The text
PERMISSION TO MEMBER TO BE ABSENT Under the provisions of clause 2 (d) of Article 30 of the Constitution of Singapore, I have granted permission to Mr Lee Kuan Yew to be absent from the sitting of Parliament today, the 18th March 1970. YEOH GHIM SENG, Speaker, Parliament of Singapore.
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY - (Announcement by Mr Speaker) In accordance with the provisions of paragraph (6) of Standing Order 85, I have for the Estimates of Expenditure of Singapore for the financial year 1st April. 1970, to 31st March, 1971, fixed the times on each allotted day (that is to say, the 19th, 20th, 23rd, 24th and 25th of March) at which consideration of the heads of expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper Supplement shall, if not previously disposed of, be concluded. These times have been notified to hon. Members and will appear in the Official Report*. (* Appendix, Cols. 663-6) Appendix to Mr. Speaker's announcement(Col. 602)(Cols 0663-0666)
ORAL ANSWER TO QUESTION - HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD REDEVELOPMENT - SCHEMES - (Rehousing of dispossessed families) Mr Ng Yeow Chong.
ORAL ANSWER TO QUESTION - HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD REDEVELOPMENT - SCHEMES - (Rehousing of dispossessed families) Sir, I am not asking the Question. [The following is Question No. 1: To ask the Minister for Law and National Development if he is aware that some dispossessed families are subject to clearance action for the second time after having been rehoused; if he will seek assurance from the Housing and Development Board that care will be taken not to rehouse dispossessed families in any area likely to be affected by redevelopment, and to ascertain from the Board if there is any co-ordination amongst various departments of the Board over the matters of rehousing and redevelopment.]
ANNUAL BUDGET - STATEMENT Order read for resumption of debate on Question [9th March, 1970], "That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1st April, 1970 to 31st March, 1971.".- [Minister for Finance]. Question again proposed. 2.33 p.m.
ANNUAL BUDGET - STATEMENT Mr Speaker, Sir, let me offer my heartiest congratulations to the Minister for Finance on his very illuminating Budget statement. He has set out succinctly the course of economic development in Singapore during the last decade. What impresses me most, and perhaps every Singaporean, in his presentation of the 50-page Budget statement is not just that it is a well-prepared statement with a great deal of scholarly thought behind it, but that it exudes a quiet note of confidence for the future against the background story of the economic development and success story of Singapore in the face of great adversity and against overwhelming odds. A great tribute must be paid to the Finance Minister who has been personally responsible for Singapore's economic development and planning during the greater part of the past decade. The lesson that we are to draw from Singapore's economic progress in the last decade is that, despite our lack of natural resources and the presence of adverse factors, we can not only survive but also make significant improvements in our economic, social and political fields if we Singaporeans are prepared to sweat and toil for it. This lesson should undoubtedly give us added confidence and determination to work harder if we are to win for ourselves greater prosperity and greater progress in the coming decade. The important thing that we must bear in mind is the timely warning given by the Minister for Finance that we must not be complacent if we are not to fritter away all that we have achieved in the last decade, and if we are successfully to meet the challenge that we have to face at the end of 1971 when the British completely withdraw their forces from Singapore, thereby aggravating both our security and economic problems. While the acceleration and expansion of industrialisation programmes as planned and carried out by the Economic Development Board up to date have helped to increase the number of persons employed in the manufacturing industries to 87,128, and while we are confident that the full economic impact of the complete British pull-out at the end of 1971 can be cushioned through further expansion of the industrialisation programmes, it is envisaged that this will give rise to attendant problems, the chief of which is likely to be a shortage of engineers, management and technical personnel. This problem is further aggravated by such personnel being required to do national service. The Government has proposed, as a way of minimising the problem of shortage of such personnel, to