Wang Kai Yuen
Singapore
“Sir, would MDA not, in monitoring these sites and when they have found such a content on its own, make it as tenable evidence and pass it to the Police rather than have the complaint from the public?”
“I would like to find out from the Minister of State when will the content of these blogs start becoming from being just mere offensive to tenable and verifiable evidence that could be tendered in court for an act committed in Singapore that is punishable under the Penal Code, such as homosexual act, oral sex and sex with underaged ladies.”
“Once they are disqualified, they might as well close shop. Sir, I am sympathetic to their plight and that it is unfair to apply the demerit points to a single company as a whole, regardless of the number of ongoing construction projects. This could act against big companies with multiple projects.”
“Individuals just make less money when they sell their flats. Hopefully, if they were to buy another flat, they could also pay proportionately less as well. However, when the market is on the way down, like in the last few years, or stagnate like now, the loss would be substantial, as many would be saddled with negative equity.”
“Sir, would the Minister agree that since the Singapore law is primarily based on the common law and since the UK Parliament has found it necessary to legislate that glorification of terrorism is a crime, would he agree that there might be a gap in our laws that our current law would not cover where the current UK law would now cover?”
“Thank you, Sir. The Minister indicated that he would monitor and would plug the hole when the need arises. Would he want to follow the UK example that they would only pass such a law after a terrorist attack in the tube? If a similar event happens in Singapore, would it be a bit too late to plug the gap? Assoc. Prof.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,025 lines we hold for Wang Kai Yuen, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 21 of 21.
“The whole purpose of the exercise is to make sure that our goods and services can be sold overseas at competitive prices, that there will be a continued stream of investments, so that workers can be employed. Investors can choose to put their money in other countries, like South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong. Our workers cannot choose to work in South Korea, Taiwan or Hong Kong. I am encouraged by my meetings with the union Leaders, and the general attitude of the workers which they reflect. They understand that to get out of the recession, we must be competitive in wage costs and in our labour productivity. They are not jumping with joy at the prospect of losing something like 15% point, or so, of their CPF savings. On the contrary, they are concerned for the workers. They listened to the arguments and saw the need to cut wage costs decisively in order to save jobs for their members and for the other workers. Mr Speaker, Sir, we should record our appreciation here of these union leaders, and to the workers for being ready to sacrifice a part of their wages. The employer's CPF contribution is part of the worker's wages. As late as November last year, I was against any cut in the CPF contribution, whether it be from the employer or the employee. So was the Government. We wanted to have high savings for the nation and for the workers, so that they would have a nest egg for old age, funds to buy their homes and to pay for medical expenses. But when confronted with the sobering thought that our wage costs are so high that we are going to lose our international competitiveness, we have no choice but to thaw our position. We do not remain rigid when the temperature outside has changed.”
“This generation of Singaporeans who were young and unburdened in 1965 are now in their 20s, 30s and 40s. On their shoulders rests Singapore's destiny. They have to pull Singapore out of the reces- sion, and take it to new heights, or Singapore will sink into the swamps which it once was. This generation of Singaporeans cannot fail. We are that generation of Singaporeans. The Economic Committee has studied our current economic problems thoroughly. It has meticulously reconstructed the problem, sketched out the critical parts, pinpointed the detonator, and recommended ways to take it apart. It has done, in my view, an admirable job. But we are not here to praise the members of the Committee. We are here to rally your support to fight off recession and recover our economic stride. In other words, it is not how good the recommendations are or how beautifully they have been written out. It is how we implement the recommendations that will determine whether we can overcome our current economic recession, or get blown up by it. Let me elaborate. The key remedial measure is not the proposed reduction in taxes, no matter how important that may be to the investors, for a reduction in taxes does not inflict any pain. The key measure is the proposed CPF reduction and wage restraint for two years, in the first instance. This measure requires workers to sacrifice, to hold down, and even reduce, their standard of living for a while. We have, therefore, to convince the workers why they have to make sacrifices. Some people have asked: Why only the workers are asked to sacrifice, and not the employers? They have also commented that the Economic Report is pro-business. That is one-step-only thinking.”
