Hansard, 1985-03-08

asked the Minister for National Development (a) why does the Housing and Development Board only disclose the winning bid in its shop/ commercial properties tender system and not all the bids; and (b) what is the rental index or the rate of increase (decrease) in rents for HDB shop and/or commercial properties based on average winning tender bids for the quarters from 1981 to 1984.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Housing and Development Board normally accepts the highest tender for its commercial premises, placing the second and third highest tenders as reserves should the highest tenderer not take up the premises. The HDB is of the view that disclosure of all tenders may lead to manipulation of the tender system. Tenderers, particularly family members or business partners, may be encouraged to submit multiple tenders in collusion with one another. If all bids are disclosed, they will know whether they have been placed as a reserve. Should they also submit the highest bid, they may reject the offer made to the highest tenderer and accept the premises at the lower rental offered by the reserve. The only penalty suffered by the rejecting tenderer is a forfeiture of the tender deposit. This is insignificant compared to the higher rents which may have to be paid over the years. Full disclosure of all bids may also encourage more non-bona fide tenders. If the gap between the winning tender and the reserve tender is wide, the successful tenderer may reject the unit and repeat the practice for another shop. An analysis of tenders received for HDB's commercial properties between 1981 and 1983 indicates that rentals offered increased by approximately 30% to 40% in town centres, and by about 30% in neighbourhood centres. Rentals in the Central Area increased by approximately 20%. In 1984, rentals remained stable in town centres and neighbourhood centres but declined by approximately 10% to 15% in the Central Area.

Sir, is the Minister aware that it is precisely because of this closed system and the fact that the HDB is the monopolist of these estates that has led to this increase? Is the Minister also aware that, in fact, from 1981 until the present time, rentals for commercial properties all over Singapore, as published in the Monthly Digest of Statistics which shows only sale prices but presumably would also reflect the rental prices, have decreased from 1981 until the present time?

I am really a bit puzzled. Are you of the view that non-disclosure has led to higher tenders? Is that what you mean?

Yes, that is what I am saying - that the disclosure of only the winning bid will lead the next tenderer to go for a still higher bid, regardless of whether or not there is a market for such HDB shop space.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think that is the case. Anybody who submits a tender for HDB commercial premises is a serious tenderer, and he would have made his calculations: what is the potential of the business, how much profit he can make, before he submits his tender. This is not a guessing game. It does not necessarily follow that where one tenderer bids at a certain sum for a rental shop, the other tenderers will bid higher than him. Because the tenderer first makes his own calculations. If he finds that his business does not allow him to make a profit if he tenders too high, he will not tender at that rate.

asked the Minister for National Development (a) if he will state (i) the number of applicants for public housing under the Home Ownership Scheme; (ii) the number still on the waiting list up to the latest convenient date; and (iii) how long these applicants have to wait before they are offered selection of their flats; and (b) whether there are any plans to develop new housing estates.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the number of new applicants for public housing under the Home Ownership Scheme registered in 1984 was 48,733. The number still on the waiting list to buy flats as at 31st December 1984 was 60,305. Applicants on the waiting list who are willing to accept flats in any area can, on the average, expect to be allocated their flats within one year. However, the waiting time for those who are choosy and want flats in specific areas will be much longer, depending on the locality. The HDB will continue to develop existing new towns, such as Tampines, Bukit Batok, Jurong West, Bishan and Yishun, and commence to develop new areas at Pasir Ris, Caicuogang North, Zhenghua and Bukit Timah.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in response to the First Deputy Prime Minister's point yesterday, would the Hon. Minister consider extending the building of Hougang New Town, particularly the northern part, to Punggol?

Mr Speaker, Sir, land is one of the most precious commodities in Singapore. HDB, together with various Government authorities, has been instructed to make the best use of land, and so HDB will study the utilization of the available land around Punggol for development.

asked the Minister for National Development whether pedestrian overhead bridges will be constructed in the vicinity of Hougang Avenue 5 and Upper Serangoon Road in view of the fast growing population of Hougang New Town.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the HDB plans to build two pedestrian overhead bridges in the vicinity of Hougang Avenue 5 and Upper Serangoon Road. Tenders for the first bridge will be called by the third quarter of 1985, and that for the second bridge, in early 1986. Pending the construction of the bridges, three light-controlled pedestrian crossings have been installed.

asked the Minister for National Development when the stretch of Upper Serangoon Road in the vicinity of Hougang New Town (North) will be widened to cater for the growing volume of traffic.

Mr Speaker, Sir, traffic condition for the stretch of Upper Serangoon Road in the vicinity of Hougang New Town is still satisfactory. Recent traffic counts by the Public Works Department show that the peak hour traffic volume is between 1,000 and 1,100 vehicles per hour, which is within the capacity of the existing road. There is therefore no immediate need to widen the road. However, in view of the growing population of Hougang New Town, the Public Works Department is monitoring the traffic conditions along this road. The PWD is currently studying the design for the possible widening of the road within the five-year Road Development Programme.

