Tan Cheng Bock
Singapore
“As I said, we have not done much. We must not be captured by our old style of managing the old. The new old, as I said before, are better educated and travelled, and are very knowledgeable. So we must quickly explore new ways and methods to meet the expectations of the new old.”
“If we only have such a small pool of talents in Singapore because of our population size, we should spare no effort in seeking every such talent.”
“Thank you. I accepted the Minister's reply on the different pricing in the outpatient polyclinics and the hospitals. My point is that the patient's problem has still not been solved. Whenever a doctor refers a patient from a hospital to an outpatient clinic, he still has to pay more.”
“Six out of the nine items were much more expensive. Sir, I am asking why is there such a difference. Is this a one-off incident or is it going to be a norm? How can doctors in the hospital then refer patients back to the outpatient clinic if the patient is going to pay more?”
“I move this amendment to ask the Minister what is the Ministry's stand on seat belts to be made compulsory for primary and kindergarten buses. I heard over the radio that the Ministry is reviewing the case. There are two issues here, question of cost and question of safety. I think safety has a higher weightage over cost.”
“I also want to commend the NTUC for working with the Government to put this package together. I believe that without the NTUC's representation in putting forward the workers' case, the workers would not be able to benefit so substantially this year from this package.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,095 lines we hold for Tan Cheng Bock, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 22.
“" But at the end of the year when you budget to pay for the aeroplanes, he can say, "No, your budget doesn't pass. You cut some other items of expenditure in order that you have a balanced budget, and then I will approve it." So there still remains a check. It is the existing arrangement. Today, Parliament debates the Defence budget once a year. We do not provide details. We do not intend to provide details. I think it would be unwise for us to provide details. It is a block vote. Mindef operates it. There are internal checks and balances. There is also the external auditors who go in and vet Mindef's spending and make sure that Mindef does not become a camouflaged Ministry for Community Development. I do not think any Member has suggested that that is the case. That will continue. But the specific transaction at the critical time, that must be the Executive's decision. You cannot declare war by committee. In the United States, declaration of war is the prerogative of the President. He is the Executive President. Congress does not have that right. Of course, Congress has now passed the War Powers Act to say that after you have declared war, we have to confirm it. But the constitutionality of that legislation has never been tested. And every President of the United States challenges that constitutionality because he has got his institutional prerogatives to protect. There is a reason why the President declares war and you do not have a debate of 100 Senators before you decide "Aye" we go to war, or "No" we do not go to war. In Singapore, it is not an Elected President. It is an elected Executive. The Prime Minister and the Cabinet are answerable. They decide whether to go to war.”
“When we first established the Elected President legislation, there were big debates whether we should in fact institute such a mechanism, as Dr Kanwaljit Soin reminded us, to clip our wings. Now that we are making adjustments we have another big debate whether we should make adjustments. But we have to make these adjustments. I think that the Members who have read Article 151A have not quite grasped how it fits in together with the rest of the Constitution. It does not stand in isolation, allowing the Government carte blanche in defence and security matters. It applies, if you read the legislation, through its effects on certain other Articles of the Constitution which are specified in Article 151A(1), namely, I read: `Articles 22B(7), 22D(6), 148G(2) and (3) and 148H shall not apply to any defence and security measure.' What are these specified Articles? They are to do with individual transactions which may draw down reserves, or liabilities which have been incurred as a result of transactions which were not noticed, but which may draw down reserves. The President, because of new Article 151A, will not be able to veto such transactions. But that is not the only door which needs to be unlocked to spend the money. Because you have to budget the money, and budget means that you have to come to Parliament. Or the statutory board has a budget or the company has a budget which has to be approved by the President. We have not made an exclusion from the requirement for the President to approve budgets which draw down money, because of defence and security measures. What does that mean? It means the President cannot object to the specific transaction. If you are buying 20 aeroplanes, he cannot say, "No, don't buy the aeroplanes.”
“The PSC will remain and will keep control of the Significant Grade and above, which means the top level. Can we recruit at different levels, meaning mid-stream? Yes, we would like to try. It is quite difficult for two reasons. One, the culture of the civil service is such that you have got a system where everybody knows each other, and for a stranger to come in mid-stream and join that magic circle, that is very difficult. We want to do it, but we have not yet succeeded. I hope this freeing up will enable us to try. The second reason, of course, is that our pay is out of line and nobody will join you in mid-career, unless you do not want him. And that also has to be fixed. One other point on the PSC. Mr Chin Harn Tong and Mr Othman Haron Eusofe raised the question about the exclusion of unionists and associations affiliated to trade unions from serving on a Personnel Board. I should point out that what we have drafted here is nothing new. It is copied exactly, from the same restrictions which apply to membership of the Public Service Commission, the Education Service Commission and the Police and Civil Defence Services Commission. It has not proven a problem in practice because for the Commission members, we are looking for people at very senior levels. When we have Personnel Boards, they will also be at very senior levels and they are unlikely to be either members of the trade union movement or affiliated to the trade unions. If it does become a problem later on because you have associate members, because of Orchid Country Club or other union facilities, we can look into it. But I think the same rules should apply, whether to the PSC or to the new Personnel Boards. I go on to Article 151A.”
“If the system were working well, we would not be making a major change. We have over delayed this change. It should have been done at least five years ago. In 1989, when we made major salary revisions and we had a committee, we looked into many aspects of the civil service. This was one of them. At that time, we decided to leave it be. But we already knew there was a problem. Probably even then it was overdue. But we waited five years, and five years down the road, today you know what the situation is. I have spoken on this several times in the House when we made salary revisions. We will be having a White Paper on the Civil Service and Ministerial Salaries. That will give further data. It shows you how serious the problem is. The Administrative Service age profile is like a population pyramid. It is not broad at the bottom where people come in, narrowing gradually to the top as people grow older and there is attrition, and some leave. It is broad at the bottom where people come in. It narrows down to a waist in the late 30s because they have already disappeared. And then there is another bulge in the 40s because these are the older officers who are already locked in by the pension scheme and cannot leave. Now, imagine what happens to the civil service when that bulge reaches 45, which is when people should become Permanent Secretaries. I think we will already have a problem with the quality of the administration in Singapore. And if you do not do this, you would not just be having a narrow waist, you will have anorexia nervosa. I think we better fix it now rather than wait for that to happen. Dr Tan Cheng Bock asked why we are disbanding the PSC. I have explained that we are not disbanding the PSC, but we are devolving its powers.”
