our investors in Singapore and possibly put some fear into the hearts of directors of companies who may have other designs.”
“Sir, I have three amendments under my name and I propose to speak on all three amendments. My first amendment, Sir, refers to the question of manpower. Sir, much has been said on this subject, especially with the formation of the special committee under the Permanent Secretary (Budget) to look into this question. The assurance that there will be no retrenchments is most reassuring. My only regret is that this exercise should have been carried out two or three years ago. The timing seems to be most inappropriate. New job creations in the private sector, Sir, I submit, will take some time. With the projected recession for the next two years, what is the future for new entrants into the labour market? Is this not the concern of the Government too? I hope the Government will give some serious consideration to the problem of new entrants into the labour market. Secondly, Sir, on the question of manpower itself, I would like to suggest that the committee that is going to look into the so-called 10% cut must make sure that this cut applies to all grades and not purely to office boys and lift attendants. Sir, it is common practice both in the private sector and the public sector to just go for numbers rather than manpower cost. Sir, if you remove 10 office boys, it makes for better presentation than the removal of one superscale officer. Therefore, I would strongly suggest that the Government has a re-look at this problem in view of the current economic situation. Sir, I would like to turn to the subject of computerization in the Civil Service. The computerization of the civil service was launched in 1981 to increase efficiency and effectiveness in the public service. It was also intended to provide a higher and a wider quality of service.”
“Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for his very clear and direct answers. I can assure him that next year I will still come back to the question of properties again. On this note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $49,245,600 for Head O ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $16,000,000 for Head O ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY REPORTING PROGRESS (Suspension of Standing Orders) With the consent of Mr Deputy Speaker and the general assent of Members present, Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, "That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow." - [Mr S. Dhanabalan]. Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.”
“It is also reported in the papers that the Malaysian Prime Minister is reported to be in favour of such a meeting. Maybe the Minister for Foreign Affairs can enlighten this House on the possibility of an early ASEAN summit. Sir, my final question, which is my favourite question, refers to the purchase of properties by our Foreign Ministry. I note that a sum of $16 million is provided for the financial year 1986 to purchase properties for our overseas missions. This is the revised provision for the financial year 1985. Maybe the Minister would like to inform the House where were the properties purchased in the last financial year, and what properties his Ministry hopes to purchase for financial year 1986.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head O be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead OA-01 of the Main Estimates. Sir, I am pleased to note that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not join the other Ministries to reduce its expenditure. In fact, it has projected for a modest increase and the bulk of this increase is for manpower costs. It is precisely for this reason that I would like to ask the Minister whether there is a shift in the emphasis for the Ministry. While politics and political development is still important, I believe the shift is more towards economic problems. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is gearing for this additional role. If so, how? My second question for the Minister relates to ASEAN. We have just witnessed the change in government in the Philip- pines and we are now reading about troubles in Sabah. Hopefully, Sir, political stability will return quickly to our region. That ASEAN is a strong political entity is beyond any doubt. But I believe, and many of us here believe, that much more has to be done in the field of economic cooperation. This is all the more important and urgent because of the current international situation. Protectionism and depressed commodity prices is hampering growth in our region. Hence, Sir, I believe that positive steps must be taken by ASEAN governments as a whole to improve regional cooperation further. Sir, it is quite some time since the ASEAN Heads of Governments met. Maybe another meeting of the ASEAN Heads of Governments should be convened, particularly to give a boost to ASEAN economic cooperation. We have read in the papers that Thailand has called for a summit.”
“At the moment, these national monuments are maintained by the generosity of the public. I hope that the Minister will look into this exercise. My third issue with the Minister refers to the creation of Town Councils. The Minister, in an answer earlier in the week, has indicated that if Cabinet approves, a pilot project will be started in the Ang Mo Kio New Town. I think it will be reassuring if the Minister could inform this House that the Ang Mo Kio New Town MPs would be consulted before any decision is taken on this subject. Next, I refer to rental of shophouses, both in my constituency and in other constituencies. Many shopkeepers are concerned with the high rental of shops tendered specially during the boom period of 1981. I would like to ask the Minister whether HDB has considered allowing shopkeepers to re-negotiate rentals with HDB as this has been done in the private sector. I believe that if some re-negotiations take place some relief will come to these many shopkeepers. The final issue which I would like to bring up with the Minister refers to the question of wet markets. The HDB has now ceased building wet markets and more and more dry markets are being built. I am wondering whether HDB has any specific plans to convert existing wet markets into dry markets. Also, Sir, currently, dry markets are offered to people by public tender. I would like to know whether dry markets can also be offered to resettled shopkeepers as well as others on resettlement priority basis.”