asked the Minister for Finance, Minister for Education and Minister for Health since the Abortion Act of 1974 was enacted, making it no longer necessary for those below 18 years of age to obtain consent from parents/guardians, (a) has the removal of such consent resulted in more teenage abortions compared to the preceding 5-year period when such consent was necessary; (b) were there more repeated teenage abortions compared to the preceding 5-year period; and (c) whether the Minister will consider introducing amending legislation to include consent for those below 18 years of age if the statistics point to greater permissiveness among teenagers and higher number of repeated teenage abortions. The Minister of State for Health and Foreign Affairs (Mr Yeo Cheow Tong) (for the Minister for Finance, Minister for Education and Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am answering on behalf of my Minister. During the period preceding the enactment of the Abortion Act of 1974, abortions among unmarried teenagers increased from 24 in 1970 to 284 in 1974. After the enactment of this Act, the number increased from 704 in 1975 to 1,109 in 1979 and 1,787 in 1984. Repeat abortions among teenagers numbered five in 1971 and increased to 49 in 1974. After the enactment of the Abortion Act in 1974, the number increased from 72 in 1975 to 208 in 1979 and 456 in 1984. This increase has been partly due to the fact that, with the increasing number of years in which the Act has been in operation, the number of teenagers who would have undergone abortions has grown, thereby increasing the likelihood of repeat abortions among this group. The question is whether this increase in the number of teenage and repeat abortions is entirely due to liberalization of abortion laws or due to other external factors, namely, changing social mores brought about by wide exposure to foreign life-styles. These external factors have caused radical changes in our young people's moral values. The whole issue of abortion amongst unmarried teenagers is related to changing moral values of life. The Government can only play a limited role in instilling the right moral values into our young citizens. The moulding of children's character during the formative years of their lives lies chiefly in the hands of their parents and teachers. It is during these impressionable years that the correct moral values instilled will decide their future behaviour. Parents should take on this important responsibility which should be further fortified in schools by incorporating moral education into the school curriculum. The problem of teenage abortions is a world-wide one and there are no easy solutions. The Member for Jalan Kayu has asked if the Ministry would consider introducing amending legislation to include consent for those below 18 years of age if the statistics point to greater permissiveness among teenagers and higher number of repeated teenage abortions. Imposing the condition that teenagers seeking abortions should be required to get parental consent will drive teenagers to back-street abortionists or discourage them from revealing their pregnancy until an advanced stage. This will be a retrogressive step which will lead to greater risks to the health of these teenagers. Complications of illegal abortion account for up to 70% of maternal deaths in hospitals of developing countries and an unknown number of additional deaths outside hospitals. A pregnant teenager who seeks an abortion is one who has an immediate problem. To refuse her the possibility of having an abortion under proper medical and psychological care is tantamount to forcing her to seek a clandestine abortion with consequent serious risk to her health. A more pragmatic approach would be to carry out the abortion first, when the teenager is in a desperate position of having to cope with the consequences of an unanticipated, unwanted pregnancy, followed by counselling her in the presence of her parents. Parents would then be obliged to exercise greater moral responsibility over their daughters.

In view of the tremendous increase in abortions as stated by the Minister of State, from 1,109 in 1979 and 1,787 in 1984, will the Minister or his Ministry consider abolishing the Abortion Act and allow the pregnant teenagers to have their babies and to realize the consequences of their act?

Sir, repealing the Abortion Act, I feel, would be an act of refusal to recognize that there are social and health problems involved. The very act of repealing the Abortion Act will not wipe out the abortions because teenagers who have this problem and who do not want to go through with the pregnancy will then have to resort to back-street abortions, thereby posing great risks to their health and even their life.

Is the Minister of State saying that the pregnant teenagers, with all the sophisticated facilities we have in our hospitals, will have medical and social consequences after giving birth to these babies?

Sir, I do not think it is the impact of the hospital services that we are worried about. It is the impact of the lack of good medical services possessed by the back-street abortionists that we are more concerned about. The Ministry does recognize that the number is large and we are in the process of reviewing the Act. And I would like to invite Members to perhaps pass on their views to us which we will take into consideration when reviewing the Act.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State whether any study has been made of this group of persons, especially those who had repeated teenage abortions? Because an understanding of this cohort of people - their socio-economic circumstances, their psychological problems maybe - would help in the prevention or maybe a curtailing of this problem in the future. The other question I would like to pose to you is: I agree with you totally that permissiveness is not to be encouraged, but maybe it is better for the teenage girl to be on contraceptives than to undergo repeated abortions.

Sir, I agree with the Member that more education is required. I have already stated that perhaps the school should consider expanding the moral education curriculum to cope with this problem.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification. I was not asking about more education. I was asking for a study to identify the people in this vulnerable group. Has any study been made? Or will the Minister consider making a study of this group? Who are the vulnerable ones? Who are the people most vulnerable to repeated abortions? We have to know the characteristics of this group, if we are to tackle this problem. I totally agree with you that education is necessary. But who do you educate? You must identify the group first.

Sir, when any pregnant woman comes into a clinic in a Government hospital for abortion, she is first counselled and dissuaded from going through with the abortion. The abortion is, therefore, an act of last resort. She is motivated by the trained medical staff on the use of proper contraceptive methods. So this should help to prevent repeated abortions.

On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. It looks like I have to go into -

It seems to be clarification time, not supplementary questions.

Am I in order, Sir?

Let us have your supplementary question, please.

Will the Minister agree to a study of this problem, yes or no?