“The statutory boards have operated independently for years. They are not subject to the Public Service Commission. They have established their own check and balance mechanisms. If we had not broken off Mindef and the statutory boards from the PSC system, we would have no Mindef today and the statutory boards would never have grown. It is impossible. And there is no reason why, given what we have been able to do with Mindef and with the statutory boards, we are unable to do it with the other Ministries, and substantially improve the structure. Civil servants are not saints. They are not from out of this world. They are young human beings who are looking for careers - fulfilling, challenging, rewarding. They want a career where they can be sure that their contribution will be recognised, that if they do well they will be rewarded and they can move up. And if they are capable, they will reach the top early. The present system does not allow us to do that. It is very good at making sure that no person who is incapable ever gets promoted. I am extremely doubtful whether it is capable of making sure that a person who is fit to be promoted is guaranteed to be promoted. Very often he is not. You never know. If you look around, you ask, where are they? I can tell you. They are gone. Because they are not waiting around to be left out. They have watched others and they have decided that they are not going to be part of this, and they leave. It used to be that they waited 7-8 years to leave, because then they have worked off most of their bond and it is just one or two years left, somebody may buy them out. Now they are leaving younger, because it is easier to be bought out and they are more confident of what will happen to them if they go outside. We have to adjust.”
“There is some central control only at the very top. The Malaysians followed the British, like us. They have abandoned that mechanism and they provided for extensive devolution of the powers to Permanent Secretaries or any other boards which the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong may specify, because they could not work the old system. It is a big country. They have civil servants all over and you cannot have 12 wise men in the centre settling for the whole country in order to have complete parity and rational progression and no mis-steps and so on. It did not work for them. In Hong Kong, which has a similar Public Service Commission, the Public Service Commission does not have the final word. It has advisory responsibility. The Governor decides. The man who is in charge of running the system will be the man who has the power to hire and fire. Dr Soin is in the private sector. I am sure she does not have a commission to decide who should be on her staff. She decides. It is your company - whom do you want to hire, who will work for you, who will be fit to be promoted, who should be sacked. That is how the private sector works. That is how it should work. That is not how the civil service works. We need safeguards, yes. Because it cannot just be on the whims and fancies of an individual Permanent Secretary who may have a down on a person or his judgment may be poor. So norms must be established, procedures must be established and there must be cross-checking. There must be mechanisms whereby if anything goes awry or simply departs from what is usually the case, we will be able to pick it up and trap it. But it is not as if we have never done this before. Mindef has operated its own system for years. No Member has raised complaints about unfairness of the Mindef personnel system.”
“But it is also the duty of every one of us as Members of Parliament to amend the Constitution to make it better. Any Bill to amend the Constitution has to be supported by not less than two thirds of the total number of Members. It cannot be immutable and frozen forever, unless the Members are so inflexible, or they do not want to think of the long-term interest of the nation. Giving the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister greater responsibility and power to deal with some important issues is a correct move. Take, for example, the incident in which a SIA aeroplane was hijacked. When it happened, and if we had to wait for Parliament to sit before a decision could be made, then the matter would not have been dealt with so quickly and efficiently. 4.00 pm BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, Dr Soin asked why the Acting President's oath does not require him to ignore any previous affiliation with any political party. The practical answer is that, from time to time, under the Constitution, the Speaker will be required to act as President and the Speaker is usually a member of a political party. But we will look into the question whether we can frame the oath, so that when the person is acting, he swears that whatever party affiliation he has will not affect him in his discharge of his duties, as I am sure is presently the case. On the Public Service Commission, Dr Soin says, "Why not keep the status quo? Nothing much has changed with the civil service since we established a Public Service Commission." That is precisely the problem. The world has changed. The Public Service Commission structure and the civil service have remained static. We modelled this on the British. The British do not do this any more. They have divided up. Their Ministries promote civil servants separately.”
“I rise to support this Bill. There are, however, a few points I would like to raise. The liberalised recruitment in the Civil Service poses questions: What is the future role of the PSC now? Are we disbanding the PSC? Can we recruit civil servants now at different levels? Or must we go through the normal procedure where the recruitment must be at the bottom? For example, for Division III recruitment, you start from Division III. Suppose you are an Administrative Officer, you start from the Administrative Service scheme. Can we, for example, recruit a Permanent Secretary from the private sector if you find that he is a very competent and able person? The other point I would like to touch on is this question of the President having no veto powers over the drawdown on reserves for defence and security. I am of the opinion that when the Presidential Elections Bill was introduced, the idea behind having an Elected President was having another key to check on our reserves. I think defence spending is very sizeable. We are assuming that the Prime Minister and the whole Cabinet are all very good people. But we cannot say this because, in the years to come, there may be a Prime Minister, who may, in the course of his duty, have suffered some mental disability. Then what is going to happen? He might order certain very high expenditure, for example, he wants to buy big missiles. There is no check on him. I think the President's veto power in this area should remain. Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar GRC)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. I support this Bill. Just now, I heard Mr Low Thia Khiang raising a few points and I was very confused. As he said, defending the Constitution is the duty of every citizen.”
“Because when the criminal is released, he can go out and get a job. At least, he has got an opportunity to get a job. Some of these bankrupts, I am afraid, sometimes it is for a lifetime, because I cannot imagine them paying up the large sums that are usually involved. Of course, in fraud cases, I suggest that the penalty for the guilty party should be severe. I have no sympathy for them. As I said, for genuine business failure and all these people who give friendly guarantees to do business, we should really look into these matters.”
“Mr Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. I just want to bring up a couple of points. During our meet-the-people sessions, it is not uncommon to come across people who are made bankrupts. But they are made bankrupts not because they were involved in a business. They were just, what I call, friendly guarantors. They are usually relatives or close friends invited to be sleeping partners in a business deal. When the company has failed, creditors go after that particular person and, in the course of the dealing, the poor person has got to pay a very heavy price. There was a case of this old lady who wanted to go to China but she was a bankrupt because her son was a bankrupt. And because her name was in the company of the son, she was asked to pay up, but she could not pay up. So she had difficulty getting a passport to go to China. It is a pity because I do not think she had any intention to cheat. It was just that she was party to a business failure. I am so glad that this present Bill will give us a chance to look into all these aspects. Then, of course, we get many young people who are also made bankrupt because of business failure, and they want to go abroad to do business. Again, because they are bankrupts, they have difficulty in getting employment and difficulty in getting passports, or if they are given a passport, it is always for a limited period. So this Bill, I hope, will also take into account the plight of all these people. As we are going regional, I am sure some of these people who have failed in their business should be given a chance. Of course, they must be punished for their involvement, but we should also consider their plight by giving them a lighter sentence. I notice that some criminals seem to get a lighter sentence than these people.”