“This we can do by providing better education to our people, investing in R and D, encouraging higher investment per worker and increasing the use of high technology in our industry as a productivity tool. Mr Speaker, Sir, we must not be distracted by the problems of our current recession. We should continue to forge ahead in going for high technology and to carry out the recommendations of the Report. Only then can we Singaporeans fully exploit our potential. We should shake off the shackles of low per hour wage rate of our competitor countries. Only then can we reach for the stars. I would like to conclude by saying that the Economic Committee's Report embodies a powerful statement, ie, the recognition of the role of the private enterprise in the creation of wealth. It deserves the support of our people. 3.29 pm The First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have listened to the MPs and read them for the last three days. I have therefore decided to speak today instead of later in the debate so that other MPs can then debate more specifically on the response of the Government to the Economic Committee's Report and not just on the Report alone. The current recession is more than an economic watershed. It is also a watershed in our national history. Not only does it mark the end of an era of high economic growth under one generation of Singaporeans, but it also marks the beginning of a new period of different challenges under another. The pioneers of independent Singapore are getting on in years. For 20 years, since 1965, they worked and sacrificed to leave behind a legacy for the next generation. Now, the time has come for the new generation to build on its heritage.”
“In the meantime, it is quite interesting to note that in 1985, as shown in the same chart, there is a sharp increase in Government consumption expenditure, close to $1 billion. Why not we stimulate the private consumption expenditure? I surmise that a reasonable proposal to tackle the economic recession would be to cut the employer's contribution by 10% for long term growth and employee's contribution by 5% for short-term gains. Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the key issues of the recession is our wage costs. It is no longer competitive when compared to other newly industrializing countries. In such comparison, one should not compare our wages. The real comparison should be in per unit cost. In other words, as long as our productivity is higher than others, then we shall be able to pay more. The per hour wage cost of workers in the United States, Switzerland and Japan is very high compared to ours. Yet their industries, or at least some of them, remain competitive. We should study why and how they do it and do our best to emulate them. Government should aim to increase wages and not to keep wages down. They should work towards increasing wages, providing better standards of living while maintaining or reducing the total wage cost to industry, thereby maintaining our competitiveness. How could that be done? Therein lies the challenge. Singapore has no natural resources other than its people. All our incomes depend on value-added services. So we must move into high value-added niches. The economic restructuring must continue. We must also examine and try to maximize the manpower resources we have.”
“On the other hand, the newly industrializing countries of Taiwan, Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore, depend essentially on the same markets. Measured in non-oil exports, all these countries experience negative growth in 1985. Yet in their GDP growth, only Singapore experiences a negative -1.7% growth rate. The difference is that the other countries have strong and vibrant domestic sectors. Singapore's domestic demand, as we all know, is a small percentage of the total, only 30%. But is it important to our economy? The Report on page 44 states: 'For the first time since the recession in 1975, domestic demand fell by 3% in 1985.' Moreover, the severity of the recession is the worst in memory. I would say that there is a strong correlation between declining domestic demand and our current recession even within the Singapore context. If we refer to Chart 2-8 of the Economic Report which is entitled "Composition of Domestic Demand", of the two components of this total domestic demand, total Government and total Private, it is the total private demand that has taken a nose-dive in 1985 mainly as a result of the construction sector. It is this decline that has contributed to the current recession. How can we turn around this recession or at least modulate its effect in the short term? What is the outlook for 1986 for these various components of the total domestic demand? There is no easy way we can turn around the private sector construction. Private sector investment will remain flat. The proposed 30% investment allowance will hopefully increase private investment but perhaps only after a period of time. Private consumption will remain flat and decline.”
“On the other hand, one might ask: Would not a 10% cut do just as well? Would not a 10% cut over a longer period of time, say, four years, be more effective in creating jobs? By reducing the wage cost to companies, the proposed CPF cut will make collapsing companies survivable, marginal companies profitable, and profitable companies quite profitable. This will definitely preserve jobs. By saving jobs, this will prevent the recession from getting worse. To achieve this objective, does the cut have to be as high as 15%? As we cut the rate from 5%, 10%, 15%, the additional number of jobs saved at every cut is an increasingly small number. If the number of jobs saved between 10% and 15% is significant, I am sure all working Singaporeans will support the measure. On the other hand, if the incremental gain is marginal, perhaps it would be wiser to go for the lower figure of 10%. Would the 15% cut turn around the recession in the short run? I do not think so. On the contrary, there exists a distinct possibility that this measure will aggravate the recession in the short term. By transferring $1.5 billion from the CPF to the employers, I am sure all working people will become poorer and, more important than that, they will feel poorer. What will people do when they feel poorer? Sir, I think they will spend less and this will reduce the domestic demand further. The Economic Committee has clearly identified declining domestic demand as one of the key contributors to our current recession. In very simple terms, recession results from declining demands. There are two elements to demands: external and domestic. External demand depends strongly on international business cycle. There is very little we can do to stimulate external demand.”