“Sir, I would like to touch on a number of issues and would respectfully ask the Minister for National Development for his comments. My first question relates to the Urban Redevelopment Authority. I would like the Minister to outline to this House what is the future role of the URA in view of the current property market. My second question on URA specifically relates to URA's call for public participation in the Singapore River project. I am informed that the URA guidelines and the time constraint are difficult for members who are interested in the project to meet. I would like to know why it is necessary for the URA to be so restrictive, particularly, in the present time. I believe that the private sector should be given a greater latitude to develop the Singapore River area into a viable business proposition with minimum interference from authorities, particularly, Environment, BCD or the URA itself. Sir, my second subject refers to the Preservation of Monuments Board. I find it very difficult to accept that a body which is in charge of development is also in charge of the preservation of monuments. Needless to say, Sir, a change to the Ministry of Community Development or Ministry of Finance would be in order. More importantly, these monuments so defined by the Preservation of Monuments Board get little or no help from the Government. The Preservation of Monuments Board itself has little or no support. Sir, these national monuments, particularly the mosque in Beach Road, the temple in South Bridge Road, need support and financial assistance. They have also become tourist attractions. I am told that approaches for financial assistance to the Tourist Promotion Board have met with little or no success.”
“Thank you, Sir for allowing me to join in the debate at this juncture. Sir, I notice from the Main Estimates that the Expenditure on Manpower has been reduced to $47 million for FY 86 as compared to $49 million for the FY 85. Whilst it may be necessary to trim costs, especially manpower costs, I am a little concerned whether this will have any significant impact on our defence capability. The importance of our defence need not be stressed further. I only hope that the Ministry will not sacrifice our defence requirements in the name of cost-saving. The Ministry, I believe, must continue to employ the best and our Defence capability should not be compromised. Sir, recruitment of the best brains available for the Armed Forces must continue. 4.15 pm My second point refers to the question of the role that our Navy plays in our Defence capability. The people in Singapore can see our soldiers in the streets, our Air Force planes in the sky. However, I feel that our seamen are hardly visible. Maybe the Minister would like to outline to this House the role and importance of the Navy in our Defence set-up.”
“The timing is most inappropriate, and I submit there is no justification to introduce consumption tax in this recessionary period. We can have a closer look at it when it becomes necessary for us to do so. Sir, in conclusion, I would like to say that our goal is to make Singapore a developed country in the 1990s. When we become a developed country, we shall have a standard of living equivalent to the Swiss today. I think this is a goal we have all agreed on and it is worthwhile pursuing. Sir, however, the only snag is that the Government has already imposed Swiss standards in Singapore, in terms of environmental health, safety regulations, etc. We are, in fact, being excessively over-cautious, over-designed and over-regulated. This makes our environment not too conducive for business growth. If I may recount what a business friend told me recently. Singapore is a good place to live in because it is clean; there is law and order, but as for business he prefers to do it outside. Sir, this comment is worthwhile noting. The businessmen are not asking for a total free-for-all-situation. A happy medium has to be struck. I believe much more has to be done in this area. We need to improve our business environment quickly and, more importantly, inject more confidence. Right now, it is very critical for confidence to return to the market place quickly. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have a difficult task ahead of us, and I would urge all Singaporeans to work together with the Government to get the economy going again. 4.48 pm”
“Right now, such operational headquarters would already have been located in other tax friendly countries, like Hong Kong and Switzerland. So the authorities need not worry over perceived or notional tax losses. I hope the Ministry will be able to come out with a scheme very quickly. Sir, experience has shown that some of the best ideas can be crippled by unrealistic guidelines drawn up purely to deal with problems, imaginary or otherwise. Whilst I agree that not all businessmen are angels, it may be worth mentioning that neither is the business world infested only with crooks. Sir, next I turn to the question of consumption tax. I agree with the Finance Minister when he says: 'Much will, of course, depend on the economic situation and the actual Budget position in the years ahead. But there may come a time when we need to look for new ways to raise revenue.' Then he goes on to describe the First Deputy Prime Minister's announcement of some form of consumption tax. 'It is intended that we begin to put into place this year, the machinery needed for the collection of consumption taxes.' Sir, I think the key question to ask is, "Is it timely now to introduce consumption tax, or are we just giving the population an indication?" Rightly so, Sir, this proposal to introduce consumption tax has sparked off keen interest and unhappiness from Members of this House and members of the public. Sir, this is not purely on the grounds, as the Finance Minister said, that any tax is unpopular. I would strongly urge the Minister not to consider any form of consumption tax within the next two to three years. Other measures should be explored before consumption tax is levied on the population.”