relax our immigration and work permit restrictions on the in-flow of such personnel. The Government, after weighing the pros and cons, considers it advantageous to liberalise the conditions under which such people can qualify for permanent residence in Singapore and eventually citizenship. While such a proposal appears to be logically necessary as a solution to the problem of our envisaged shortage of trained personnel with technical and management skills, and while in principle it has my support, I must, however, ask the Government to exercise great caution in its implementation as it may result in the creation of other and greater problems. My fear is that the persons who may avail themselves of the relaxed conditions for entry into Singapore and swarm into our factories and industrial enterprises may not necessarily be of the best calibre. The shortage of men with skills in management and technical fields is a problem all over the world, particularly with the developing countries. With such demand for the services of trained technical personnel, Singapore's offer of permanent residence and citizenship in addition to a wide range of incentives in terms of money or otherwise may not necessarily attract the best type of workers who may prefer to emigrate to other countries, more developed and prosperous than Singapore. The point I wish to make is that, supposing we have managed to attract only third-rate personnel with management and technical skills, we may be creating a situation which will have an adverse effect on, and ramifications in relation to, the long-term objectives of our industrialisation programmes. The end result is that our production cost and quality control may be seriously affected. It is a matter of time before the need of technical and management personnel can be met locally. When that time comes, the import of management and technical personnel from abroad may cause a demoralizing effect on local management and technical personnel who will thereby be deprived of promotion avenues to that extent. Moreover, the incentives given to expatriate personnel besides permanent residence and eventual citizenship will serve to increase their take-home pay. Situations may arise where citizen and expatriate personnel working side by side on the same job and possessing the same qualifications enjoy two entirely different terms and conditions of service. It will not be surprising if a feeling of unhappiness results from such disparities in pay and working conditions. It is, therefore not likely to be conducive to a congenial atmosphere in the place of work, and to assist our efforts to educate and train our own local personnel to man our industries and industrial enterprises. It may well be, to quote the extreme case, that our citizens with managerial and technical skills may find it more attractive and lucrative to migrate to other lands where they are likely to find greater job satisfaction for the skills that they possess. If this happens, it would indeed be a paradox to our detriment. This feeling of unhappiness is all the more acute in cases where expatriate personnel are placed in positions above our citizen personnel who subsequently obtain equivalent, if not higher qualifications. A case in point is the situation today in Malaysia-Singapore Airlines. The expatriate management of M.S.A. gives the impression that it has adopted a policy of recruiting white expatriates irrespective of the availability of local personnel with similar or better qualifications. The Singapore Air Transport Workers' Union has over the years battled strenuously for a concrete plan for nationalisation and a training programme for suitably qualified national staff to be groomed to replace expatriates. But with the recent changes in the structure of the management, more expatriates are being brought in. And now under the so-called scientific expatriate management of M.S.A., all kinds of dubiously qualified expatriates have been recruited; existing expatriates who have been scheduled to leave are promoted over the more qualified national staff. Experienced national staff are switched around to their disadvantage under the guise of reorganisation in order to pave the way for establishing expatriate footholds. All these nefarious activities have lowered the morale of the M.S.A. staff and have created deep-seated frustration and disillusionment among the national staff who feel that qualifications and efficiency are not the prerequisites for promotion. This attitude could have far-reaching effects on the national staff if steps are to remedy this situation. The Finance Minister, in his speech, paid tribute to the National Trades Union Congress by