“Indeed, too much savings have been locked into CPF and the CPF contribution rate can be reduced. By how much and whose contribution? Mr Speaker, Sir, that, I surmise, is the billion dollar question. The Economic Committee recommends a 15% cut in the CPF on the employer's contribution. Why 15%? Why not 10%? Why not 20%? How this figure is arrived at, the Report does not say. In reducing the CPF contribution rate, by releasing the funds back into the economy, what can be achieved? Is it to: 1) Create jobs; 2) Save jobs; 3) Arrest the recession; 4) Turn around the recession. Or some of the above, or all of the above? Let us look at each of these carefully. Yes, the 15% cut will make business certainly highly profitable overnight. It will entice more investors, both foreign and local, to set up shop in Singapore. But investment decisions take time. The Acting Minister for Trade and Industry, in the televised forum on Sunday night, said that by the time the factories come onstream, it would be 18 months down the road. If we propose to hold the CPF rate for two years, then the investor, after the plant starts operating, can look forward to only another six months of the low CPF rate. There then lies an element of uncertainty in the decision-making. Would the proposed 15% rate really entice investors which would otherwise not consider coming to Singapore, or those who are already here, to re-invest the resultant profit as a result of the cut? There might be some who would rather take the money and run, smiling to the bank. To be really effective, Government should consider freezing the employer's contribution beyond the two-year period. As it is, would the measure create jobs? Yes, but only as a long-term measure.”
“In its recommendations on wages, the Economic Committee Report has this to say, and I quote: 'Greater use must be made of variable compensation systems such as bonus payments, profit-sharing schemes, productivity incentive schemes and employee share schemes. Such variable compensation schemes will ensure that high wage payments awarded in good years are not perpetuated in subsequent lean years.' This is a good fundamental principle that makes sense and there is no reason why it should only apply to wages. I believe it should also apply to rentals. The Government should re-examine all its rental schemes, including JTC, URA, HDB, PSA, etc, to ensure that the system is fair and flexible. By showing flexibility, Government would set a good example for our workers to follow. In this, I am glad to have the support of the Member for Paya Lebar. Next, I will touch on CPF cut. Now this is a really complex issue. On top of that, it is also an emotive one. I would like to establish, first, the basis of reducing CPF contributions. Let us look at some ball-park figures. In 1979, the total national savings of Singapore was about $24 billion. This includes savings with commercial banks, CPF, POSB and finance companies. CPF then amounted to roughly $7 billion, or 29% of the total. In 1984, the total national savings was about $62.5 billion, of which CPF amounted to $23 billion, or 37% of the total savings. In other words, while total savings have increased, the amount locked into CPF has increased even greater. Had we maintained the same proportion of CPF savings to the total savings as in 1979, the difference of 8% out of $62.5 billion would work out to be another additional $5 billion not locked into CPF.”
“The theme is summarized in paragraph 84 of the Executive Summary, and I quote: 'The costs of doing business in Singapore must not be higher than operating costs in other competitive locations. Wages must be competitive, rentals must be affordable, utilities and statutory board charges must not be out of line.' While the Report comes out with strong recommendations on wages, its statements on rentals and statutory board changes are not as strong. The Member for Alexandra and the Member for Paya Lebar have spoken on the surpluses of statutory boards. But I believe it bears repeating. The Report endorses one fundamental principle, ie, statutory boards should provide the infrastructure services at minimum cost. It goes further to recommend that statutory board surpluses be considered in the normal Government budgetary exercise. Surely, we have learnt enough in this recession to realize that such surpluses will eventually, if allowed to carry on in future, precipitate the next recession by (1) soaking up liquidity from the economy, and (2) increasing the cost of doing business, thus reducing our competitiveness. I urge the Government to take this opportunity, while the lessons are still fresh in our mind, to look at the terms of reference for statutory boards to ensure that the missions are clearly spelt out, and that is, to provide efficient and reliable utility services at minimum cost. Only by doing so would Singapore have the infrastructure to sustain the economic growth till the 1990s. Next, let us look at rentals. Is rental affordable in Singapore? Let us ask the tenants in HDB shops and URA shopping centres, and we will get a general idea.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the President in his opening Address states that the policy recommendations set out in the Economic Committee's Report have been accepted by the Government, in principle. I have studied the Report and I believe that these recommendations deserve the support of our people. Without a doubt, the Economic Committee has done an excellent job. The Chairman, the Committee Members and the various Sub-committees should be commended for their time and effort. The analysis of the Singapore economy is frank, thorough and precise. It identifies the fundamental structural problems which precipitated the current economic recession and which must be rectified for our long-term growth. I believe that if these recommendations were carried out in a coordinated manner, it will rectify most of these inherent problems and go a long way towards speeding up the recovery. In so far as it lays bare the rigidity in our economy, the recession, painful as it is, has been beneficial. It exposes our structural rigidity and deficiency, much like an ebbing tide exposing all the rocks and debris on the beach which otherwise are hidden by the sea water. The recommendations of the Committee would clear away some of these debris. I believe some of the lessons we learnt in this recession should be highlighted so that we will not forget them when the next upswing comes along. Memory, Sir, as some Members of this House have demonstrated, is a very tricky thing, especially as we grow older. As I read the Economic Committee Report, I find one recurrent theme throughout the Report, chapter after chapter, ie, the cost of doing business in Singapore has rendered our business uncompetitive.”