Yes, we will undertake a study into this problem.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since the Hon. Minister of State has invited hon. Members to contribute suggestions, may I commend him and his Ministry to the intensive in-depth report in the Hansard on the two occasions that this House had to debate on, and that is, the Abortion Bill to liberalize abortions, and the second one was to repeal the Abortion Act, followed by the re-enactment of the new Abortion Bill. In those two pieces of legislation, I am sure the Minister of State and his Ministry will find replete with arguments and suggestions.

A very long question, is it not?

I ask the Minister whether he is aware of this.

Mr Speaker, Sir, yes, the Ministry is very aware of the debates and they were well recorded in the Hansard. We will definitely refer to them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Hon. Minister of State inform this House the age range of those who undergo teenage abortions, and whether there is any change in the trend in this lower age range?

Mr Speaker, Sir, a teenager is defined as someone who is below 18 years of age.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what I was referring to was the youngest age of someone who has undergone abortion, and whether there is any trend in that age.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Hon. Minister of State stating that the Ministry is having second thoughts on the Abortion Act that was introduced and implemented in 1974? And that there being serious consequences on the younger population, particularly the teenagers, it now merits a review of the Abortion Act?

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first answer the question from the Member for Radin Mas. The age groups that we have in the data relate to those below 15 years and those between 16 and 19 years. We have no further breakdowns other than these. The figures for those below 15 years are quite constant. They are in the region of 20 a year. To the question posed by the Member for Punggol as to whether the Ministry is having second thoughts on the Act, in terms of repealing the Act, the answer is No. But we feel that certain provisions in the Act may have to be modified in order to reduce the ease with which teenage abortions can be obtained.

Before we come to the next item on the Order Paper, may I say something? I am very perturbed that the perplexity of our Standing Orders has led to some misunderstanding among some of the new, and even not-so-new Members, some of whom are not here. This misunderstanding seems to be hinged on the point of order, or point of clarification or elucidation. Standing Order 48 states: 'No Member shall interrupt another Member except-

11.27 am

'to provide for the issue from the Consolidated Fund of the sums necessary to meet the estimated expenditure for the financial year lst April, 1985 to 31st March, 1986", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance, Minister for Education and Minister for Health (Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

'for making supplementary provision to meet additional expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1984 to 31st March, 1985", recommendation of President signified; presented by Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [1st March, 1985). 'That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:- "We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament.".'. -[Dr Tan Cheng Bock]. Question again proposed. 11.29 am