stating that its success in promoting labour responsibility was one of the important factors creating a favourable general investment climate. It is gratifying for the N.T.U.C. leadership to note that its realistic and responsible stand in promoting labour responsibility has been appreciated by the Government. The leadership of the N.T.U.C. has always maintained that the labour movement can play a responsible role as a coequal sector in the tripartite partnership of Labour, Government and Management in the social and economic development of Singapore. Since the introduction of the Employment Act on 15th August, 1968, the N.T.U.C. has no reason to doubt the bona fide intentions of Government in giving vent to the underlying objectives of the Employment Act. While the N.T.U.C. may say the same of the many enlightened employers who have co-operated wholeheartedly and sincerely not only in refusing to take advantage of some of the provisions of the Act, but also in observing the spirit of the Act, the N.T.U.C., unfortunately, cannot say the same of a few employers who have taken advantage of the anomalous provisions of the Act to the serious detriment of their workers. The N.T.U.C. will soon be making representations to the Government to rectify the anomalous provisions of the Employment Act so that the Act will not lend itself to abusive practices by a few unreasonable employers who may be tempted to treat the Employment Act as a licence to exploit labour. Hon. Members will recall that, together with the passing of the Employment Act, the Central Provident Fund Ordinance was also amended to increase C.P.F. contributions from five per cent to ten per cent in gradual stages. This was to be part and parcel of a package deal, so to speak, with Labour - that is, higher C.P.F. contributions for better work discipline and efficiency. Workers are to be given greater C.P.F. savings which, in a very significant way, will go a long way towards giving them a sense of security after their retirement from employment. While the vast majority of workers benefit from the increase in C.P.F. contributions, there are also, sad to say, some workers who happen to work under less reasonable employers and who do not benefit from the increase of C.P.F. contributions. These are the unionised workers in the private sector who are enjoying not less than 10 per cent retirement benefits under the collective agreements. One obtained the impression that the primary objective of the amendment to the C.P.F. Ordinance was to increase the C.P.F. savings of individual workers so that when they retire, they will be able to find a bigger amount of money to provide for their old age after retirement. But, sad to say, this may not be the case in many situations. Many employees, with the concurrence of the Arbitration Court, have the increased C.P.F. contributions offset against their normal gratuity payments. In effect, on retirement, a worker gets, on the one hand, increased C.P.F. savings, but on the other hand, he loses the greater portion if not the whole of his gratuity payments, equivalent to his increased C.P.F. contributions. The net result is that he does not benefit from the increase in C.P.F. contributions, at least not to the extent that one thinks that he should get as the result of the amendment to the C.P.F. Ordinance to increase the C.P.F. contributions from five per cent to ten per cent, in conjunction with the amendments to the Employment Act. Members will surely understand if there is some feeling of frustration over this matter among some workers. I hope that the Government and the N.T.U.C. together with Management, will be able to iron out the anomalies arising out of the operation of the Employment Act. The decision of Labour to accept the underlying principles and objectives of the recent Employment Act has begun to pay dividends. What we all must not forget is the sound advice of the Finance Minister in his Budget statement that the more difficult period will come at the end of 1971, with the completion of the British military withdrawal. We must, therefore, not be complacent and over-confident. We have overcome the difficult 1960s, and we shall overcome the challenge of the I 970s provided that Labour, Government and Management can continue to work as co-equals in a tripartite partnership striving for national, social and economic progress. It is for the reason that Labour must play a responsible role as a co-equal partner with Government and Management that the Singapore trade union movement has made its momentous decision to modernize itself so as to be a co-equal partner with the Government and Management in the very sense of the word. 2.48 p.m.