“Sir, may I have clarification from Dr Vasoo. If I heard him correctly, he did mention that the Asian values and filial piety that have been discussed at length in this House are pure rhetoric. I hope it is a slip of the tongue and therefore not the fault of the mind.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I just like to take on some of the issues raised by Members and begin my speech tomorrow. When I listened to Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon, I was a bit disappointed because he did not place much value on this traditional belief that we hold so dear of looking after our parents, and he did not seem to think that it is that important now. There is little faith in this age-old tradition. But I have still very strong faith and I feel that looking after our parents, and maintaining them financially, is also a very important aspect. He mentioned that 5% of the aged, that is, 15,000, will be a problem next time. But I think he has got his arithmetic wrong. I do not think it is 5%, because he fails to realise that of this 5%, a fair number will have their own CPF and also there are the Top-up and Minimum Sum schemes. So I think that 5% can be trimmed to even a smaller figure, maybe about 1% or so. I am surprised that there is disagreement between what Mr Sinnakaruppan and Mr Koo Tsai Kee have said. Mr Koo Tsai Kee said that when a group of young people were asked about the Bill only 16 voted for the legislation; 5 were against, and 5 were not sure. I think it is too small a figure for him to come to this House and tell us that this is representative. I think the sample size provided by Mr Sinnakaruppan is more representative. Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. It is 5.00 pm. Debate to be resumed, what day, Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon? Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon: Tomorrow, Sir.”
“Sir, I beg your indulgence to let me speak tomorrow, because there is not much time left.”
“I thank the Minister for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Under this scheme, all heavy vehicles must each have an authorised lot for overnight parking.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head U of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code UC 1500. Sir, there are 40,000 heavy vehicles in Singapore. These vehicles, being longer, wider and taller than cars, cannot be parked properly in parking lots designed for cars. The heavy vehicles are then parked illegally in car parks or along roads. Although HDB and URA have provided neighbourhood and centralised lorry parks, these parks are under-utilized as the heavy vehicle drivers choose to drive these vehicles home and park them indiscriminately nearer their homes. I am concerned about the safety of the other road users who find such heavy vehicles are a danger, especially when visibility is poor in the early morning and evening. As there are about 22,000 heavy vehicle parking lots both in the public and private sectors and there are 40,000 heavy vehicles, one can see that almost half of the 40,000 heavy vehicles will be without parking lots. This is a very tight situation. Some of the drivers may be forced to do a wrong because of inadequate parking lots. Some suggestions I would like to propose would be to provide land parcels to private parking operators. Of course, we can lease the land to such operators. We could also allow kerbside parking along selected roads, preferably in industrial estates, where the roads are wide. Of course, we would have to study these roads to ensure safety of the other road users. We could also allow factories and other industrial establishments for overnight parking and, of course, schools could be used for the parking of buses. I want to find out if the Ministry's vehicle parking certificate scheme to control overnight parking for these heavy vehicles is working out well.”
“In the end, the Advisor and the Residents' Committee must try and forge a consensus, and, of course, take a vote to make sure that that consensus is what is wanted by everybody.”
“There is a Question for Oral Answer for Monday. I also invite him to stare at the computer and see the processing being done, if he wants to view it. So the system is absolutely transparent. There is no intervention by the MP or by the Minister. As the Senior Minister said, in our meet-the-people sessions they come up to you and say, "I have tried eight times, why can you not do something for me?" As the Minister for National Development, they come to my meet-the-people session from all over and I can tell you that it is absolutely non-intervention. It is all computer-generated. If you have applied enough times, you will get it. So I hope I would have explained the allocation system sufficiently to say that times have changed. It is not a simple first-come-first-served basis because people are very particular about the location. They want to be near their parents, near their place of work, etc. Let me now turn to the HDB Upgrading Programme. Dr Tan Cheng Bock asks what has been the choice so far. In most of the precincts they have either chosen the Standard or the Standard-Plus packages. We provided a third choice of Basic package because we had some feedback from Members that there could be precincts where the income is so low that they cannot even afford the Standard package. So we provided also a very basic upgrading programme. But so far, none of them have chosen the Basic package. We will still keep the option open and make it available to the residents. Although there are three packages, in fact within each package, you can have many variations. That is why Dr Vasoo has a slightly difficult time the other night in trying to please all his residents. If you want to design a package for your precinct, there will be many, many opinions of what they want to do.”
“For the upgraders, we are trying our best to give them a flat after eight unsuccessful tries. The issue is: should we have a pure waiting list system, a pure first-come-first-served system, or do we have some element of chance also for the rest? We can have a system in which we have a pure first-come-first-served system, meaning we will ballot those who have tried the most number of times, and after they all have got their flats, ballot among the next group and so on down the line. What we are worried about is that those who have applied the first or second time will feel that they have absolutely no chance at all. So today, the weightage is such that we give very high priority to those who have got a long application history, but we do give a certain percentage to those who have just applied for the first time or the second time, so that they do feel that they have a chance to get it. It is up to us to decide if we want to do away with this feature of an element of chance, albeit a very small percentage given to those who have very few applications. I believe that we should give this small proportion to people on the basis of chance. If you want to make it a pure first-come-first-served basis, that also can be done. But I think it will not be fair to those who have tried for a few times. 3.45 pm Mr Yatiman asked for transparency in the system. Let me assure him that the system is transparent. The allocation policy is designed into the software of the computer. It is audited by the internal audit department of HDB and audited by external auditors that we tender out. Any Member of the House who wants to check the systems design, I encourage him to do so to make sure it is transparent. I notice Mr Low Thia Khiang wants to see how the balloting is done.”
“Let me refer to the many cases MPs receive during their meet-the-people session where their constituents say that they have applied 10 times, 12 times, 18 times. I have had such cases. And every time, I say, "Give me your name and your IC number." I fax it to HDB and they give me the application history. The same with any MP who writes to me or to Mr Matthias Yao. You give me the name and IC number, we will give you the application history. Invariably, it is because they have applied for flats in mature estates. And I can tell you here categorically and in no uncertain terms, anybody who applies in mature estates does not get priority for the number of times he applies. It is tikam tikam, pure and simple. In mature estates, it is tikam tikam. You want to apply 20 times, you do not get it, I cannot help you. But in the non-mature estates, each time you apply, you get higher priority and by the ninth time, you get it. In the non-mature estates, we are actually implementing a waiting list system. But we cannot implement a waiting list system in the mature estates. Mr Leong Horn Kee mentioned that the applicant must apply the same choice of location. Here, I would like to correct him. It is not true. You do not have to apply for Chua Chu Kang eight times to be awarded Chua Chu Kang. You apply in any of the non-mature estates, the priority will be given. Those who have applied in Tampines and they now move on to Hougang, their previous application history is still captured and they will have the priority granted to them. Dr Ong Chit Chung asked about the average waiting time. As I have mentioned, for new households, we are trying our level best to give them a flat after four unsuccessful tries.”