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to respond to some comments made by hon. Members of this House regarding the state of the Singapore economy, in particular, the statement by the Member for Alexandra in which he said that the Minister of State for Trade and Industry and I have taken perhaps an overly optimistic view, or armchair view, of the state of economy that we might have glossed over the real situation which, in his words, "is pretty bad". Now, I would like to clarify that when I and the Minister of State talked about the Singapore economy, we were talking about the economy as a whole, and not about any particular sector. I accept that in certain sectors, particularly the trade sector which is of primary interest to the Member for Alexandra, things are in fact fairly depressed. However, one must take these things in perspective when one looks at statistics, lest we talk ourselves into a blue funk. The economy as a whole is not doing badly. Certain sectors indeed are depressed. Overall, I would like to re-emphasize that the economy is not doing as well as last year but it still remains fundamentally sound. Perhaps we should examine some of the statistics in order that they can be looked at in perspective. Indeed it is true that last year we had redundancies of 4,694. In absolute terms, this does look like a pretty bad figure. But what does it actually mean? It represents less than 0.4% of the total employable population in Singapore. I know this statistic is not particularly helpful to those who have lost their jobs, particularly around Chinese New Year. Nevertheless, it is a fact that it is a small proportion of the total minimum employable level of around 2.7% in Singapore which is, in fact, the figure of 33,000. In the larger economies, full employment, in fact, means around 6% of irreducible minimum of employed. However, for the 4,000-odd people who have lost their jobs, indeed it is a problem as far as they are individually concerned. But let us not forget that we do indeed have a full employment economy in Singapore. These individuals ought to have found jobs within a reasonable period of time, provided they are not overly choosy. I also recognize, of course, that there are those who, because of age or because of lack of special skills, will find it takes longer to get replacement jobs. Indeed, it is this sector which the Government will do all it can to help. It is also said that in 1984, 429 companies failed, went bankrupt, or were wound up. This indeed could be looked at as a rather startling figure. But is it? Let us examine some figures in our neighbouring countries. In Hong Kong, last year 1,746 companies closed down for one reason or another. Their population is twice ours and so is their economy. So indeed they may be said to have done worse than we have. But, of course, one could argue that they were faced with political problems or that they might have more problems than we have. Let us look at Japan. Last year, 19,000 Japanese companies failed for one reason or another. In proportion to the size of the population, this would be about similar to the 400-odd in Singapore. In the United States, there were 12,776 failures. It is really a small number for the size of their economy. But again I would caution in looking at statistics. These figures are not really meaningful without knowing the size of the companies which have failed. So again I would urge caution. Again, in looking at statistics, one perhaps should look at the whole picture rather than part of it. In the case of Singapore, it is true that 429 companies failed. But it is also true that 4,600 new companies were formed. Again, I would caution. It does not mean that 4,600 new company formations is necessarily a very good thing because many of these companies may have been registered for $2 and may not be in operation for some time. Nevertheless, I merely quote this because statistics, looked in isolation, could convey indeed very wrong conclusions. In fact, a cynic has said that if one looks at statistics, there are things such as statistics and statistics and damn lies. Sir, I will reiterate again. Business confidence is a very fragile commodity. Therefore, we should not talk ourselves into a gloom and doom syndrome. Having said that, perhaps I should now divert to a look at the components of our economy, sector by sector, to see where the problem lies, and what can be done to alleviate those sectors which are depressed. Conveniently, the Singapore economy can be divided into five main sectors, each of which accounts for roughly 20% of our GDP. These are manufacturing, transport and communications, financial and business services, trade, construction, and others. Manufacturing. Overall, the manufacturing sector did not do too badly in 1984 but the outlook for 1985 is somewhat lower. In 1984, overall growth was about 9%. However, within this macro figure, there are certain sectors which are clearly depressed, the shipping sector, shipyards, timber companies, plywood factories, offshore oil and so on. On the other hand, the electronic and electrical component sector was very buoyant. And because of their buoyancy, many companies around the first, second to third quarters, in order to fulfil large orders from the United States, took on very large numbers of new workers. It was clear even then that such new additions to their employment could not be sustained, and indeed it turned out to be the case. Some of these companies now have to lay off some staff due to a levelling off of orders from the United States. Overall, we think next year the manufacturing sector ought to at least perform in the mid-range of our forecast, around 5% or perhaps 6% growth. The next sector is transport and communications. This sector did very well last year and I think we can expect it to continue to do reasonably well this year. Growth for last year was 10%. There was great demand for air and sea services, telecoms and telex services. We think this sector will continue to do quite well and therefore in the upper quartile of our forecast. The third sector is financial and business services. This sector did reasonably well last year where the growth was 11%. However, a lot of this growth took place in the offshore banking sector whereas the domestic banking sector slowed down somewhat due to reduced lendings into the depressed property market and into the trade and services area. Overall, it ought to do reasonably well next year, perhaps even in the upper range of our forecast. The next sector is construction and others. Construction accounts for about 60% of this sector. Others represent farming and the fisheries industry. Construction was very strong last year although down from the previous year. Growth was in the region of 15%. It is slowing down this year because of the decline in private sector construction. However, it still remains buoyant because of continued expectation of public sector construction and the MRT. Overall, again it ought to perform in the upper range of our forecast. Finally, I come to trade which is probably the most depressed area and which explains why the Member for Alexandra is concerned. Indeed, this sector is probably the worst performing sector. There are a variety of reasons behind this. First, the tourist sector within trade. I think everybody knows that growth in tourism has turned down, partly because hotel prices had priced itself out about a year or two ago and the tourists then went to Hong Kong because of our very high charges in hotel rates. The normal market mechanism due to the increase in the supply of hotels has in fact caused a substantial reduction in hotel charges and the outlook from the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board's figures look fairly encouraging. And we think there should be a reasonable upturn this year leading to somewhat better occupancy rates in the hotel industry but still remaining depressed because of large over supply. The property development area, we have said, although is under trade, is indirectly affected, of course. In the private trade business, the reduction in business is well known. I think it is partly due to a downturn of our trade with our neighbours who have, in fact, also suffered from a decline in world trade plus the decline in commodity prices, particularly Indonesia and also to a certain extent Malaysia. These are the factors affecting many of our small traders and they are the ones who I think are indeed suffering. Again, the other sector where there is obvious depression is the retail sector in shops which do retail trade. It was again evident about two years ago during the peak of the expansion of this sector where there was a proliferation of HDB shopping centres and private sector shopping centres. The growth in this sector could not be sustained. In fact, I remember walking through some of these shopping centres about a year or two ago and seeing these hundreds of shops all selling virtually the same things, clocks, watches, jeans, what have you. I think it was clear that this growth could not be sustained and some of these rather unfortunate companies which had set up business hoping to cash in on the tourist boom would have to retreat, and indeed it has. Again, although one could say this is normal economic development, it is very painful for those personally involved. This is recognized by the Ministry of Trade and Industry and we are not armchair scientists in this area. Sir, indeed we do recognize that there are soft spots in the economy and a lot of them due to circumstances either within their control or outside their control are going through difficult times. The Ministry is aware of this and we have examined this and indeed proposals are in hand to provide them with some form of relief. I would not go into these in detail because the Minister for Finance will be touching on some aspects of it in his Budget speech this afternoon. I would only recommend to the Member for Alexandra some patience since we only have about three-odd hours to wait. 11.42 am