ANNUAL BUDGET - STATEMENT Mr Speaker, Sir, very few people in Singapore can remain unimpressed by the narration of our economic success in the last ten years by the Minister for Finance in his Budget statement. I am no exception, Sir. One of the most important factors contributing towards our great leap forward can be found in the quality of our political leadership. As such I intend to dwell on this subject a little. In 1959 when the P.A.P. first took office, our Prime Minister did have "grave reservations". His reservations were not unfounded. The politicians that held power prior to 1959 were inept, corrupt and made a sham of parliamentary democracy. They did not have the foresight to lead Singapore to independence. The P.A.P. itself was finding difficulties with the adventurous opportunists and treacherous Communists within the party. Furthermore, the Government was confronted with a fierce display of anger and disappointment by a large section of the people in the earlier regime on the one hand, and the apathetic and disenchanted orientation of many average Singaporeans on the other. Thus the P.A.P. government was faced with the gigantic task of reshaping a colonial society for independence, and to set Singapore on the road to development and modernization by restoring the faith of the people in the principles of parliamentary democracy. This was by no means an easy task. It calls for strong character, determination and unselfish dedication on the part of the political leadership, plus an unyielding faith in the validity and workability of parliamentary democracy itself. It was the good fortune of the people of Singapore that they do have such a leadership. Patiently, the foundation was laid, as reported by the Finance Minister, in spite of political pre-occupation, to prepare the way for economic progress and to provide the average citizen with a happier life. Despite situations of tension and crises, the democratic socialists, through the P.A.P., have proved that through persuasion, convincing and working within the framework of parliamentary democracy and not through terror and ruthlessness, as the Communists would want it, they too can achieve progress. I think there was one other factor that contributed towards consolidation of the people's faith in the democratic socialists, and thereby helped them to make progress in the country. The Communists front-men, through their own folly, had convinced the people that they were more interested in political gains for the Communist cause than in the general welfare of the people and the country as a whole. Sir, I have gone to great lengths on this subject because it brings home a crucial point. I am convinced that ultimately our economic well-being, political stability and national security will depend to a very large extent on whether or not we have developed in our younger generation an unyielding faith in the principles of parliamentary democracy. And this is determined to a large extent by the quality of the political leadership we provide and can continue to provide. In this connection, Sir, I think we cannot, and should not, hope to ignore the possible doubts that our people might have in the question of succession to the highly successful political leadership that they have been accustomed to for the last ten years. Those entering and those who wish to remain in the political arena must pledge to uphold this tradition of dedication, sincerity, determination, honesty and basically the principle of parliamentary democracy. Sir, the fear that our achievements can be destroyed by a political leadership of inferior quality is not unfounded and we must be vigilant at all times. Another great transformation the Government has brought about in the last decade has been in the bureaucracy. Members will recall the uneasy relationship the Government had with the civil servants when it first assumed office in 1959. It was evident in those days that the bureaucracy was not geared to the changes that were taking place. The bureaucratic system had to be streamlined, and new talents brought into prominence. Patient search had to be made to bring in the brighter sector of the population to assist in the administration. The Government realised that with more and more institutions set up for economic expansion and social services, greater exercise of initiative had to be given to the civil servant. I have observed also that the Government has deliberately exposed its bureaucrats to the intricacies of the commercial world. In many of our statutory boards and public owned commercial agencies, civil servants are made to work hand in hand with businessmen. The obvious advantage to be gained in such a set-up is that the bureaucracy will have a better understanding of our highly commercialised society and they will invariably learn a trick or two from their more seasoned commercial counterparts. But I must raise here the fear of possible erosion of the integrity of an incorruptible bureaucracy which is essential to the successful operation of a democratic system. It will be time for regrets if we should find our public servants succumbing to the temptation of material gains when they are so exposed. It might be worth while to take note that Singaporeans will find it really hard to forgive such mistakes if they do occur. With the recruitment of new talents into its fold, the bureaucracy has invariably strengthened itself. I do not wish to be a prophet of doom, but I do see signs of gradual erosion of the power of the politician by the bureaucrat. Having been in power for more than a decade and seen things getting more and more institutionalised, Government leaders may tend to take such erosion with extreme kindness. But, Sir, being a firm believer in democracy, it is hard of me to allow the creation of a formidable or even near supreme bureaucracy. A closer check must be made before any great damage is done. Sir, please do not allow what I have just said to carry to the House the impression that I have ruled out the contribution of the public service to our progress in the last decade. Indeed, Sir, I have made it the second point in my speech to pay tribute to these people and to express my deep appreciation of the grand work of the civil