“There will be 20,000 people queuing up. Unless you want to deploy the riot police, I cannot implement a waiting list system. So the choice is either tikam tikam or tender. If you got any other better ideas, you can be my consultant! The second category are flats which we are building in regular numbers, like in Woodlands, Jurong West and Chua Chu Kang, where we have land to build 30,000-40,000 flats. Here we are, in fact, adopting a waiting list system. People who apply in these areas, the more times they apply, the higher their priority and the higher their chances of getting a flat. So when you apply once in Woodlands, Jurong West or in Chua Chu Kang, if you do not get it, the second time you apply, we add a weightage to your number in the computer and your chances of getting are higher. By the fourth time you apply, if you are a new household, you will be allocated. Here, we discriminate between the new households and the upgraders. We argue that new households are people who are forming families. We should give them a chance to buy a flat. So we give the new households a 1-year head-start compared to the upgraders. When a new household applies, he is applying as though he is on the same basis as an upgrader who has applied four times before. And that is how the priority is given and he gets his flat. That is why I have been able to say many times that for new households, if they continuously apply in these new areas, they should be able to get a flat after four unsuccessful tries. That means on the fifth try, they should be able to get a flat. For upgraders, if they continuously apply in these non-mature estates, by the ninth time, they should be able to get a flat.”
“Plus all those who want to go to Tampines because it is close to their place of work, or because the facilities in Tampines now are fairly well developed, or because Tampines has won a UN award, or because Tampines is now designated as a regional centre. So we end up with 32,000 applicants for 7,000 flats in Tampines. Again, there is no way that we can have a waiting list or a first-come-first-served system. The problem today is different from the problems in the past. In the past, people did not have a flat. They put themselves in the queue. We build flats in Ang Mo Kio which was considered ulu in those days, they will go there. Because their situation at that time was no better and they were very happy to accept the flat in Ang Mo Kio. Today, they want particular locations and they can afford to wait. That is why they apply many times. They apply 10 times. They do not get it. They still apply for a flat in Tampines. Notwithstanding the situation that I have described, let me tell Members that although we have changed the name of the booking system and say it is a booking system, actually we have been adopting a first-come-first-served system. The booking system today consists of two types, what we call the mature estates and the non-mature estates. In the mature estates like Bedok, Bukit Merah or Queenstown where we have sporadic construction, 1,000 units this year and perhaps no more next year, there is no way we can give priority for people who have applied many times, because there is just no supply. So that is pure tikam tikam. The other way of doing is to tender them out. That means if we have got 1,000 units in Ang Mo Kio, if you do not like tikam tikam, then we can have a tender or an auction. We cannot have a waiting list.”
“We started off with 23,000 flats in 1991 and we have consistently gone up in response to higher demand, to 24,000 in 1992, 27,000 in 1993 and 30,000 in 1994. What HDB cannot do is to produce more flats in the popular areas such as Toa Payoh, Ang Mo Kio or Bedok. Because in these estates, there is simply no land for us to build such numbers of flats. Let us take Bedok as an example. Bedok is a fully developed town. There are about 54,000 units in Bedok. Last year, we managed to find enough land in Bedok to build 1,600 flats. These are the lands created when we knocked down the 1-room rental flats which people do not want. Can you imagine in these 54,000 units in Bedok, you will find at least one, maybe two, or even three children who are growing up, and who want to apply in Bedok to be close to their parents? If they do not have children who are in the marriageable age, it is the parents themselves who want to upgrade from a 3-room flat in Bedok to a 4-room or a 5-room flat also in Bedok. But we only have 1,600 flats in Bedok. So the application ratio in Bedok is 20:1. Can we have a waiting list system, a first-come-first-served system? If I put up 1,600 flats for sale in Bedok and I say first-come-first-served, I will have 20,000 people queuing outside HDB tomorrow morning. There will be a huge riot. When they cannot satisfy themselves in Bedok, they look at the nearest estate, which is Tampines. Similarly, people staying in Marine Parade and Geylang, where we do not have land to build new flats, are also looking towards Tampines, because it is the closest to their parent's flats in Marine Parade or Geylang.”
“For the new households, we can estimate the demand fairly well, because these are the people who are getting married. On the average, HDB receives about 20,000 applicants from new households every year. It varies between 15,000 and 25,000. When they feel that they are comfortable and they postpone their marriage, then we get 15,000. When we press them to get married and they feel that the flat is more difficult to get, then we see a surge to 25,000. But these are just temporary variations. On the average, we get about 20,000. The big problem the HDB faces is the number of applications from upgraders, something which I alluded to in the House two years ago. In 1991, we had 10,000 applicants who were upgrading. In the fourth quarter of 1993, we had 40,000. This is a tremendously big group of people and the proportion of upgraders, therefore, compared to the total number of applicants, has changed drastically, from 40% in 1991 to 63% now. Previously, upgraders were a minority. Now two-thirds of our applicants are upgraders. When you put yourself in the shoes of the upgraders, the situation is very different from the good old days in the past. Today, they already own their flats. They want to upgrade and therefore they are very particular about the location of the flat. This is not just a phenomenon to the upgraders. Even the new households are particular about the location of the flat. The new households say that they need a flat close to their parents so that their parents can look after their children. And since their parents live in the older estates such as Toa Payoh, Ang Mo Kio or Bedok, they also want a flat in these estates. But can the HDB build flats in these estates? Let us look at the supply side. The HDB has been stepping up its building programme.”
“If the demand increases, we will put up more. So these are the four areas we will adopt to help our low-income families to buy flats. 3.30 pm Let me also assure the House that the low-income families who are not able to buy flats is a small group. As at the first quarter of 1994, we already have 1,500 tenants from 1- and 2-room flats applying for 4-room flats, and also 11,000 3-room lessees applying for 4-room flats. So the bulk of our tenants and lessees, both in rental and 3-room flats, are able to afford at least a 4-room flat that we put up on the booking system. Because our 4-room flats are priced very reasonably, we find a high percentage are able to afford. But what we need to do is to look at those who are still unable to afford under the present rules and see what we can do to help them. Next, let me turn to the allocation system. I think three Members have spoken very passionately about going back to the good old days of first-come-first-served. Before we discuss the points raised by them, let me again clarify the present system and explain why we think the present situation is not the same as the good old days. Let me first describe the demand side. What is the profile of the applicants today in the booking system? There are two categories of applicants, the new households and the upgraders. The new households are newly-weds, people staying with their parents and wanting to set up a home and family. The upgraders are those who have already bought a flat but whose family size has increased, or whose children have grown up, or they need more space, or who are doing better in life and want a bigger flat. So there are these two categories, the new households and the upgraders.”