“Question No. 14, Sir. USER OWNERSHIP OF TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT 14. Dr Wang Kai Yuen asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore will further relax its rules and regulations regarding terminal equipment such as telephone sets, branch exchanges (PABX) and other equipment, both in private homes and business premises, to allow user ownership of such equipment.”
“If sea water is found to be suitable for this purpose, the drinking water diverted from toilet flushing could then be put to good use. To build a separate water distribution system to cover the whole of Singapore would probably be prohibitively expensive. However, if the system only covers HDB housing estates, for example, or other places where the population density is high, the pay-off may justify the expenditure. And we could build this system in phases, starting with new estates and retro-fitting the older ones later. I hope the Minister will find my proposal worthy of his consideration and determine whether such a scheme is feasible.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am going to state a very self-evident fact. The major factors limiting Singapore's growth are two - land and water. Of the two, I believe we will run out of water before we run out of land. Hence water must be conserved and recycled, if possible, to maximize these limited resources. To reclaim drinking water from sewerage is not only expensive but probably very repulsive for the user as well. So the only alternative must be conservation. Sir, we are still quite wasteful in our water consumption. For example, many of us wash dishes under a running tap. I believe through proper consumer education, it is probable that we can cut down our water consumption significantly without causing undue hardship or introducing unhygienic practices. However, judging from the deplorable state of our public toilets, as highlighted by the Minister of State for Health and Foreign Affairs yesterday, the last thing we would do is to discourage our people from flushing their toilets. Since water used in flushing toilets is a portion of our consumption that we cannot reduce, let us figure out what is the volume of water we are referring to. Let me assume, very conservatively, that every Singaporean, man, woman and child, flushes the toilets three times a day. Members might disagree. Now at two gallons per flush, it will work out to be 15 million gallons or 70,000 cubic metres per day. At a cost of 42 cents per cubic metre the cost to a consumer would work out to be about $10 million per year. This is not an insignificant sum. I propose that we study the feasibility of a separate water distribution system using sea water, similar to that in Hong Kong, for the use in their toilets.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not submit an amendment, but may I be allowed to speak on the subject of liquid waste?”
“Sir, would the Minister agree that, in view of the figures he has just released, greater efforts should be expended in the training of those earning below $750, in particular, those who have lost their jobs in our economic restructuring programme?”
“One of the major tasks of the National Computer Board is to promote Singapore as a software centre. But I believe its efforts are hampered by the lack of power to grant economic incentives. Such powers are still vested with the Economic Development Board, not with the National Computer Board. I had the opportunity to observe a mission headed by the General Manager of the National Computer Board to promote Singapore as a software centre, and I must say that its effectiveness is very much hampered by such lack of power. Will the Minister consider granting similar powers of the Economic Development Board to the National Computer Board?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to comment on the National Computer Board?”