“The experience of countries like United States and the United Kingdom suggests that venture capital can be properly harnessed and become a new source for economic opportunities and growth. However, investments in venture capital can be restrictive in the sense that these investments cannot be easily liquidated. In other words, there is no mechanism available for early recovery of funds when this is needed. In this context, I am pleased to note that the Minister mentioned about the unlisted securities market in his Budget statement. Maybe the Minister would like to enlighten this House on the status of this proposal on the unlisted securities market. Sir, the Minister also spoke about operational headquarters incentives. The introduction of operational headquarters incentives, I believe, will propel Singapore as a genuinely Total Business Centre. Multinational companies, for a start, would be induced to set up complete business units in Singapore which will include manufacturing, marketing, research and development, financial and fund management functions. In other words, operational headquarters would not be mere investment holding companies in Singapore but companies with substantial business interests in Singapore. I am glad to note that the Minister has assured us that his officers are looking at the operational headquarters incentives very closely. The Economic Committee has recommended that all foreign income of approved operational headquarters should be exempted from tax. My feedback from the business community is that this incentive is potentially a very effective instrument in our effort to promote Singapore as a Total Business Centre. As I can see, there will be no tax losses.”
“I submit that in order to deepen and widen the stock market, the Finance Minister should urge the MAS to consider offering two or three seats to internationally top broking firms. I believe that these international firms, apart from adding international status to the market, will also offer competition to our Big Four banks. The other benefit would be to raise the level of professionalism in the local market, particularly in the areas of investment research and analysis. Sir, the stockbrokers in Singapore have been protected far too long. I think Hong Kong, London, Tokyo and Sydney have already begun opening up their memberships in the stock market. Further, others like Korea and Taiwan will also open up their stock markets to foreigners. At this moment, these markets do not pose a threat to Singapore but in the longer-term, foreign investors are likely to focus more and more on these markets at the expense of Singapore. The limited opening up of our stock market for international stockbroking firms would be, I believe, in keeping with our "open-door policy". I do not think the Stock Exchange of Singapore should be an exception. Sir, next I turn to venture capital incentive and the unlisted securities market. Currently, we have an incentive allowing companies to write off 50% of equity invested in any approved technological company, if the latter incurs cumulative losses at the end of the first three years of operation. The Minister in his statement announced that this scheme will now be replaced by the Venture Capital Incentive which will allow an investor to deduct his income from other sources up to 100% of the equity invested in an approved venture capital project.”
“If the government can carry some excess manpower for the next 18 to 24 months, then I believe when the economy picks up, we will have sufficient manpower in place to take advantage of the new opportunities. I would caution the government about staff reduction at this point of time. I would urge that the committee headed by Mr Hochstadt take note of this aspect of Government policy. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to touch on Financial services which the Minister raised in his Budget statement. The Minister identified, rightly so, the financial sector as having growth potential, especially in fee-based activities such as fund management and financial futures. He stated that, in addition to financial contracts, SIMEX would be introducing stock index futures and futures trading. A fixed rate securities market would be developed and that the stockbroking firms would be better organized with the introduction of the new Securities Industry Act. In this connection, I would like to congratulate both the Minister for Finance and the Monetary Authority of Singapore for the speedy way in which they brought about sense into the stock market in Singapore. While some stockbroking firms are forced to go into liquidation, the MAS very quickly brought confidence into the stock market by asking the Big Four banks to set up their own stockbroking firms. This has really brought about some sense of investor-confidence in the stock market. But, Sir, apart from confidence, I do not think any new or additional business will be injected as a result of the Big Four moving into the stock market. What has happened is really a transfer of business.”