“We would like to try this out in a pilot scheme to the scale of something like 300 units per quarter and if the response is good, we will increase the quantum each time. The second prong of our strategy is to give priority for rental tenants in their application for sale flats. This is the category that I am referring to. The 50% who have got reasonably high household income of $1,000-$1,500 can well afford a 4-room flat but they are comfortable where they are. I think if we give them priority, they will be nudged into buying their own flats. So we are working out a scheme to give them priority. But, of course, they must have stayed in their rental flats for a minimum occupation period. Otherwise you will present a loophole for people to try and get the rental flats so as to gain this priority. So the second strategy we would like to adopt is to give priority to rental tenants in their application of sold flats. The third prong in our strategy is how to get these families who want to buy resale flats to be able to afford them. This is the problem raised by Dr Vasoo and several other MPs. We understand that they have to put up cash downpayment and, despite our assistance given to them in terms of a higher quantum of mortgages, some of these families still find it difficult to buy a 3-room resale flat. So HDB will study this problem and see how we can further assist such families in buying 3-room resale flats in the open market. The fourth strategy, as we have highlighted and which we have implemented, is the budget 4-room flats. We have done this for two quarters and we intend to put up approximately 600 such budget flats for booking every quarter. The response so far has been quite good. So we are encouraged by it and we will put up a regular supply of 600.”
“The aged singles who stay in rental flats because of their low income and they are not likely to buy over their flats. What we can do for this group is to improve the quality of the rental flats so that they live in reasonably good housing. The second category are people who are young families and who have stayed there because they cannot afford 3-room flats, or the 4A flats. These are cases raised by Dr Vasoo. This is a group of people that we should try and assist to make them cross the hurdle and be able to own at least the rental flats that they are staying in. The third category are people who are reasonably well to do. Their household income is above $1,000-$1,500. Since they have stayed in the rental flats for many years, they are very comfortable in those areas because they are very central and they are very comfortable with the surroundings. They have got used to the area and they do not want to buy unless they have to. We find that when we relocate the rental tenants in such estates, 50% would buy their flats in the new estate because the old rental flats are being knocked down and they are forced to move out. So they have made the decision to buy. One could say that, essentially, about 50% of our tenants in our rental units can afford sale flats if we give them a slight nudge and a bit of encouragement. Another 30% belong to the young families who cannot afford the current prices for 4-room flats and 3-room resale flats. And we should focus our attention on this group and make sure that they can at least own a 2-room or 3-room rental flat. For the last group, we should of course improve the quality of their rental flats. So that is the first strategy: to sell rental flats to sitting tenants. We intend to embark on this some time in the middle of the year.”
“Sir, I shall again be very brief. Under the Singapore Green Plan, the Government is committed to conserve 5% of the existing land area for nature conservation. Could the Minister outline briefly the Government's philosophy on nature conservation? And could the Minister give the reasons why Senoko, Punggol grassland, Batu Putih Ternery and Kampong Kitin cannot be conserved? The Acting Minister for National Development (Mr Lim Hng Kiang): Sir, I would like to thank Members for a very wide range of questions, comments and suggestions. I would like to take the more important issues first. Top in my list in MND are the measures to ensure that the low-income families are able to own HDB flats. Sir, as you know, home ownership is the cornerstone of our public housing scheme. We have done fairly well as a home-owning society but that does not mean we should rest on our laurels. As Members have pointed out many times in this Chamber, there ought to be other measures that we can take to assist the low-income families to own homes. We have been debating this for some time and we have also discussed this in conjunction with the Cost Review Committee's Report. Today, I would like to just outline the strategy that MND will take to assist the low-income families to own homes. I will leave the details to be announced later when we finalise them. Essentially, what we intend to do is to adopt a four-pronged strategy that will assist the low-income families in the following ways. First, as we have indicated in the Presidential Address, we will embark on a scheme to sell rental flats to sitting tenants. The people staying in rental flats can be categorised into three categories.”
“They play important supporting roles to meet the logistic needs of their subsidiaries and associates in the region. Logistics include engineering, centralised purchasing, warehousing and distribution, spare parts storage and despatch. More space is needed to provide logistic support and warehousing than for production. (4) Integration of company functions and operations To reduce inter-plant and inter-department travelling within Singapore and to improve productivity, we should encourage and allow companies to integrate all their manufacturing and non-manufacturing activities in one location. Such integration of company operations may affect their current building usage percentage for industrial buildings. Will the Minister consider these developments and amend the current rules and guidelines to change or allow for greater flexibility in the building usage ratio or quantum of floor space by percentage, so as to accommodate these new developments in existing industrial and warehousing properties and thereby further enhancing the productivity and competitiveness of our export industries?”
“Sir, I shall be very brief. I was told that HDB has more than 11,000 industrial properties. In line with the policy of sale of shops to the sitting tenants, is the Ministry considering selling these industrial properties to the sitting tenants? As some of the properties are quite old, will they be upgraded before any sale and what is the lease period? If some of the properties are too old to be sold, what will become of those presently leasing the properties? Mr Robert Chua Teck Chew (Nominated Member): Sir, in view of the following developments, there is an urgent need to review the current rules affecting building usage ratio or, more specifically, the quantum of floor space by percentage for industrial purposes and warehouse purposes. Current rules impose a minimum quantum of 60% for pure industrial floor space for industrial development and 60% for pure warehousing floor space for warehouse development. (1) Regionalisation Labour-intensive and space-intensive industries have relocated or redistributed overseas, reducing the area required for pure industrial purposes. (2) Needs of knowledge- and capital-intensive industries Labour-intensive industries are being replaced by skill-intensive and knowledge-based industries which require fewer workers working with more high-technology equipment and machines, such as computers and robots. More people are also working on research and development to upgrade their local plants and support their regional plants. These changes require less production space but more laboratory and office spaces. (3) Operational headquarters and business headquarters requirements The Government has been encouraging more companies to set up their operational headquarters and business headquarters in Singapore.”
“Sir, in the last Budget debate, I criticised the Ministry's offer of three packages offered for upgrading of flats within a precinct. The three packages are Basic, Standard and Standard-Plus. I had expressed my concern that the offer of three packages is going to create physical disharmony and social differences and that it would be better to offer only two packages - Standard and Standard-Plus. But my suggestion was turned down. Since then, a number of precincts have been selected and residents have made their choice. Will the Minister enlighten me on the result of this upgrading?”
“Sir, every year during the Committee of Supply debate, it is inevitable that the subject of assistance to low-income groups in public housing is brought up, and for good reasons. We want to make sure that they are not left out of the public housing programme, meaning that the flats will not be too expensive for them to buy.”
“Finally, if foreign workers need to stay in public housing estates because we have not come out with a satisfactory solution, may I suggest that these foreign workers be evenly spread out over the island's public housing estates.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head U of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, public housing is subsidised housing and by right should only be reserved for our citizens. However, I am prepared to accept that public housing could also be allowed to house foreign workers because they are building our public housing projects and our public works projects. They are also involved in our private sector projects and they are working in our factories. Thus, they do contribute to our economy. The question is: must we have such workers in the public housing estates? Are there better alternatives? Housing foreign workers in our public estates has many problems. I had my fair share when foreign workers were occupying a few blocks of flats in Teban Gardens. Because of different social upbringing, the standards of hygiene and environmental care were poor, these led to unsightly flats within well-kept surrounding blocks. Moreover, these foreign workers tend to be noisy and boisterous. They also engage in activities not worthy of mention in this Chamber. I, therefore, would like the Ministry to come up with some other solutions to ease this problem. One way would be to build dormitories on reserved land, a distance away from public housing estates. Another would be to house them in dormitories in industrial estates so that they can be better controlled and also there will be less disturbance. Perhaps, those big companies employing large numbers of foreign workers on a long-term basis should be allowed and encouraged to build such dormitories.”
