The text
Main and Development Estimates - (Announcement by Mr Speaker) In accordance with the provisions of paragraph (7) of Standing Order 87 and paragraph (5) of Standing Order 88, I have fixed the times for the conclusion of consideration of the heads of expenditure in the Main and Development Estimates of Expenditure for FY 83 in the Committee of Supply. These times have been notified to honourable Members and will appear in the Official Report. (Cols. 913 - 916) Official Report - MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1983 TO 31ST MARCH, 1984 (Cols. 913 - 916)
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS - TAXI STANDS AT MRT STATIONS asked the Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour whether there will be any provision for taxi stands at all Mass Rapid Transit stations to enable taxis to provide a shuttle service.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS - TAXI STANDS AT MRT STATIONS Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is yes. Taxi stands will be provided at MRT stations where there is a demand for them and where it is feasible to do so.
LINKING OF PUNGGOL TO PAN-ISLAND EXPRESSWAY asked the Minister for National Development whether his Ministry has plans to link Punggol to the existing expressways and, if so, when.
LINKING OF PUNGGOL TO PAN-ISLAND EXPRESSWAY Mr Speaker, Sir, the PWD has plans to build an expressway linking the Pan-Island Expressway in the east to the Central Expressway in the west. This new expressway, to be called Tampines Expressway, will pass through the Punggol area. When completed, it will link Hougang New Town to existing expressways as well as to Tampines, Ang Mo Kio and Yishun New Towns. Preliminary road survey for the expressway is now in progress. The schedule for the construction of the expressway will only be known after the completion of the surveys at the end of the year.
HOUGANG AVENUE 3 - (Request for overhead bridge) asked the Minister for National Development if he is aware of repeated requests for an overhead bridge across Hougang Avenue 3 (formerly Tampines Way) and when and where it will be constructed.
HOUGANG AVENUE 3 - (Request for overhead bridge) Mr Speaker, Sir, the HDB will erect an overhead pedestrian bridge across Hougang Avenue 3, near Block 18. Construction work is scheduled to commence by mid-April 1983, and will be completed by end-August 1983.
WIDENING OF UPPER SERANGOON ROAD - (Kangkar-Tampines Road) asked the Minister for National Development whether his Ministry has plans to widen that stretch of Upper Serangoon Road from Kangkar to the junction of Upper Serangoon Road and Tampines Road in view of the fact that Hougang Neighbourhoods 1, 11 and Ill are in various stages of construction and that this particular stretch of road will have to carry a higher volume of traffic.
WIDENING OF UPPER SERANGOON ROAD - (Kangkar-Tampines Road) Mr Speaker, Sir, presently my Ministry has no plan to widen the stretch of Upper Serangoon Road from Kangkar to Tampines Road as the existing traffic condition along this road is still satisfactory. To cope with the expected increase in traffic from Hougang Neighbourhoods 1, 11 and 111, the Housing and Development Board is constructing Hougang Avenue 3 which, together with the Airport Link, will provide access from Hougang to the Pan-Island Expressway and the Geylang area. This access road will be completed by July 1983. In addition, Hougang Avenue 3 will also be linked to Ang Mo Kio Avenue 3 via Hougang Avenue 2 by mid-84. This will link Hougang New Town to the Central Expressway and Ang Mo Kio New Town. These new access roads will help to divert traffic away from Upper Serangoon Road.
PAY INCREASES FOR SAF OFFICERS - (Effect on recruitment and retention of SAF regular servicemen) asked the Minister of Defence and Second Minister for Health what effects the 1982 Singapore Armed Forces pay increases have had on the recruitment and retention of SAF regular servicemen.