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to direct my remarks at the Member for Queenstown who made a speech on 5th March concerning simplified Chinese characters and Hanyu Pinyin. I was surprised that the Member raised this question now because the decision on the adoption of simplified Chinese characters and Hanyu Pinyin was taken not after he left Singapore to serve as an ambassador abroad but before he left when he was still a member of the Cabinet. Let me briefly explain. Chinese is a pictographic language. For several thousand years, it has gone through various stage of changes, from Jiaguwen, (Shell-Bone Script) Zhongdingwen (Bronze inscription script), Zhuanshu (Seal Script) and Lishu (Han Dynasty official script) to the present Kaishu (Regular script) Xingshu (Running - Hand script) and Caoshu (Cursive Hand script). The simplified forms of Chinese writing or characters can be said as a natural evolution to keep up with the time. In China, in January 1956, a plan was announced to adopt the simplified Chinese writing in order to wipe out illiteracy. Whereas in Singapore in July 1969 we started to adopt the simplified Chinese character writing. In 1977, we fully implemented the use of the simplified form. Since we are a small country and do not have the necessary talents or the resources, we did not lead the way in language reform but adopted the type of simplified characters which are more or less the same as those used in China. Sir, we have adopted simplified Chinese mainly on educational grounds. We implemented its use in schools because primary school pupils have to learn both English and the mother tongue from a very early age. So this measure was taken to lighten their burden, and I believe it met the requirements of the situation. To illustrate my point, let me give some examples. The full form Yi ( ) consists of 13 strokes whereas the simplified form ( ) consists only of three strokes. The full form of the word ching (a) consists of 15 strokes, whereas the simplified form ( ) consists only of seven strokes. The word feng consists of 18 strokes in the normal form ( ) whereas the simplified form ( ) consists only of four strokes. Therefore, the simplified writing has helped the pupils to learn Chinese with ease. The member claimed that the simplified form could not bring one to the olden classical literature. I wonder whether he has been to the book shops in Bras Basah Complex where he could find books printed in both forms, from Taiwan and also mainland China. Books from mainland China, including the classics are published in the simplified form of Chinese characters. In actual fact, Sir, among the 2,000-odd simplified Chinese characters, only about 500-odd differ very greatly from the original form. Let me now throw some light on Hanyu Pinyin, which is a system that provides the phonetic way to help one to pronounce the Chinese characters correctly. In February, 1958, China announced the Hanyu Pinyin system. At that time we were faced with the choice of either using Hanyu Pinyin or the Mandarin Phonetic Symbols. In my generation the system used was a set of phonetic symbols (be, pe, me, fe, ....) to indicate different sounds to help in pronouncing the characters. These are only symbols, phonetics. The learning of Chinese characters which are ideograms has to be done from memory which is already taxing to the pupils. To learn the pronunciation of the characters they have to memorise another set of symbols. This is definite an added burden to them. Whereas Hanyu Pinyin consists of romanized phonetic characters which the pupils are familiar with. Therefore, after deliberation of the two systems, in November 1973 the Ministry of Education announced the use of Hanyu Pinyin which would help the pupils to learn character pronunciation better. As it might confuse the pupils in their learning of English, only from Primary 4 onwards were they required to learn the new Hanyu Pinyin system. Nowadays, both the teachers and pupils from Primary 4 upwards are quite familiar with this system. I have noticed that the present students pronounce Mandarin much better than my generation. It is due to the use of Hanyu Pinyin. On names in Hanyu Pinyin, Sir, I want to emphasise that we have not tried to change students' names by adopting Hanyu Pinyin. As a Chinese, one should have a name which is written in the Chinese characters. We have no right whatsoever to change the name of a Chinese written in the Chinese characters. What we are doing is just try to help pronounce the name by using Hanyu Pinyin instead of in dialect transliteration. For instance, the word Wang in Wang Bang Wen (Ong Pang Boon), the surname of the Member for Telok Ayer, is pronounced Ong or Wong or Heng or Wee, according to different dialects. In Hanyu Pinyin, it is Wang. There are other pronunciations to indicate the same character. Therefore, Hanyu Pinyin is to standardize all the different pronunciations in order to make it easier. To my knowledge, the Registry of Births and Deaths has not compelled Chinese parents to register new births in Hanyu Pinyin. But in our schools, in order to avoid the children being called by different pronunciations when they attend different classes, we have decided to standardize the pronunciation by using Hanyu Pinyin. For the purposes of examinations and other important occasions, we have always allowed the students to write besides their Chinese characters their statutory names as well as in Hanyu Pinyin most clan associations, I believe have their own genealogical records to trace one's forefathers or family tree. So if one were to find one's family root, one can approach one's own clan association. The talk that Hanyu Pinyin will bury or cut off one's memory of one's roots or forefathers is therefore unfounded. As regards Hanyu Pinyin replacing old Chinese street names, we make use of Hanyu Pinyin only in respect of new towns and related names such as Hougang and Yishun replacing Au Kang and Nee Soon which were originally transliterated in dialect. When names are not of dialect origin, they are left intact, such as Tampines, Pasir Ris, and so on. As regards the Member's criticism about "Seletar" being changed to Shilida, I think it is due to misinformation. I consulted the HDB and I was told that HDB at the moment does not have a plan to develop Seletar Housing Estate. Even if the estate were to be developed in the future, it will still be called "Seletar" as before, because "Seletar" is not a dialect-transliterated name. Sir, I should stress that Hanyu Pinyin is only a very useful instrument to help us pronounce Chinese characters. Although in China, specialist reformers are studying and trying to use phonetic language to replace Chinese characters en bloc, we in Singapore do not intend to replace Chinese characters with Hanyu Pinyin or other phonetic language as yet. At present, Hanyu Pinyin and the simplified form have become part of our life. In schools, Hanyu Pinyin and the simplified form are used in order to help our pupils to learn and master Mandarin more effectively. They have been in use in schools for more than 10 years. They are also being widely used in Singapore, such as in our Chinese newspapers, and our publishers are also publishing Chinese books in the simplified form. So if we now want to abolish the use of simplified Chinese and go back to the usage of the old complicated forms of Chinese writing, I think it is a retrogressive step and will create more confusion. So, I think we must accept the situation although it is a little inconvenient to us, the older generation. I hope all can sacrifice our smaller selves in the interest of the larger self, the society at large.