“From what I know, because of this foreign workers' levy implemented by the Government, many foreign workers have to pay the foreign workers' levy out of their own pockets. As a result, their salaries were cut by a lot. Does Mr Choo feel that the employers should look after the interest of their foreign workers or should they exploit these foreign workers? If he feels that the employers should exploit their foreign workers, then he should give this House the reason why he thinks so.”
“Let me tell him, if we were to scatter all our surpluses from a helicopter in the air, he will also say this is not a fair distribution of our wealth. If Mr Chiam says that the way our Finance Minister redistributes the surpluses to our people is wrong, then he should tell us how we could redistribute our wealth to our people so that each and every Singapore citizen would be satisfied. If Mr Chiam cannot offer an alternative which is capable of satisfying each and every Singaporean, then I feel it is not necessary for him to come to this House every year to criticise the budget of the day. Sir, every year, when it comes to Budget time, we talk on very healthy matters, such as how much income tax reliefs, how much rebates should be given, how many months' service and conservancy charges the Government is to pay on behalf of the people, etc. These are all very healthy matters, unlike in other countries where the only matters they discuss are unemployment problems, inflation problems, racial disturbance, social unrest, etc. So I feel that the Opposition MPs should make good use of the Budget time in this House to actively discuss the economic and social guiding principles of Singapore. They should not single out any particular issue for attack. Mr Cheo Chai Chen( In Mandarin): Sir, with regard to Mr Choo's criticism on me, I feel that it is necessary for me to say a few words. Sir, when I talked about the foreign workers' levy just now, my main concern was for the benefit of the Singaporeans, and not just for the consideration of the foreign workers' benefit. But Mr Choo must realise that foreign workers have also contributed greatly to Singapore. We should not ignore or neglect their interest.”
“He seemed to be saying that our Budget each year is either unfavourable to this quarter or unfavourable to another sector of our people, such as the lower-income group. There has never been a year when he identified himself with the Budget presented by the Finance Minister. If we say Singapore in the 60s was like an under-nourished child, then after 30 years of nurturing and care by the People's Action Party Government, the Singapore of today is no longer under-nourished. It has grown into a rugged, fit and strong youngster. So I feel that when Mr Chiam makes his criticism he should look at the achievements of Singapore under the PAP Government over the past 30 years. He should not be finding fault with the Budget and say this is no good, and that is no good. What he is doing is in fact simply creating some unnecessary worries, and such unnecessary worries are bad for health. So I hope that the next time Mr Chiam looks at the Budget, he will look at the achievements of Singapore over the past 30 years and give it an overall assessment. It is easy to criticise but difficult to praise. However, I believe Mr Chiam is a sincere person. He should be able to make a fair and sincere assessment on the achievements of the PAP Government in Singapore over the past 30 years. Yesterday, Mr Chiam See Tong said that this year's Budget favours the higher income group and that there is hardly any benefit for the lower-income group. He said that the 5% tax rebate is more to the advantage of the higher income group because it will not benefit the 76% of our people who are not required to pay any income tax. That is why I say he has not been fair in making this remark.”
“I feel that he should cast his vision further when he comes to Parliament to debate on such issues. Sir, I have spoken to the Chief Executive Officer of a German company in Singapore. I asked him why he chose Singapore as his regional headquarters. He told me that Singapore is a very good and very safe country where all the facilities and infrastructure are excellent. That was why he has decided to make Singapore his regional headquarters for Asia and the Southeast-Asian region. However, he also mentioned to me that he was afraid that Singaporeans would not be able to adjust to a not-so-well-off environment outside Singapore. So he was worried that he would not be able to get suitable people to be sent out to cover the Asia-Pacific region. The point I wish to drive home is: Why is it that foreigners who invest in Singapore would find it difficult to get Singaporeans to work overseas for them? Is it because Singapore is too stable and our economy has been growing so well? It is a well known fact that our economy has been growing very well during the past 30 years. As a result, Singaporeans are over-indulged in the comfort and sense of security in Singapore and are therefore not prepared to go and fight it out outside Singapore. I hope that the Government can, to a certain extent, inject into the minds of the Singapore people the need to fight for improvement and survival overseas so as to encourage more Singaporeans to treat the ventures and work outside Singapore as one of the means of survival, and a form of livelihood. Yesterday, when I heard Mr Chiam See Tong's speech, I could not help feeling a sense of regret.”
“I think we should let the GST be implemented for some time before we come back and discuss how much effect the GST has on the commodity prices in Singapore. As a matter of fact, I personally share the concern about rising prices. Of course some people who complain about the increase of 1.5% in the employer's CPF contribution may take this opportunity to raise their prices and blame it on the implementation of GST. This is not only my concern, but also the common concern of all my PAP colleagues in this House. In other words, the final cost will be passed on to the consumers. This is to be expected. However, since everybody is beginning to expose all the profiteering activities of the unscrupulous businessmen who are using the excuse of GST or the 1.5% increase in the employer's CPF contribution rate to jack up their prices, we should take some action against them, such as boycotting them. The whole society, the whole Parliament, have been talking about this matter. So I feel that Mr Cheo should also look at our financial policy from a very long-term point of view. I feel that the Minister for Finance should in his Annual Budget Statement share with the people of Singapore what we have done over the past 5-10 years in terms of budget policies so that the people will be able to see what the country has done for them over the past 5 to 10 years. They must look back into the past in order to review and look forward to the future. When we look at the Budget each year, we should not take it as just a reflection of the present situation of our society or the present state of economy, but rather we should look at it as a part in our long-term economic strategy. Just now, Mr Cheo talked about foreign workers' levy and the annual rebates to offset the impact of GST.”