“The Government will have to look at innovative ways of employing our trained personnel. We repeatedly say that our only resource is manpower and yet we are prepared to discard them in times of recession and only call for their services in boom times. In fact, in boom times, we crack our heads to think of schemes like PIPS to attract foreign talent. I would like to strongly urge the Government to look into ways and means of absorbing particularly professionals and better qualified personnel, at least for the next 24 months. Here, I would like to congratulate the Ministry of Education for absorbing a fair number of graduates into the teaching service. I believe the Government can employ quite a few technical and professional people, not necessarily at the starting salary of $2,200 as currently done by the Public Services Commission, but maybe recruit these engineers and technical people on a pupillage basis and at a reduced salary. This was done in the early times. An engineer used to start work as a pupil engineer, not necessarily a Division I engineer, and could start off at a much lower salary. Some of them could be seconded to the Small Enterprise Bureau and help provide assistance to companies who need the services of professional and technical people and yet who are unable to employ them. Funding for such innovative exercises can come from the Skills Development Fund or from past collections of payroll tax. I believe this is a course that the Government must seriously look into. If not, we will encourage our professionals, especially our brighter students who are currently studying abroad, to move away from Singapore to other countries.”
“It also suggests that professionals should leave their jobs and undergo full-time post-graduate programmes and also employers should be encouraged to give employees scholarships to undergo post-graduate training. These are the guidelines and objectives both for the short-term and the long-term. Therefore, I believe it is vital that the Government sets the right example for the manpower development programme to succeed. In this connection, Sir, whilst I agree with the Minister for Finance that the expenditure on manpower in the public sector has increased considerably from $1.1 billion in 1981 to close to $2 billion in 1985, I am not sure whether the proposed reduction of 10% from current levels over the next five years is a wise move at this juncture. Our current increases in manpower are easily justifiable. Sure our public sector employment to population ratio is still high compared with Japan, South Korea and Hong Kong. It is 5.3% for Singapore, 3% for Japan, 1.6% for South Korea and 3.4% for Hong Kong. Sir, in times of recession and falling revenues, it is tempting to cut establishment levels and manpower cost. I would agree with the Minister that such cuts are necessary in normal times. But now we are facing a recessionary period which is expected to last at least 24 months. Any cut or curtailment now will only add on to the unemployment scene, and I strongly believe that there will be no expansion of jobs in the private sector for the next 18 to 24 months. Sir, the Government must be careful not to add on to the unemployment scene by becoming the pacesetter. If the long-term objectives as indicated in the Economic Report are to be fulfilled, I strongly suggest that the Government will have to do the reverse, ie, in fact, employ more.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Motion standing in the name of the Finance Minister. Sir, the Budget statement brought no new surprises, as much of the goodies were handed down by the First Deputy Prime Ministerduring the debate on the Presidential Address. However, the Minister for Finance addressed the problems of overcoming the recession and at the same time set the correct direction for the long-term growth of Singapore. Sir, it is with this in mind that I would like to speak on a number of topics. Firstly, Manpower. I would like to refer Members to Chapter 11 of the Report of the Economic Committee. The Economic Committee in its Report states that the upgrading of the educational level of our population will take time but nevertheless we must support the effort relentlessly: 'Our strategy should be to: (a) Educate each individual to his maximum potential; (b) Encourage the development of more creative and flexible skills through broad-based education; (c) Stress the need for continuous training and re-training; (d) Provide skilled manpower at internationally competitive cost; and (e) Match skills with demand.' Sir, it goes on to add that manpower development plan should include an increase of annual intake by 3% per annum for our Universities and Polytechnics, while the VITB should expand by 5% per annum. Further, it states that we need to consolidate on our success in expanding and improving underrgraduate education and that we can now expand on post-graduate education. The Report also specifically states that the National University of Singapore and the Nanyang Technological Institute should expand their post-graduate programmes, particularly in areas of Engineering, Information Technnology and Business Administration.”