“They know the urgency of such matters and have decided not to wait for the development of a curriculum. Of the 2,174 junior middle schools in Korea, there were 1,294 micro-computers, about one computer to two schools. Of the 1,081 senior middle schools, there were 8,000 micro-computers, an average of eight computers per school. How about Hong Kong where the government initiative is minimal? They have a programme to equip 105 of their secondary schools with 11 micro-computers each. By the middle of this year, they expect that at least 20,000 Hong Kong secondary school students will be using micro-computers in their studies, So compare these figures, 3.8 in Singapore, 8 in Korea, 11 in Hong Kong (of course, for the selected schools in Hong Kong). Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe we shall introduce personal computers in our schools in a massive way, starting with the secondary schools. As we change from a half-day school to a full-day school, let every school provide computer access to all students who want an access to one. I believe this is the only way to train our future generation to become computer literate, to make use of the greatest productivity machines men have invented so far. In this way, our future workers and professionals will have computer in their blood and we shall continue to attract foreign investors with our skilled manpower and be sure of our continued economic growth. 3.04 pm”
“In the information age, just introducing computer education in the final phase of one's education, be it VITB, polytechnic, or the universities, thereby producing specialists, is just not good enough. Computer knowledge and computer education should be introduced early in the education system. Sir, let me review our effort in the schools. The figure for June 1984 shows that we have a total of 509 micro-computers in our 134 secondary schools, an average of 3.8 micro-computers per school. Maybe the Member for Alexandra will have difficulty visualizing 3.8 micro-computers per school. There are no official statistics for our primary schools where everybody is preoccupied with streaming. Only 16,000 of our students, or 10% of the secondary school enrolment, have access to these computers as part of their ECA programmes. Most likely these are also the top 10%. In other words, most of our students who leave secondary school will have no access to computer at all. On the other hand, the governments of South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong, the other dragons of Asia, understand the importance of introducing computer early in the schools. Thus, their approach is quite different from ours. In addition to tertiary education, they are putting emphasis in the primary as well as the secondary schools. Let me give some figures of the Korean efforts. These are 1983 figures. By 1985, Sir, you expect certain increases. There were 6,517 elementary schools in Korea and there were a total of 2,814 personal computers in those schools. In other words, about one computer to two or three schools. They are putting computers in primary schools without waiting for the development of a proper computer curriculum.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to bring your attention next to a matter of importance, especially with respect to our economic restructuring programme, that of computer literacy of our people, When the information industry has been identified as vital, some of the promotion programmes we have embarked on are the envies of others. For example, we have the National Computer Board to promote computerization in our country. A prestigious Taiwanese business magazine ( ) devoted an entire issue last year on our national computerization programme. In it they were asking some soulsearching questions such as, "Why Taiwan does not have something similar, like the NCB, even though both Taiwan and Singapore have identified the information industry as vital to our national well-being in the future?" Despite the accolade, I feel that we have the penchant for doing things the quick, and therefore the expensive way. When we launched the massive national computerization programme in the 1980s, there was not enough trained manpower to man the industry. The resultant shortage had driven up wages significantly and job-hopping was rampant. A high starting salary has drawn anyone with a computer background into the field. Suddenly, everybody wants to be a computer analyst and they flock to our training programmes in the University, polytechnics and other computer institutes, both private and public. As a result, there would be probably a surplus of such people in the near future. The First Deputy Prime Minister in his Addendum to the President's Speech assured us that Singapore is moving into the stage of instant information.”
“For these workers to break into new fields, it will be quite difficult especially when they have to compete with new entrants into the labour market who are trained by the Government for these new jobs. Let me give an example. One of my constituents is an experienced TV technician. He had learned his skills as an apprentice. He was retrenched recently and could not find a job with the pay that he was accustomed to. I suggest how about the computer industry where the ubiquitous visual display terminals are just nothing else but modified TV sets. Surely, he can find a job there. It turns out that although he has all the necessary skills, he cannot adapt because of his poor command of English. He is, in fact, a prime candidate for worker training programme. And it is he who came to me asking for help in obtaining a taxi licence. In our current set-up the training of workers to face new challenges falls on the shoulders of the employers through programmes such as BEST. However, most companies that participated are big companies which are doing well. The Member for Jalan Besar has so eloquently argued for the use of SDF in the training of workers in small companies. I say he does not go far enough. How about those workers in companies that are facing problems and are being phased out? Certainly, the development of the workers in these companies is the last thing on the management of those companies. A worker training programme should be implemented using SDF to help these workers - workers with obsolete skills, to move into new employment. Perhaps this is a minor problem now and could be overcome easily. The recent retrenchments of two manufacturing enterprises give some indications of the things to come.”