“I feel that the Government should particularly encourage our people to develop their business in our neighbouring countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia. In order to make it more convenient for our people to go to Malaysia, I feel that the Government should abolish the "three-quarter tank" rule, and at the same time allow Singaporeans who are holding Malaysian work permits to drive Malaysia-registered vehicles in Singapore. Singapore should try its best to avoid practising protectionism or to interfere with the consumption pattern of our people. We have been regarded as one of the four Little Dragons of Asia. We should have a mind which is as broad as a dragon, and not as narrow as a worm. Mr Choo Wee Khiang (Jalan Besar GRC)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, having heard Mr Cheo Chai Chen's speech, I cannot help wondering why Mr Cheo, as the Member for Nee Soon Central, can say that the foreign workers' levy is a form of exploitation on the hard-earned money of the foreigners. Is he a Member of the Singapore Parliament representing Nee Soon Central, or is he the Member of a foreign country? No doubt, he spoke with sincerity, but he should not use this kind of language, as it is not fair for him to use such language. The foreign workers' levy has already been debated many times in this House and he is harping again on the same tune in this year's Budget debate. I do not think we should waste our time on it. He said that various rebates should be given every year to offset the impact of GST. Likewise, this matter has already been debated thoroughly in this House. Everybody already knows what GST is all about and has endorsed it.”
“As such, their number is under control. Furthermore, the Government can also adopt some administrative measures to control the illegal employment of foreign workers. For example, we can ask employers every three months or half a year to submit a list of employees, stating who are locals and who are foreigners. In order to ensure that the local workers are not disadvantaged, the Government can, apart from fixing the ratio of foreign workers to local workers in each business establishment, also fix the minimum wages for our local workers. On the other hand, the NTUC and the relevant unions can also play an important role in controlling the number of foreign workers. If our local workers feel that their wages have been dampened by the influx of foreign workers, they can complain to the unions. All these measures will allay the Government's fears and worries about foreign workers. In fact, if we look deeper into the matter, we can see that the foreign workers' levy has not only indirectly exploited the foreign workers of their hard-earned money, but also affected the wages of our local workers because the foreign workers' levy increases the employers' cost, and the employers, in turn, cut down on the wages for the workers. Therefore, I urge the Government to review its policy on foreign workers' levy. It is a fact that we are facing a labour shortage. The foreign workers' levy is a burden to the employers. It triggers off a rise in property prices. So long as we have a budget surplus, and so long as we can effectively control the influx of foreign workers, I think it will be a wise move to abolish the foreign workers' levy. Now, let me talk about the Government's policy to encourage our people to invest and work overseas.”
“Unless the Government can grant various rebates year after year to offset the effect of inflation brought about by the implementation of GST, these people will suffer very gravely. The implementation of GST will lead to price increases. This is beyond dispute. Even before the GST has been implemented, we are already experiencing price increases everywhere. Before we could see the benefits the GST is supposed to bring about, we are already witnessing its adverse effects. According to the estimates of the Government, its revenue from GST in the 1994 budget year will be $960 million. The Government has also stated that it would cost $1.2 billion for the rebates on conservancy and service charges, rentals, etc. Therefore, we can presume that if the Government fails to get revenue from other sources to cover its losses, it will increase other taxes, or increase the rate of GST or simply withdraw all the tax rebates given to the people. The implementation of GST this year is already a foregone conclusion. I can only hope the Government will keep-on reviewing this measure and monitor its adverse effect on the low-income group. Now, let me talk about the foreign workers' levy. Many people may not have realized that the introduction of foreign workers' levy has brought about the rise in prices of residential property. The Government holds the view that without the foreign workers' levy, there will be an influx of foreign workers coming to Singapore, resulting in the wages of the local workers being brought down. In fact, this is a specious argument. The reason is simple. In many industries which are in need of foreign workers, there are many jobs which our local workers are not willing to take up. In fact, the employment of foreign workers is subjected to a certain ratio.”
“Our future national development will depend a lot on the efforts of the Ministry of Education in nurturing our future generation. The other Ministries and departments are of equal importance. Together, the civil service forms the supports of an effective government. As such, the Government has to continue to pay attention to departments having manpower problems and ensure that their requirements are met so that they can be more efficient and be able to provide the public with satisfactory service. At the same time, we must appreciate the work of those departments which have not been getting the attention they need but manage nonetheless to cope with a heavier workload. They have performed well under the circumstances. I hope, Mr Speaker, that the Government will continue to ensure that public officers find a civil service career something to be proud of and not feel unesteemed and unappreciated. I support the Budget presented by the Minister for Finance. Mr Cheo Chai Chen (Nee Soon Central)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the focus of this year's Budget is on the implementation of GST. The Government has said that the implementation of GST is to change our tax structure so as to improve our competitiveness. This is only the perception of the Government. Whether it is a good measure or not, we cannot tell as yet. We must understand that there are many factors affecting competitiveness. GST is not necessarily the most effective measure, because many countries which are implementing GST do not seem to be competitive. I have spoken in this House that the implementation of GST would adversely affect the lower-income group, particularly those who are aged and not gainfully employed.”
“To cope with the problems that might arise, we need to be watchful and diversify our approach to economic expansion. In addition, we must continue to be prudent so as to prepare for the day when things might take a turn for the worse. For this purpose, we should reserve some of the rewards or goodies that we might want to distribute to our people, and give these to them in times of difficulty. The more we save up now, the easier it will be for them to bear the dire circumstances that might befall them in times of economic recession or economic downturn later on. We also have to be cautious in distributing these so-called goodies. It has to be done in an equitable manner, everyone enjoying an equal measure, as in the case of the CPF Share Ownership Top-Up Scheme and the 5% across-the-board tax rebate. This distribution should also not be seen as the Government moving towards welfarism, something we have strived to avoid. Special benefits should be meant only for the less well-off who really need them. Usually, handouts for those in difficulty will have a deeper impact and will be highly appreciated. But handouts for someone who is not in such dire straits will not be so appreciated and, in such a case, the goals behind the Government's well-intentioned measures will not be achieved. Mr Speaker, the recent salary revision for civil servants has brought them relief. In addition, a better working environment, closer superior-subordinate relations, better promotion prospects, etc, have made the civil service career attractive. This has raised its competitiveness against the private sector and is good for our economic development. The public service is the backbone of a Government.”
“This left an uneasy feeling within me. I wish he did not make that statement. His words are always so carefully chosen and carry so much weight and influence. I worry his statement would have dented the idealism of many young men and women who want to go into politics out of a sense of duty and commitment to the country. I believe S. Rajaratnam, who knows him better than many of us, that what was said was pure rhetoric. I support the motion. Encik Harun bin A. Ghani (Hong Kah GRC)( In Malay): Mr Speaker, every time a Budget is presented in Parliament, we hear voices of approval in some sectors, and expressions of disappointment in some other sectors. Where the ordinary people are concerned, the Budget this time is seen to be generous. The various incentives at least give them a breather in coping with the various effects of the Goods and Services Tax to be implemented soon. But for the small businessmen, they see little hope of making much profit in the coming years, or at least for this year. Indeed, no Budget can make everyone happy. Nevertheless, the man-in-the-street is grateful that the Government has been generous enough not to impose a heavy tax and, in fact, is distributing wealth especially to the poor and to the low-income group. However, Mr Speaker, this situation might not be for long. Changes in the world political arena will affect our economic development. Political conflicts, protectionist tendencies and an environment of ill-will and allegations by influential world media are among problems that will affect our economic development and trade. Yeltsin's waning influence, the re-emergence of Super 301, Japan's reluctance to open its doors to American goods, the linking of human rights to Government aid, etc, are also developments that give us concern.”