Point of clarification. (In Mandarin) The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education has made a long speech on the use of hanyu pinyin and the simplified forms of Chinese. But he has not told us in what direction are we heading, in using simplified Chinese. I did not suggest that we go backwards. So let us know whether we are going forward, or staying put, or going back. In what direction are we going? Therefore, I hope those knowledgeable" Ju Gon" ( ) here would tell me. "Ju Gon" here in the Chinese term, I use refers to something noble and not the term "ju gon" used in combination with the word "ju" ( ) boar.

Mr Jek, your point of clarification is so long. So I think there is no need for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to answer. Yes, Mr Leong. 11.52 am

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion moved by the Member for Ayer Rajah in expressing our thanks to the President for his Address at the opening of this Parliament. Sir, you might be relieved to know that I will not bring into my speech imageries of modes of transportation which have been brought into this House in the last four days. We have been brought on bus rides, mountain climbing, football in our business suits, ride a bicycle in tandem, or attending to children who are crying. I would like to raise a few issues with regard to the young. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the President's Address, listed as the first objective of the Government is to "reach an accord on the character of the society people desire, and involve the young in working towards its achievement." I agree that it is important to get the young involved. Today, about 35% of our people are below 19 years old. 40% of them are in the age group between 20-39 years old. I believe people in this age group of 20-39 will play an important role in building the new society that we wish to create. By the year 1999 they will be in the prime of their lives - in their mid-30s to their early 5Os. It is mainly on the shoulders of this group of people that the responsibility of achieving the new goals will fall. Do we know enough about this group of people? What are their aspirations? How do they spend their time? What are their motivations? What kind of society do they themselves want? I think there is a definite need to understand this group of people better. They must first believe in the goals that our new leaders have set out for them. Therefore, I think there is a need to draw them out. There is a need to reach out to them. There is a need to get them involved in discussions and to speak their minds, just as the Leader of the House has asked us to speak our minds. I believe the new leaders themselves will think of mechanisms and channels to reach out to them. May I offer a few simple suggestions? Yesterday, the First Deputy Prime Minister mentioned that in future he would conduct discussions. May I suggest that the young should also be asked to participate in such discussions. We could have forums and dialogues with the young, such as those that have been held with community leaders in the past. The new leaders could also go to the University and talk to the students there. They could conduct talks at the community centres. Another way is through television. We have seen in the past four days the power of television. The new Members, after making their maiden speeches, eagerly awaited the evenings to see their star performances on television. I believe television will become a very important means of communication. It will be useful if the new leaders could in future organize TV talks to explain policies to the people, especially to the young. Related to the issue of the young, I would like to raise another matter which I think should deserve a little more attention. This is on the matter of entrepreneurship in Singapore. I believe there is the growth of a new entrepreneurship in Singapore. Various people have lamented in the past about the lack of entrepreneur- ship in Singapore. I have always been a little surprised by such statements. I believe that we do have an enterprising or pioneering spirit in us. Our forefathers were Asian immigrants who enjoyed a reputation of hardy pioneers and entrepreneurs. We often hear how our grandparents, parents, or forefathers, left for distant shores with only the shirts on their backs but armed with a pioneering spirit, drive and determination, how they struggled to eke out a living in such foreign lands. Those with foresight and enterprise amassed fortunes and built vast business empires. Others succeeded in their own way and they sunk roots in Singapore. These are our early pioneers. They are the ones who provided the locomotive which drove the engine of our past economic growth. Today, a new generation has grown up. They are schooled in the latest techniques and concepts. They are now poised to contribute not only professionally but also entrepreneurially to the growth of Singapore. These are our young men who in the past 10-15 years have joined the multi-national companies, learned new skills and have reached the top or senior positions in various companies in Singapore. In looking for greater challenges, an increasing number will be swelling the ranks of our entrepreneurs who are striking out on their own to make a mark for themselves. I believe these entrepreneurs deserve closer attention. Firstly, they reflect the