“Either the driver should go over the bumps at a slower speed or he should look into puffing in softer spring and probably new shock absorbers. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to talk about one of these shock absorbers that the Government should provide - that of the training of retrenched workers to acquire new skills. The Member for Alexandra has mentioned earlier this morning about the problem of retrenchment. Our past economic success owe much to the fact that our people are highly flexible and adaptable. This has not been necessarily so elsewhere in the world. The Member for Kuo Chuan has talked about the extent British miners are willing to go through to avoid changing jobs. Our workers, on the other hand, have been willing to switch jobs bearing the losses of seniority and income when their jobs disappeared literally overnight. With this willingness our country has been able to embark on an ambitious programme of economic restructuring. Other than those who are professionals and have tertiary education, most of those retrenched would have suffered financial losses and hardship, and a small number of these workers will have to start from the bottom of the pile. Do not get me wrong, Mr Speaker, Sir. I believe such retrenchment to be the natural order of things, especially for Singapore where national survival is always on our consciousness. We have no choice but to go about phasing out older industries, very much like what the Japanese did after the energy crisis. What I am concerned about, Sir, is that some of these people can do with some help. As we move into higher technology, our workers are going to be more specialized. Skills learned in one field are not easily transferable or even useful in a separate field.”
“Perhaps in the not too distant future, one of Singapore's export services would be how to run cities. In fact, some of that might already have been taking place. An Arabian Gulf country has consulted the HDB on their housing programmes. It was reported in the papers that China made an offer to a respected former Member of this House for his services in running their free-trade zones. If that were true, his task will not be easy without the injection of a large dose of PAP-ism or Papism. Yes, it has been useful, I think, to mention Calcutta. Given that I am so optimistic about our system, how would I interpret the 12.6% swing in the last General Election; our people rejecting the system that others have found attractive. The answer must be a resounding no. The Member for Ayer Rajah has got the right answer. The voters are giving us signals that perhaps we are going too fast for comfort. Since analogy using different modes of transportation seems to be fashionable in this House, I cannot resist the temptation to jump on the bandwagon. Between the national bicycle and the national bus, let me expand on the analogy of the Minister of State (the Member for Teck Ghee) where he equates the process of nation-building to that of riding together in a bus. I say, "Look inside the bus and you will find that the seats are made of stainless steel - adequate, easy to maintain, but not too comfortable." The passengers are sitting on bare metal. In our headlong rush to join the First Division football tournament, we occasionally run into a stretch of bumpy road, For those who are sitting on metal, the ride is uncomfortable at times and probably painful at times as well.”
“Thank you for the clarification. Mr Speaker, Sir, surely the common man of Singapore does not have the mentality of frog at the bottom of the well - in Mandarin ( ) I too have spoken to the common man and have come to a different perspective. I found him to be fairly well read, well travelled, pragmatic and quite logical. He has the ability to deduce a logical conclusion if he is given the proper scenario - in Mandarin " ". Now the contrast of Calcutta and Singapore would only have one logical conclusion. I would like to spend some time dwelling on it. In a city the land can no longer feed the people, chicken-rearing and corn planting notwithstanding. As the population of a city increases, the people continue to live under a political system inherited from the time when their forefathers are farmers, frontiersmen, or a system copied from the colonial masters without taking into consideration local parameters like racial characteristics, standards of living, etc. You would have Calcutta, Mexico City, and many others, On the other hand, Singapore has avoided the pitfalls and in the transition from an under-developed country to a cosmopolitan city, we have evolved our own model of government, given our people and their cultural heritage. Singapore has found the correct formula incorporating ideology and government, striking a balance between the liberty of the individuals and the need of society. Our guiding principle of meritocracy, I quote: "From each his best to each his worth." And our clean, honest and dedicated Government are elements of a political ideology (which I will call PAP or Pap-ism). When the other cities in the world grapple with their problems and look around for solutions, they will find a model in Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion of thanks moved by the Member for Ayer Rajah. Yesterday, the Member for Queenstown gave an excellent delivery and he sets a new standard that I as a new Member of this House will try to strive for. With respect to content, I would agree with most of what he said. The Member also mentioned about Calcutta and said that the common man in Singapore is not interested in Calcutta, that he is only interested in what is happening to his own well-being in Singapore. On that point, I beg to differ. Perhaps as the Member for Braddell Heights has implied, he has been away from Singapore for a bit too long and by the way ---”