“This is where careful understanding and awareness of each other's needs should be uppermost on their minds in future working relationships. There must be more interaction between the two groups. The lack of consultation between the union and the Government on civil service benefits is a clear proof of a breakdown. A few unionists called me lamenting on the way the matter was handled. They felt taken for granted. They supported the call for pay cut during the recession. At least give them some face to face their members. If you think the Prime Minister's speech has corrected their disappointment, let me tell this House that it helped a bit, but the hurt is still there. Finally, getting people into politics to run this country was the focus of the last Parliament sitting. Pay was discussed at length. While a reasonable salary is needed, there are many other aspects to consider. We must, for example, emphasise and evolve good values of loyalty, commitment, dedication and a sense of duty to country. These must be internalised in us so that we can stand tall in a crisis. The young are usually imbued with idealism. Idealism is important because it stirs up the passion in us to want to do well, and to want to make changes for the betterment of our society. This idealism gets tempered, as they gain experiences in life. However, this idealism will surface often to pull us from the draws of materialism that make us sit up and think beyond money matters. I was not in this House during the last Parliament sitting when Senior Minister made his speech. I had to look after a Romanian Delegation visiting Parliament. I read his speech and I was particularly disturbed by his statement that if he were 32 years of age at this period, he too would hesitate to have gone into politics.”
“We should remember this in the years to come when we have bigger and more complex issues to tackle. Thus, in future, we should use more prudence and thought in our handling of issues. The 1994 Budget has looked into areas that are very important for our future. Money is being pumped into developments and to upgrade the social infrastructure. Hence, the Government is putting $1 billion aside for the Cluster Development Fund to invest in selective strategic projects. And more funds are being pumped into education, civil works and, of course, health. We must, therefore, look at the Budget in this light. If we take the two Budgets together, that is, 1993 and 1994, a more comprehensive assessment of the economic position of Singapore will be better appreciated. Prudence, more thought and, again, timing are important when we introduce policies in 1994, especially when such policies affect the pockets of the individuals. The recent civil service pay revision and medical benefits is one issue I had in mind because it affects the pockets and expectations of the civil servants. In fact, this issue also brought together a point we must consider very carefully, ie, Government's relationship with unions. The first generation leaders, I was told, were conscious of the union's needs. We must learn from them. The symbiotic relationship ensured industrial peace. This relationship is unique and must not be taken for granted. It must be strengthened further as new leaderships take over the respective unions and political organisations. We must not let this relationship be weakened. This is not because the leaders do not know the value of such relationship but because each has different agenda and needs.”
“There will also be a rebate of individual income tax granted in 1993 starting at $700 and dipping $50 per year until it reaches $500 the fifth year and it will stay at that level after that. All these were in addition to the rebates given to HDB dwellers. Even the landlords were given a one-off 25% tax rebate for business properties. In addition, the FY93 tax package includes seven tax breaks to encourage companies to invest abroad. I will not elaborate. But above all, in 1993, there was a 3% cut (to take effect this year) in the corporate tax, representing a goal to a 25% corporate tax rate. Moreover, the employer's CPF contribution will be increased by half a percentage point from July last year and a 1.5% for 1994 was already announced by the Government to allow business to make adjustments in anticipation of the GST. I think this point was missed by many businessmen. That is why I said, in the earlier part of my speech, the unexpected restoration of the 1.5% CPF contribution by employers. I think this restoration is a fair one because the unions have, in the past, taken a pay cut during the bad economic time and now, eight years later, with the stronger economic growth, a restoration in 1994 is justified. Also restoring the CPF by 1.5% will help workers cope with the GST. Thus, in summary, many goodies were already given in 1993 for 1994 and I said, with the benefit of hindsight, if we had presented all these this year, we could have overcome the psychological impact of the GST. Mr Speaker, Sir, timing is important. It is not just giving, but giving at the correct time and this is a good lesson for us. What we have already given yesterday is yesterday's goodies. And no amount of explanation is going to change that. Human psychology is very complex.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, last year, businessmen hailed the Budget as a Santa Claus Budget. This year, they have expressed disappointment over the Budget. There are three issues that caused this disappointment. One, their expectation of a cut in corporate tax. Two, the unexpected restoration of the 1.5% CPF contribution by employers. Three, the proposed income ceiling for SDF levy of $750 to $1,000. To the business community, it will affect business and especially coming at a time of the introduction of the GST was something they did not bargain for. With the benefit of hindsight, this year's Budget should have been presented in 1993, that is, last year, and last year's Budget should be presented this year. This is because this is GST year and companies, including small and medium-sized businesses, do not expect more increased business cost. Last year, we announced a 3% cut of the corporate tax from 30% to 27% but there was no GST. Last year again, there was no restoration of the CPF in spite of the good economic growth and, again, there was no GST. But in 1994, GST looms over the head and expectations are high for some relief to ease their cost. There is thus a psychological impasse. Yet, in retrospect, if we examine the 1993 Budget, there were indeed many GST inspired changes for 1994 that were, unfortunately, forgotten. To recap, some tax incentives and reliefs that will be given in 1994 from the 1993 Budget, include the cut in the personal income tax rate from 33% to 30%, an increase in personal relief of $1,000 from the present $2,000 to $3,000, reduced import duty for cars to offset the impact of the GST and similarly, reduced petrol and diesel taxes.”
“If we were to be an investor in a listed company, we would not question the decision of the board of directors to spend more expense to engage a capable CEO to run the organisation, so that the company is well run, to make profit, and to ensure a high return on our investment. In this respect, Ministers and Ministers of State are not unlike chairmen and CEOs of large organisations, except that this organisation is Singapore Incorporated, and that instead of looking after a few shareholders, they are looking after the whole Singapore. Will it then be fair to remunerate our Ministers any less than the CEOs in the private sector? It is important to ensure that Ministers and office-holders are being adequately rewarded. This is one of the ways to ensure that those in office can be completely dedicated and concentrate on the job without being unnecessarily distracted. And it is important to make it less difficult to induce young talent to take up office. As I mentioned earlier, in Singapore the option is so great and abundant for those talented people that it would be very difficult to convince sufficient talented people to take up office and ensure the continuous prosperity and success of Singapore. Our Ministers have a strict standard to adhere to. What they earn is all transparent. And in order for Singapore to be continuously governed well, we should ensure a high standard of integrity and performance of our leaders. We have to be stringent but fair. I do not think anyone should begrudge our Ministers to be paid fairly. This is a small price to pay in return for the tremendous demand we expect of them.”