“On 10th March 1986, the Business Times reported under the headline "Stronger yen and lower costs provide good incentives - Japanese manufacturers give Republic a second look". I think some of them have already reacted and are looking at Singapore again. I have also personally heard of firms, which have plans to relocate, have now decided to do otherwise. In other words, with some luck, we should be able to hold on to our position and put the brake on further decline. New investments, from both local and foreign, are what we really have to look forward to. Finally, let me quote the then Minister for Finance when he summed up last year's budget. He said: 'Rumours about the impending demise of our economy are greatly exaggerated.' I think the more we talk about how badly we are doing the more we will go down the spiral, as the Member for Rochore has mentioned. 4.32 pm”
“I hope that the decline in Defence expenditure is not a result of the recession. I think it is in time of need, when we are not doing well, that we really need Defence most. By tying our Defence expenditure to the health of our economy, we may send the wrong signals to outsiders as well as to our people. Generally, taken as a whole, since the policy changes were implemented last year, it is clear that there is this strong recognition by the Government that a strong dose of medicine is necessary to address our illness. In moving the Budget last year, the then Minister for Finance cautioned that "the outlook for 1985 is not as rosy as that for last year", ie, 1984. In retrospect, this must be the under-statement of the year. Perhaps the Minister for Finance this year did not wish to hazard a guess on the outlook for this very reason. Personally, I would like to be more bullish than most businessmen. I do not think this optimism is misplaced. The present reduced cost of doing business, impending and potential cuts in statutory boards' charges, reduced rentals, the new incentive scheme on venture capital which is extended to individuals, and the setting up of the unlisted securities market are moves which will hopefully spawn a new generation of entrepreneurs. When we read of success stories of entrepreneurs who made it good, we tend to believe that this took place in ideal conditions or in ideal environments. This is not so. So instead of asking for more, those who wish to become their own boss should start their own business. I think the conditions have improved a great deal in the last year. To those who are inclined to be more pessimistic, I believe that the measures have at the moment stemmed the tide.”
“The Stock Exchange. Mr Chng Hee Kok: Like the Stock Exchange, yes. The success of Lord Rayner in helping to trim the British civil service when they started the exercise in 1979 must provide us an important clue. I think anyone who has watched the television series or read Antony Jay's Book, "Yes Minister" must have some doubts that the civil service will be able to regulate and cut down their own staff. From 1980, efforts by the Government to reduce staffing levels actually led to an increase of 10,000 permanent posts. And what was the gain? The gain was about 1,100 reductions. Sir, let me now come to Government expenditure. I would like to touch only on one item. The move to spend more than 60% of total expenditure on development is logical and welcomed. Besides stimulating business activity, it also demonstrates the Government's resolve to do all it can to get us out of the recession - by spending money wisely. Instead of spending money on consumption, development expenditure will go towards improving our infrastructure - the physical infrastructure as well as social. However, I am disturbed by one particular item, not because the expenditure is too high but rather because it is projected to decrease. I am referring to the expenditure on Defence which has been mentioned by the Member for Tampines. This is expected to decrease by some 7%. Mr Speaker, Sir, we live in an uncertain world. Although we have to live within our means, we have little choice but to continue to build up our defence capability. With fast technological changes in offensive and defensive equipment, one must expect that the level of Defence expenditure - I call it investment - must be maintained just to upgrade our present systems.”