servants as a whole. It is to the credit and satisfaction of many that we should have such a generally honest, hard-working and efficient civil service. My point is that the Government should not in its preoccupation with problems create out of this civil service a Frankenstein to the disappointment of many, like myself. Finally, I will turn to our relations with our neighbouring countries. Sir, my mind is disturbed and I feel sad that while we in Singapore are happy and proud of our achievements in the last decade and grateful to the Government leaders for what they have done, there are many of our friends outside of Singapore who would have wished to share our joy and pride as brothers and equals and unable to do so for reasons beyond their control. I refer, Sir, to the many, known and unknown to us, who have been secretly wishing us well since the day we acquired independence as a sovereign republic. These kind people, sharing our hopes and aspirations and knowing our difficulties as an independent state, must be searching deep within themselves for the evil curse that disallows them to rejoice with us over our achievements at this very moment. Sir, our stay in Malaysia was short, but then we did make many friends. We went into Malaysia because - and I quote the Prime Minister from his book The Battle for Merger, a book from which I have derived much political inspiration - he said "if merger does not come with the consent of the people of the two territories, then inevitably it will come by the use of force by one territory over the other, because each is so vital to the survival of the other." It is ironical and inconceivable, in so far as I am concerned, as fate would have it, that we after 4 1/2 years of independence should flourish and prosper, while our friends and relatives should 3 3/4 years after that fateful August 1965 have suffered loss of lives and homes and may soon have to face the dilemma of a deadly choice. In any case, I do not consider it wise to dwell too long on this subject except to make the following observations. Firstly, during and after Malaysia, one lesson we did learn is that one sure and quick way to impede progress is to have too many people living on the good-will and provisions of the Government. Secondly, contrary to the expectations of many, our separation from Malaysia did not spell our death warrant. We did manage to continue to grow and prosper through sheer willpower of a hard-working people. Thirdly, we have to explore new fields of co-operation between the two territories. New personalities will have to meet more frequently to work out fields of common interest. It is vital to our survival that both territories must map out possible courses of action so as to face up to the realities of life after the shock of May last year. On various occasions, our Government leaders have repeatedly pledged to support any move that would contribute to uplifting the economic life of the people in the region. It is on this framework that we can co-operate with our neighbours. Singapore, having made very rapid progress in industrialisation, may in future find itself to be relatively more advanced technologically, in so far as the region is concerned. There would be others who would have still to make headway in industrialisation. Would it not be a good idea then to look into the possibility of arriving at some kind of a "common market arrangement" for the distribution of technological know-how? The time will come when countries that are relatively less affluent in technological know-how should concentrate on less sophisticated industries, while others relatively more advanced can involve themselves in industries that require greater skill. In this way the relatively more advanced countries in this region can help the others on the road to industrialisation and progress. At this point, Sir, I wish to join the Government in appealing for a better appreciation of the problem of attracting foreign investments. Quite apart from the fact that such investments as reported by the Minister bring in ready markets and technological know-how, they too can bring us stronger backing for our security. If we keep our open door policy, we will be able to get more people interested in our security to ensure that they can go about making money safely and that their investments are not harassed! I have no doubt that Singaporeans are pragmatic enough to understand that, for all the advantages that come with such investments, a price will have to be paid! Talking about paying a price for progress. I take this opportunity to praise the worthy contribution of our workers. They have worked very hard and have accepted the Employment Act. 1968, in good spirit. This is a high price they have to pay for the progress of all Singaporeans, including the prosperous businessmen, industrialists and other commercial tycoons. The labour movement has had its share of glory in our struggle against the Communists. The workers have always taken the brunt of any change for better or for worse. They deserve our praise and admiration. To strike a more materialistic tone, Sir, I have to remind the Minister for Labour of his assurance given on various occasions that if everything goes well, our workers should have their take-home pay revised upwards in two to three years' time. They deserve it. Sir, Singapore has progressed not because of any natural resources or heaven-sent riches. Singapore's success is due to the iron will of the people led by able political leadership. In order that our achievements in the last decade will not be wasted, we must develop and accept new values, new ideas, be more achievement-oriented, tolerate differences, have pride in group performance, and be willing to expose ourselves to technological innovations. In short, we must develop a modern outlook in life. We must fit ourselves into the new and challenging world. The Minister for Science and Technology, after being elected pro-tem chairman of the P.A.P. on 21st November, 1954, said, and I quote: 'A country big or small can only be great if the spirit of the people is great.' Sir, the spirit of our people as manifested in the last ten years has been great, and we must necessarily succeed as a great country. 3.06 p.m.