PAY INCREASES FOR SAF OFFICERS - (Effect on recruitment and retention of SAF regular servicemen) Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1982, MINDEF revised the salaries of regular servicemen and introduced other measures to attract and retain talent for the SAF. Salaries of regular officers and men were increased early last year. The pay increases and other efforts of MINDEF had a favourable impact on the recruitment and retention of regular SAF servicemen. There had been a general slowdown in the recruitment of regulars since 1978, with an especially large drop in 1981 when the job market in Singapore was extremely competitive. The number of officers recruited in 1981 was 229, compared to a yearly average of 430 for 1978-80. But officer recruitment has improved since 1982, after the salary revision. Between April and December 1982, 398 officers were recruited, an increase of 229 (or 135%) over the number recruited over the same period in 1981. The number of other ranks also was much better. In 1981 we had approximately 1,410, compared to a yearly average of 2,416 for 1978-80, Since June 1982, when other rank salaries were revised, recruitment has picked up. 1,016 were recruited from June to December 1982, an increase of 351 (or 53%) over the number recruited over the same period in 1981. At the same time, resignations of officers and other ranks have dropped. The number of resignations among officers from April to December 1982 was 55, compared to 85 in the same period in 1981, Among other ranks, the number who resigned from June to December 1982, was 71, compared to 360 for the same period in 1981. The retention rate, ie, the percentage of contract servicemen who extend their serice rather than leave the SAF on expiry of heir contract, has also improved, although this improvement is not quite as dramatic as that for recruitment. From April to December 1982, the retention rate for officers was 67%, compared to 60% for the same period in 1981. The retention rate for other ranks rose from 44% to 47%. To further improve recruitment and retention, MINDEF recognizes that increasing salaries alone is not sufficient. Neither is it desirable to have people joining the SAF as regulars simply because of better pay. What the higher salaries allow MINDEF to do is to attract a much larger pool of better candidates. In the SAF, where men's lives depend so much on the quality of those who lead and organize them, we have to look for intellect and skills, as well as other attributes like trustworthiness, selflessness, loyalty, and commitment. People are more likely to stay in the SAF if the organizational climate is one where they have a sense of pride and belonging, and where they can contribute actively towards making it a better organization. We are beginning to see this in the quality of officers and men choosing to stay on in the SAF after their initial contracts expired.
PAY INCREASES FOR SAF OFFICERS - (Effect on recruitment and retention of SAF regular servicemen) Mr Speaker, Sir, can I ask the hon. Minister of State, if the condition on contract were to be removed, would it not help the SAF better?
PAY INCREASES FOR SAF OFFICERS - (Effect on recruitment and retention of SAF regular servicemen) Mr Speaker, Sir, the productive period, in other words, the period during which the officer or other rank can make a contribution to the organization, is relatively short by comparison with the period required for his training, and therefore in order to ensure that public funds are properly utilized, there should be a reasonable period of contract when an officer or other rank is employed by the SAF.
PAY INCREASES FOR SAF OFFICERS - (Effect on recruitment and retention of SAF regular servicemen) If that is the case, would it not make service in the Armed Forces less attractive in view of the contractual time?
PAY INCREASES FOR SAF OFFICERS - (Effect on recruitment and retention of SAF regular servicemen) Sir, we are aware that service in the SAF is less attractive than jobs which require comparable edu- cational qualifications and experience. Hence it is MINDEF's policy to ensure that the salaries are much better than those for comparable jobs in the private sector.
PAY INCREASES FOR SAF OFFICERS - (Effect on recruitment and retention of SAF regular servicemen) Sir, would it not be right to say that on the expiry of their contract, these officers or other ranks would have to look for alternative employment in other sectors, bearing in mind the fact that they have already done some service in the specialised form or whatever?
PAY INCREASES FOR SAF OFFICERS - (Effect on recruitment and retention of SAF regular servicemen) Sir, our objective is to ensure that the better officers and other ranks should choose to remain with us in the SAF and, as I have indicated in my answer to the Oral Question, more than two-thirds of the officers have chosen to do so.
PAY INCREASES FOR SAF OFFICERS - (Effect on recruitment and retention of SAF regular servicemen) Mr Speaker, Sir, I am curious to know from the Minister how does he measure an applicant's sense of commitment, loyalty and national consciousness in his recruitment exercise?
PAY INCREASES FOR SAF OFFICERS - (Effect on recruitment and retention of SAF regular servicemen) Sir, these are obviously criteria for which there is no simple rule that one can pick out of a textbooK and apply immediately at the point of recruitment. But what we do have are experienced officers who, through a whole series of interviews, by talking to the individual candidates and applicants, are able to ascertain within limits, of course, the reliability, trustworthiness, loyalty and commitment of the candidate or applicant. We hope that we are not too far off but, as with so many other things concerning the individual's character, it is difficult to be 100% sure.
SUPPLY AND SUPPLEMENTARY SUPPLY BILLS - (Business Motion) 2.44 p.m. Resolved, That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the second and third readings of the Supply Bill for the financial year 1st April, 1983 to 31st March, 1984 and the Supplementary Supply Bill for the financial year 1st April, 1982 to 31st March, 1983 may be proceeded with immediately on the conclusion of the proceedings on the Budget for the financial year 1st April, 1983 to 31st March, 1984. - [Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam].
ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [4th March, 1983] [2nd Allotted Day], "That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1st April, 1983 to 31st March, 1984.". - [Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam]. Question again proposed.
ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Trade and Industry. Since the debate started in the House yesterday, we have heard about economic growth, economic recession, protectionism, productivity, GNP, etc. I propose to depart from these traditional points while keeping within the general framework of this debate, and discuss a problem which I feel is of concern to many of us. Singaporeans have had good government for close to 24 years now. There is no doubt that Government policies over the past two decades or so have contributed to Singapore the success it has achieved, unpopular though some of these policies might have been. It is recognised that the best of policies, no matter how carefully formulated, cannot please all the people all the time. Indeed it is one of the fundamental tenets of policy formulating that the interest of the majority must come first, even if a minority are left unhappy. It is this concept of Government without fear or favour that has been the hallmark of PAP policies for so long. What I wish to question today is not so much policies themselves but the implementation and explanation of policies which, I feel, leaves much to be desired. I venture as far as to say that failure to explain policies properly or to implement them correctly can result in unhappiness and dissatisfaction. Our Ministers, as we all know, take great pains to explain policies but even the best of intentions can be suspect if at the grassroot level they are not properly explained or wrongly implemented. I know it is always very convenient for politicians to make the administrative arm of Government, i.e. the civil service, the whipping boy. It is not my purpose to do as such but I think in this respect it must bear part of the blame. Towards the end of the 1950s and in the early 1960s we inherited a civil service from the British colonial government. Over the course of many years we have been able to develop and build our own civil service, one that is to its credit able to identify with the aspirations of the nation and which is also known for its ruthless efficiency. I use the word 'ruthless' for exactly what it means, for how else can you describe a civil service that is well known for telling you the answer is no as its starting point. I can think of some instances. No new hawker licences are issued because existing empty stalls are reserved for resettlement of street hawkers. No new applications for taxi drivers' vocational licences are considered because the Registry of Vehicles still has a backlog of applications to process. An applicant for public housing has to follow the first-come-first-served system because, to be fair to all, there cannot be queue-jumping. As I stated earlier I for one, and I am sure most of us here, do not quarrel with these policies and we know that properly explained, people can be made to understand the rationale behind such policies. Yet you will find that in such instances the advice often dished out by Government departments is "Go and see your MP, he can get it for you." Of course, all of us in this House know what an MP can do; quite often, nothing. But the MP can help salvage the situation, neutralize the resentment by explaining to his disgruntled constituent why he cannot get his taxi driver's licence, his hawker stall or his HDB flat. But what about the many hundreds, or thousands, who do not see their MP? For them, their everlasting impression of their Govern- ment has been that moment of contact with the civil servant on the front line and it would have left them dejected and demoralized. In the end, it would be the political leadership that suffers because having been in power for more than two decades the political leadership and the civil service have become so closely intertwined. And do not forget, Sir, civil servants have a way of becoming Ministers. Today, there is a fair amount of resentment in Singapore, not so much against Government policies at large because people have over the course of 24 years grown to trust the wisdom of this Government, but more because of a lack of understanding of the rationale behind certain policies. How else can we explain the results of a recent survey that showed that while almost everyone in Singapore has heard of productivity most have missed the message behind the whole campaign? How is it that 75% of those surveyed felt that the whole campaign was more for the benefit of companies and employers than for workers? What is significant to note is that these cynical feelings were equally strong amongst the better educated as well as the less educated. Something must be seriously wrong if in spite of exhortations by Ministers, M P's, trade unionists, people still fail to see the point. I hope we can go back to the drawing board and study why in this case even Teamy has failed to pack in the sting it is supposed to. Sir, I for one believe in giving credit where credit is due. I would like to illustrate an example of how careful explanation of Government policies can clear a lot of misunderstanding. If the Medisave scheme eventually achieves its objectives, and I have no doubt it will, we must attribute this not only to the soundness of the whole plan but also to what I feel has been one of the most carefully thought-out public relations exercise by any Government Ministry in recent years. From MPs to community leaders, to the ordinary man-in-the-street, no stone has been left unturned to clear nagging doubts about something that will affect the lives of each and every Singaporean. Multiply this effort across the whole spectrum of Government, one can see how a lot of misunderstanding can be removed. And misunderstanding there has been aplenty judging by the number of letters written to the press as well as the type of letters written, i.e. mostly complaints. Good public relations is what is needed in most departments and ministries. We cannot expect counter clerks to explain adequately all aspects of Government policies. They are not trained to do so, neither have they the time. To blame them would therefore not be fair. But suitably-trained persons can make the difference. As our electorate becomes an increasingly sophisticated one, it demands clearer explanations, not mere enunciations. What the Government can do is to capitalize on the goodwill that could be generated through the implementation of its policies. The answer to all this is salesmanship. It is often said that a good product without a good salesman will not sell, but a good salesman can sell almost anything, even if it is a shoddy product as the Member for Toa Payoh will bear me out. Fortunately, this Government has got good products: its policies are sound, but good salesmanship is what is needed to bring closer the bond between the people and the Government. We have to iron out the irritations that rightly or wrongly irk some of our people, and these irritations are widespread. People have to continue to perceive us as a Government of the people, by the people and for the people. Only in this way can we ensure that Singaporeans will continue to enjoy the benefits of not just good government, but better government. 2.56 p.m.
ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT Mr Speaker, Sir, last year this time round, speaking in my first Budget speech, I said that the Budget debate in this House provided us an opportunity, as it were, to state our goals for our society and to see how far we have progressed along the road set for ourselves in the year under review. Sir I am not going to again set out the goals. i take it that we are all agreed on our goal and that is a caring society. This year we have heard from the Hon. Minister, in presenting his Budget, that the road last year has been a dismal one for us and that there is very little prospect ahead of us to mitigate the hardship or the suffering that might be brought about by the world-wide recession. May I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, without any disrespect to the Hon. Minister, that it did not need him saying that. I think all of us are aware, or should be aware, of this world-wide recession; that all around us there is an economic slump. People are not buying the goods that are being produced because they do not have enough money and workers are being thrown out of employment. And we are all aware that Singapore particularly will be hit by economic forces outside Singapore. It does not need saying. It is obvious, as we are a country without any natural resources to cushion us against hard times. May I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, without appearing to be presumptuous, that in presenting its economic plan to the nation for the year ahead, the Government must plan to do two things. First, it must plan for economic growth in the year ahead. In this, it should go on to spell out the measures that the Government proposes to take to maintain the economic growth or to accelerate the growth, if that were possible. Secondly, it must go on to see that the acquisition of wealth in the country or the subsisting wealth in the country is equitably and equally divided among all those who call this country theirs and who belong to it and who have some claim to the wealth that is being generated in this country. I propose to examine how this statement meets these two objectives. But before I do that, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say that the Budget Statement must address itself to all our people. I have just heard the hon. Member, speaking before me, say that the Government must legislate, take action, for the greatest number in the community and not be concerned with the needs of a minority. It is the majority with which the Government must be concerned, not the minority. And it must address itself, as I say, in its Budget to all our people. It must have something to say to everyone in our country; what it is doing to meet their needs, what it is doing to alleviate their hardships, what it is doing to give them relief, if relief were needed. In my respectful submission, Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall try and show that in this respect the Budget Statement fails abysmally. Mr Speaker, Sir, in his Statement, the Minister says that we are not alone in recognizing the fundamental truth that our people are our greatest resource. I should have thought, Mr Speaker, Sir, that our people are our only resource. But of that resource, the greatest share or the greatest contribution is made by our working class, by our workforce. Now, how does this Budget Statement, this annual statement of the Government's intention, address itself to the workers who are our greatest resource? I say this without disparaging the contribution that is made by others, the capitalists, the entrepreneurs, But I say, without any hesitation, that our greatest resource comes from the workforce that we have in Singapore, and of which we can be justifiably proud. Last year the Minister acknowledged, albeit a little grudgingly, the contribution of our workers to the economy of the country. Of course, we must remember that our economic growth in 1981 was greater than the one under review. He said then: 'A large part of this (economic growth) came from the efforts of individual Singaporeans. They worked harder and smarter...' This year I am sorry to see that the Minister has not made any acknowledgment of the contribution made by our workforce to the economic growth last year. May I point out that, in spite of the depression around us, our economy still continues to grow. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear.
ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT Well, I hear Members saying "hear, hear", and I say "hear, hear" too. But I say, "Please acknowledge the contribution made by our workers to this economic growth." Is it because the productivity has dropped? And has it dropped because it is thought perhaps our workers were not pulling their weight in our country? Mr Speaker, Sir, the drop in productivity cannot be blamed on our workforce or our workers. It is due to a number of factors over which we have no control. They are mostly external. The Minister's Statement, however, does not, in my humble view, go far enough in spelling out the measures that the Government intends to introduce to increase this productivity in the year that lies ahead of us. It is, if I may say so, Sir, without again being disrespectful, full of exhortations and pious hopes, without actually spelling out what measures the Government proposes to take in the coming year to see our people through the recession that is, we are told, undoubtedly in store for them in the coming year. It is not enough, may I say, Sir, to indulge in pious hopes and exhortations. it is the business of the Government to spell out the measures, and it will be my endeavour to show that the Statement does not do this adequately. It is, as I have said, filled with exhortations and pious hopes that somehow everything will be all right if we can only tighten our belts. May I say again, talking about tightening our belts, this exhortation would appear to be addressed mainly to our workers. Why is it - I know that it is not only in this country but all over the world - that when people are being asked to tighten their belts, it is the workers who are being asked to do this? Before I go on to examine the Budget Statement to see how it has met with the two objectives that I have outlined, may I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, a few words generally about the recession, I, of course, appreciate that I am no economist. The past year has seen a contraction in the OECD industrial output which has been particularly severe in the European community and in the united States. As the Minister has pointed out, and I say this again, it did not come as a surprise, Singapore suffered as a result. We are subject very much to what happens outside Singapore. The decline in Singapore's growth rate last year, even though commendable when compared with other countries, was largely due, if not wholly, to these unfavourable external events. But having said that, we must ask whether our own economic policy has in any way exacer- bated the decline. The Minister hints at this when he says that we must continue to ensure that our traders and export-oriented manufacturing firms are not handicapped by an over-valued Singapore dollar or unduly high domestic interest rates. We should ask whether the decline has been exacerbated, Mr Speaker, Sir, by our pursuing an unduly tight interest and exchange rate policy which undoubtedly resulted in the substantial decline in the competitiveness of the manufacturing sector. The fall by 6% in the manufacturing sector is a far more severe decline than in 1975 and, whilst it is not as large as in the United States and Europe, it is much greater than in Japan. The Hon. Minister draws satisfaction from the fall in the inflation rate. It should be noted, however, Mr Speaker, Sir, if I understand from economists, that in the theory of those who give most prominence to the control of inflation, it is only the real wage resistance which poses a problem to the reconciliation of internal with external balances, and not inflation. Singapore up till now has had no labour market problem. Bargaining is centralized and controlled by the Government which determines the appropriate level of nominal wages in accordance with macro-economic targets. I am glad to see that the Minister has drawn attention to a possible pitfall in continuing this practice of a centralized body determining the wages. Mr Speaker, Sir, is there perhaps a lesson for us to be learned from Germany which has paid excessive attention to the control of domestic inflation resulting in deteriorating economic performance in terms of growth rates of industrial output and rising unemployment since the mid-70s? It has grown much lower than Japan, the United States or France over this period. The downturn in manufacturing productivity indicates that employers are hoarding labour and, if recovery in demand does not take place, unemployment can become a problem. On the other hand, the Minister has drawn attention to a possible problem if the economy picks up and demand for labour increases. He warns that we may once face a tight labour market which under- mine our economic restructuring and that the problem could be worse with the repatriation of foreign workers over the next few years. Mr Speaker, Sir, I propose now to try and see how the Statement tries to meet the objectives that I have outlined for it. First of all, how far it goes to provide the measures that the Government proposes for economic growth - to sustain or accelerate our economic growth in the year that lies ahead. The Minister said, and I quote him: 'To successfully attract highly-automated projects, our non-labour costs namely, the cost of land, factory buildings, utilities and supporting services - must be kept competitive. We will therefore work towards moderating the increases in these costs.' Mr Speaker, Sir, one does not have to be a Friedman or a Galbraith, two economists whose names come to mind, to know that Singapore's economy depends very largely on what we can produce with our labour, what we can turn out in our factories, and it is not good enough just to turn them out. We have got to sell them. We have got to sell them not only in Singapore where there is a diminishing market or a small market but we have- got to sell them outside. We have got to find the markets and we do not need the Minister to tell us that all the other countries are trying to do the same. There is less and less demand for goods, especially in a recession. So it does not need very much thinking to know that if we are going to survive, we have got to produce goods cheaper than the other man does, and you have got to produce not shoddy goods but quality goods. Some hon. Members: How?