“Recently I heard a friend of mine saying that it is our present unfavourable economic situation that makes an entrepreneur not being able to make any money, so he shifted his plant to a neighbouring country. He found that everything there was cheaper than in Singapore except that the skills of the workers there were not comparable with our people. So you just think about it. Everything else is cheaper, only the workers are unskilled. Would you be able to set up a plant there and produce goods of quality? Of course not. Here, we also have a stable political situation in addition to a better trained work-force. These are our advantages. When we read newspaper reports during the past few days, we read about the political turmoil in the Philippines. Unlike them, we are living in a peaceful and stable environment with an effective Government who can command the rspect and cooperation of the people at times of difficulties. These are our assets. I feel that we are all realistic enough to know what our problems and difficulties are and what will our situation be in the future. We have no alternative but to overcome our difficulties and we are absolutely sure that we can overcome these difficulties because, if we fail, we shall have no other place to go to. Thank you. 3.40 pm”
“We must not forget that, in the course of which, the employers or the entrepreneurs were not very happy because their income or profit was affected. This shows that the Government, when implementing economic policies takes mainly into consideration the well-being and livelihood of the general masses. Let us talk about what is the basic interest of our people under the present circumstance. How are we going to realize or to meet the basic interest of our people? I feel that to any people of any country, what they look for is no other than to be able to live comfortably in a stable and peaceful environment, in a prosperous society. That is what our people are looking forward to. And that is also what our Government is and should be striving for. Since independence, for the past 20 over years, we have experienced various crises, political, economic and others, for various durations. We have overcome each and every one of them. This is not the first time that we are faced with another economic difficulty. We must and are able to overcome it. And there are favourable conditions for us to do so. For instance, the Economic Committee has been able to produce comprehensive recommendations to solve the problem. Just look around at our neighbouring countries. If they are faced with a similar situation, are they able to do the same as we have done? No. They would only react when faced with the worst. Our attitude and approach are entirely different. What are the favourable conditions we have? This morning the Member for Changkat said in moving the motion of thanks that we must educate our people well, particularly the middle-aged workers. We can compare our people favourably with others, as we are on a higher plane.”
“The purpose of having reserves is that, when we are faced with a crisis, we have something to fall back on. In the past, we had high economic growth. Thus we have quite a substantial amount of foreign reserves which is meant for our generation and the next generation. At a time of dire economic difficulties, there are no good reasons for us not to consider making good use of these reserves. On the matter of making use of reserves or cutting down the employee's CPF savings, we should not give the people the wrong signal that it will be a soft solution, whereby salaries are increased and people can enjoy themselves even in a recession. I would like to raise another matter, that is, the relationship between the Government and the entrepreneur (the employer, in common parlance) and the relationship between the Government and the the people. On the surface it looks as though the recommendations of the Economic Committee seem to be pro-employer. Is it really so? I think that everybody acknowledges that whenever the employer invests, he expects return. If he cannot expect any returns, economic returns. If he cannot expect any returns, then he would close down or move elsewhere. Our neighbouring countries are also competing with us. If a company cannot make money in Singapore, it would move to our neighbouring countries, following which our workers will lose their jobs and there will be no income, which will affect the livelihood of their families. And in the end how many relief fund boards can be set up to elevate their difficulties. I would like to point out that our Government is not so naive as to be favouring only the employers. This has been proven in history. When we implemented a high wage policy in past years, many employees had their income increased greatly.”
“I feel that if the Opposition Members have the opportunity to come out to help solve this problem of economic recession then perhaps the best way for them is to set up a retrenchment unemployment relief board, or they could suggest to change the CPF Board to an unemployment relief fund board. Perhaps they would discuss or even compete between themselves which one of them could become the Director of this board. I do not mean to say that we should not care for those in economic difficulties. Our Ministry of Community Development has a section where its welfare officers could look into cases of needy people who have real difficulties and try to solve their problems. The Government would be paying great attention to their plight and try its best to solve their problems most sympathetically. Another matter is the reduction of CPF contribution of the employees. Since the Government has decided to reduce the contribution rate of the employer to 15%, there has been pressure to reduce the employee's contribution. This is quite logical. The Member for Chong Boon had also raised this question as to whether the employee's contribution rate should be cut by 5%. As our internal market is very small, what effect will there be by cutting down 5% to 10%. We should make careful studies into what will be the effect on our economy as a whole, and not make hasty decision. In this respect, I hope the Government would set up an organization to monitor and study the effects of the implementation of the various measures on our economy and the livelihood of our people so as to see whether any more reductions should be made. But they should not give the wrong impression to the people that in a recession their salary could increase instead. Other than CPF, we can try to make use of our reserves.”
“He said that the Government wants to reduce the CPF contribution rate of the employer by 15%. He also said that if there if there was something else which goes with it, it would be better. I had hoped to hear from him what he really meant. In the end there was no suggestion from him as to how to revive our economy. But he mentioned there was no announcement about a retrenchment benefits scheme. It seems that the Member for Potong Pasir is very interested in this subject. The Member for Anson also seems to be interested in this subject. He has now and then touched on this question. If we presume that these two Opposition Members are sincere about their suggestion, let us see whether it could be practical. To come downto the final analysis, I feel that offering retrenchment benefit may not be able to solve the problem as one may not be able to give aid forever. But it might give them false expectations or wishful thinkingthat even if they are unemployed they can still rely on some strong backing. This kind of suggestion is dangerous. We all know that our country is a very small one. Nobody is obliged to keep us alive. Similarly, nobody owes our workers, employees or employers a living. This is a basic principle of our nationhood. If we pay our attention as to whether we should have a retrenchment benefit scheme, then we shall not be able to concentrate our efforts towards reviving our economy. Because, as I said, it will give some people some wishful expectations which will numb their senses.”