dynamism and the impact of the younger generation on our economy. With their professional, managerial and technical skills, they will bring a new breadth and depth of experience into our local industries. They are young, vibrant and creative. They can match our nation's drive towards the vision that we all strive for. Secondly, the new entrepreneurs deserve our attention because they will be taking a lead in pioneering the move towards newer and higher technologies. They are those who have branched out into new areas and new technological sectors, such as computers, software engineering, electronics and semi-conductors. Let me cite two examples of what I consider as the new breed of entrepreneurs, The first is a company which makes micro-computers set up by three graduates and a first-year student from the Ngee Ann Polytechnic. They developed a micro-computer which is quite innovative and competitively priced. They have received some publicity last year in a local exhibition. They are making inroads into the computer market in Singapore and now they are trying to sell overseas. The second example is an industrial precision engineering company. This company was formed a few years ago by five colleagues who had been working together in one of our EDB training schools. They saw a market for industrial precision engineering components. They got together to supply big MNCs in Singapore which need such components. They have gone through a cycle of business growth and reversal. Now they are back on their feet again, making inroads into sales in Singapore and the region. Sir, these are the new breed of entrepreneurs who I believe deserve greater attention. But they face several difficulties. They have to keep -track of fast changing technologies and have to keep abreast with the latest advances in new concepts and ideas. They also have other difficulties. Singapore is a small market. They have to look offshore for greater business which in most cases are quite competitive. As they are quite new and unknown, it is difficult for them to sell their products. Therefore, the question is: what can Government do to help encourage and promote these entrepreneurs? I propose that the new entrepreneurs be encouraged to form a club or an association. Such a club or association will enable them to share experience, give mutual encouragement and to provide an avenue for useful contacts. The Government can also give formal recognition to them by inviting members of the club to attend major policy discussions, especially in areas which they are involved. These new entrepreneurs have to keep lean and trim. They have to keep their overheads down. Therefore, should the Government heed the call in the last few days to review the payroll tax or the SDF levy, it would be a boost to them. In the Addendum to the Ministry of Trade and Industry, it is stated that the Ministry "will continue to offer tax and other incentives to encourage industries to move into new technologies." I hope that the Ministry, in drawing up the new incentives, will also have these new entrepreneurs in mind. In addition, the Government can help in other ways to foster the growth of such entrepreneurial spirit in Singapore. It can be done in the schools, in our polytechnics, and in our institutions of higher learning. I particularly enjoyed attending the open houses organized by the Ngee Ann Polytechnic where very often exhibits put up by students are quite novel and interesting. Perhaps there should also be emphasis on such exhibitions in the schools, and especially at the junior colleges. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to emphasize that, like the early pioneers, the entrepreneurs have to work hard. Although they can be given some form of encouragement by the Government, like a young sapling, to grow strong they must grow on their own will. Ultimately, the success will depend very heavily on the entrepreneurs themselves. They must have the guts to strike out on their own. They must have the fighting spirit. They have to be motivated by their own strong desire to succeed. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I come to one last point which is also related to the young, and this is on education. Not on streaming. I would like to make a point on higher education. Mr Speaker, Sir, I tend to feel that our University is too examination-oriented. There is this atmosphere in the University where the issue of paramount importance is to sit for examinations. I believe the University is a place where the students are supposed to assimilate new ideas, to open their minds to new thoughts. Somehow I get a feeling that all the students think about is to go to the library and study there. We saw a recent report about students queueing up to get a place in the library. Some Hon. Members from the University may know that there is such a thing as "red-spot books". The moment a lecturer mentions a title and the author in the classroom; after the lecture, you will see a stampede of students rushing for this "red-spot" book. Why they put a red spot on it is because they limit a student to borrow the book for only two hours. I believe we should inject more fun into our University, by bringing in perhaps people who could contribute to new ideas, like foreign students, or bringing in industries to see how the teaching curricula can relate to our future industrial growth to make our University more vibrant.