“The Government has already set up an Economic Committee and has gathered together people from various circles, from the commercial, industrial and public sectors, to discuss and study the situation for about one year. Finally, the recommendations are disclosed. Now is the time for the people of our country to come forward as one body and support the recommendations and measures adopted by the Government. But there are still people who do not recognize this economic fact and are not prepared to come forward to work together for our economic recovery. They are still behind the trend and events of the economic situation. For example, this morning, the Member for Potong Pasir had asked in this House who should be responsible for this present state of economic recession. The Government has made a careful analysis of this situation and has also taken up the responsibility to devise resolute means and measures to revive the economy. The Opposition Member this morning also asked whether our economic recession would continue for 18 months or 4 years. He is still playing with the game of numerals. I myself am doubtful of the Member for Potong Pasir's figures, because he has more than once blundered over some figures. I do not know whether the figure of four years' of economic recession comes from his own perception or from his advisers' or whether it is mere hearsay. It is regretful that he is not here. Otherwise, I would like to ask him to clarify further on this. The more important question is how are we going to direct or efforts to deal with the present problem. We should not try to make wild guesses or grumble and put the blame on somebody. In the morning, the Member for Potong Pasir talked for about 20 minutes in which there was neither suggestions nor solutions.”
“Singapore is now experiencing a period of economic recession whose waves have surged over all sectors of the economy in our country, resulting in our people's livelihood being affected to a great extent. The Economic Committee has proposed several recommendations which have been accepted by the Government in principle but now require implementation. I believe that the recession of Singapore's economy could not be improved solely by implementing the recommendations of the Economic Committee. In other words, the implementation of the recommendations is not enough. We need favourable external factors and the adjustment of internal factors to complement the recommendations. The most important thing is that our people must adjust their way of living and be psychologically prepared, just as the President has said at the Opening of this Session of Parliament that it is more vital now than ever that all Singaporeans work together, both with each other and with the Government to overcome our difficulties. The task and challenge before us are how to revive and propel our economy and how to preserve the rice bowls of our people. In the past, when our economy was good, these matters seemed unreal but now they have become real problems. If we have contacts with those workers who have been retrenched, then we will really understand these problems. Their sole wish is that if there is an opportunity for them to be re-employed they will try their best to do their work well to maintain the livelihood for their families. When facing this economic difficulty, how are we going to tackle it? Basically, I think there are two different approaches.”
“Firstly, I wish to point out that time is not on our side and that the recommendations should become policies and be implemented expeditiously. Any further delay will only extend the recovery period. Secondly, I would urge the Government to pay further attention to the implementation of these recommendations. Experience in Singapore and other countries has alerted us to the dangers of the best policies being strangled in their implementation. Sir, it is important that the recommendations, and in particular the incentives, are not only a legislative success but also an operational success. I am not suggesting that we should have a free-for-all position. What I am appealing for is that incentive schemes should be kept simple and workable. We can plug the loopholes as we go along. We can never have a scheme which is so well crafted as to be able to anticipate all forms of human manipulation and yet make the scheme work. Yes, the rules must be there, simple and yet have adequate reserve powers for Government to deal with violations. I believe the majority should not be penalized because of a few black sheep. In conclusion, Sir, I must state that the Government must be commended for having responded very quickly to the pleas of the business community and, in particular, the setting up of the Economic Committee. The Economic Committee's recommendations have been bold, innovative and imaginative and deserve the fullest support of all Singaporeans. 3.18 pm The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Tang Guan Seng)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to support the motion by the Member for Changkat.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like to touch on two specific recommendations made by the Economic Committee: First, to reduce operating costs the present employer's CPF contribution should be immediately reduced by 15% points for a period of two years in the first instance, says the Economic Committee's Report. Whilst I agree that this will help reduce costs, I personally think, Sir, that a cut of 10% from the employer and a 5% reduction in employee's contribution would be more than sufficient. In this way, it will not only help cut costs, but it will also increase the disposal income of Singaporeans. The disposable income of most Singaporeans has already been reduced either by a wage freeze, salary cuts or reduced bonuses. A 5% point release of employee's CPF, I believe, will help in the economic recovery. Sir, on the recommendation that corporate tax be reduced from 40% to 30%, I would strongly urge the Government to reconsider this and get on to introducing the 25% instead of the suggested reduction in two stages. Whilst I agree that the reduction from 40% to 30% is a very bold move, to really get the benefits intended, I think we will have to be competitive with Hong Kong. At 25% corporate tax, we will be 7% points higher than Hong Kong and I believe this is a premium we can command over Hong Kong. Anything more than that, we might as well stick to the present 40% corporate tax, as we will not be able to attract the very people that this reduction in corporate tax is intended for. Otherwise, the 10% reduction may be useful only purchasing Mercedes-Benzes for bosses as mentioned by the Member for Siglap. Apart from the two comments on the Economic Report, I would urge the Government to pay special attention to two other aspects.”
“However, Sir, it is very important that the Government should sell the recommendations of the Economic Committee to the people. It is gratifying to note, Sir, that the then Minister for Trade and Industry in accepting the Report stated, and I quote: 'Ministry of Trade and Industry will prepare a simplified version of the Economic Committee's Report which can be used in community centres, schools and work places.' It is absolutely necessary, Sir, to explain the basis and rationale of some of the decisions and policy recommendations and only then, I believe, we can mobilize all Singaporeans thus creating a national consensus. What we need is national consensus and not divisive factions. We are all familiar with the phenomenon of "self-fulfilling prophesies". There is no need for further talk of gloom and doom. Sir, I submit that the problems have been identified and studied and solutions have been suggested, and it is time for all Singaporeans to get on with the job of improving the economy. However, Sir, there is this nagging fear of irresponsible and unscrupulous employers who will exploit the current situation to squeeze employees. I submit, Sir, it is important that the Government and management, together with the union leadership, help to dispel this fear quickly. It is incumbent, I believe, on employers to be sensitive to the worries and anxieties of workers. Employers and employer organizations should not gloat over the reductions so far announced but to make sure that these reductions are fully capitalized and in return provide more jobs and better conditions for the employees.”
“However, Sir, in my opinion, it is a total solution. It calls for sacrifices from all Singaporeans. The first priority, of course, is to ensure that businesses stay competitive, otherwise companies will go under and more jobs will be lost, let alone creating new jobs. These prescriptions are bitter and the process can be painful. I am confident, Sir, that the Government will do its utmost to keep social pains to the minimum. The point I want to make and I hope Opposition Members will understand is that there is no such thing as a painless solution to the problems confronting us today. If they have, let them come out with it.”
“They feel that the question of equal misery should apply.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to join my other colleagues in supporting the Motion standing in the name of the Member for Changkat. Sir, the President in his Address to this House made three main points: Firstly, that the Government accepts, in principle, the policy recommendations set out in the Report of the Economic Committee. Secondly, that this recession cannot be solved by the Government alone. The measures will only work if the Government has the full support of the people of Singapore. Thirdly, that there is no quick-fix solution. If sacrifices and changes can be made now, then 18 months later things should begin to improve. The Government's efforts made now will be rewarded many-fold later. Sir, the task of the Government now, I believe, is to mobilize the total support for its proposed economic measures. I have personally received many comments from my constituents, community leaders, friends and business associates. Their feedback convinces me that the Government has a big selling job to do. Their reactions can be classified as the FIVE WORRIES. First, there is the worry over their jobs if they are workers and worry over their businesses if they are employers. Second, there is this worry over CPF cuts and HDB mortgage payments. Third, there is the worry over joblessness of school leavers and new entrants to the labour market. Fourth, there is this worry over wage cuts. Finally, there is this worry over exploitation by employers. Sir, on top of all these worries is the perception gap between the Government and the man-in-the-street. Unfortunately, the ordinary Singaporeans feel that this is a package for the bosses and the business community.”