Dr Tan, you have got 19 minutes to wind up.

Mr Speaker, Sir, after listening to our First Deputy Prime Minister and the other Ministers in yesterday's debate, I find my role somewhat redundant. However, I cannot forgo this honour to speak. In summing up the five days' debate, I asked myself whether I have managed to stir up the imagination of my parliamentary colleagues to speak up frankly and honestly. Judging from the sentiments expressed in this House, I am inclined to believe that I have succeeded to a large extent, though a few have not been truthful and honest. If I have led the Minister of State for Health up the garden path, I can assure him that this was furthest from my mind. I hope Members in this House will not be dampened by the Senior Minister's performance two days ago. This is part of politics. We get wounded in this House, but the Frontbench must not be defensive nor should we Backbenchers be irresponsible. Many of the old MPs must agree that this has been a very interesting debate. And this debate is historical because for the first time Singaporeans are watching our performance in this House, and also for the first time we have two Opposition Members elected at a general election in this House after 16 years. Thirdly, for the first time, Parliament meets in the morning. Many issues were raised. An hon. Member: And woman MPs.

Yes, I forgot that for the first time women MPs are also in this House. My apologies to my woman colleagues. Many issues, Mr Speaker, Sir, were raised by Government Backbenchers and by the two Opposition Members. Some of the issues raised by the Opposition and Government Backbenchers sparked off strong rebuttals by the Prime Minister and by the Ministers. Not only did the Opposition Members receive a walloping but my Backbench colleagues were not spared. We were shown the cut and thrust of debate by two giants in our political arena - the Prime Minister and the Senior Minister - and they and the Ministers had to rebut false allegations and insinuations and clarified points made by Opposition Members and even some Backbenchers. However, some home-viewers think that we have been too hard on the Opposition Members. But, as expressed by the Minister for Home Affairs in yesterday's sitting, and it is worth repeating, that to let untruths go unchallenged without rebuttal, without explanation, is tantamount to agreeing to what has been said. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Any responsible government should not allow this to happen, or the people of Singapore will be moved to believe that all these untruths after being repeated a couple of times, are truths; for example, that the HDB makes money from selling flats and that the Government cannot pay back the CPF in cash. I hope the hon. Member for Anson will move away from his obsession on human rights and fundamental freedom which is already entrenched in our Constitution, and to tackle the Government on specific issues. With regard to the Member for Potong Pasir, I can only sympathize with him. He is going to have three busy months ahead of him to come out with a plan to build cheap houses. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the topic that caught the attention of many MPs is, without doubt, the 15-20% lower income group, and this is understandable because we really want to do something for them. But let me caution the new leaders not to promise too much too fast, as no amount of assistance rendered can improve their lot if the will is not there. And this point was brought up by the Member for Bukit Merah. We must motivate this group to understand, to know that there is hope, and assistance is available if they are willing to sincerely want to improve themselves. There was no lack of ideas from the PAP Backbenchers on how to help them. Some think that education is the answer, others think that education and home-ownership is the answer. Many have put up suggestions ranging from interest-free loans to total waiver of the 20% deposit that the poor of Singapore need to pay if they want to buy HDB flats. However, all agreed that there should be no hand-outs. We are also reminded that while we want to champion the plight of the poor, we must not go overboard in trying to over-provide for them. We might end up creating unrealistic demands, unrealistic expectations that we cannot fulfil, and this will spell disaster for all. It is easy to make promises but we must have the means and also the ability to carry out these promises. I think all these talk and promises will go to nought if there is no wealth, as pointed out by the Member for Teck Ghee. Because with wealth, there will be jobs for all, and this we must ensure if this place is to remain healthy for investors. Mr Speaker, Sir, if you were a foreigner listening to these debates, you might have thought that the Government has created two monsters - the HDB and the CPF. And it is ironical that these two, once raved about, are now subjected to constant attacks by the Opposition, by the Back-benchers and by many Singaporeans. Some Backbenchers want to clip the wings of the HDB, calling them to just build flats and leave the administration and the maintenance to others, like town councils. If I were the HDB, I would want to surrender this because maintenance and administration, are the most difficult as seen in private housing and condominiums for example. These are the most problematic issues. However, if MPs are keen and residents are also keen, do not be discouraged by what I said. There are other good points in having town councils. Mr Speaker, Sir, many PAP MPs spoke on the CPF, on the Skills Development Fund and on the payroll tax. They link these to the high overheads that our businessmen have to face. They argue that Singapore business has this added disadvantage in labour costs over our neighbouring countries. They are not arguing that the Government should do away with SDF or the payroll tax. All that they want the Government to do is to help them during this period, and they are asking that the Government temporarily lift the SDF and the payroll tax. I hope this will be the rabbit that the Minister for Finance is going to draw out from his bag. The question of future CPF usage and management was taken up by the First Deputy Prime Minister. I shall not go into this except to say that the second account, which is the money to be left for old age, seems to have all but disappeared. It has been reduced to a very insignificant sum. I hope we will look into this. The First Deputy Prime Minister also lamented the lack of response to his call to throw out ideas on how Singapore should be like in the 1990s. There was not much discussion on this, even in this House. And Singaporeans are not generally excited or thrilled by this, as expressed by the Member for Changkat. I think she should not worry too much when ideas are not forthcoming just yet, because it is a longterm objective and people are more concerned with what is happening today. Moreover, people's emotions, their feeIings and their pockets are not hurt like the CPF issue. It is something that the people know that the Government can do and expect us to do it well. It would be a gross omission on my part if I do not comment on the Prime Minister's message to our young. Some of our young complained that the Prime Minister is lecturing to them too much. They want me to pass this message to him, that he need not worry so much about them, that they can take care of themselves when the time comes, and that they are thankful for what he has done for Singapore. However, the young must realize that the Prime Minister's worries go beyond just providing them with material needs. The young, being primarily English educated, tend to look to the West for guidance on how life should be and how society should be run. But is this correct? I agree with our Prime Minister. We must be careful of this. We should not accept nor should we regard Western norms as a standard by which our society should be built, or should be run. We are the products of three great civilizations. We should set our own standards based on our culture, on our tradition, our way of life, and based on the principles of democracy, sincerity, honesty and integrity. We should be proud of what we are as a people. We should be proud of what we have achieved, and we should not be apologetic about the way modern Singapore has evolved under the able leadership of our Prime Minister and the old guards. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, over the past five days, there has been a lot of talk, there has been a lot of accusations, insinuations, truths, half-truths, whole-truths spoken in this House. Now that the debate is over and the sound and fury has subsided, we must ask ourselves one question: is your conscience clear? Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your patience and your guidance in this debate. [Applause]

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:- "We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament."

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply (Allotted Day).

12.27 pm

First Supplementary Main Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1984 to 31st March, 1985, contained in Paper Cmd 3 of 1985. No notice of amendment has been received.

Question, "That the sums stated for the heads of expenditure shown in the schedule on page 4 of the Paper stand pan of the Estimates," put, and agreed to. Question, "That the sum of $36,728,500 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the First Supplementary Main Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1984 to 31st March, 1985, contained in Paper Cmd.3 of l985, "put, and agreed to. Resolution to be reported. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply have come to a certain resolution. Resolution reported - "That the sum of $36,728,500 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the First Supplementary Main Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1984 to 31st March, 1985, contained in Paper Cmd. 3 of 1985."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament doth agree with the Committee on the said resolution." Question put and agreed to. Resolution accordingly agreed to.

12.30 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Motion* standing in the name of the Minister for Law, as it appears on the Order Paper. *The Motion reads as follows: That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270) approves the reclamation by the Government of that portion of the foreshore and seabed at Terumbu Pesek containing an area of about 30 hectares as shown coloured pink within the site shown edged red on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 3/84" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. Sir, before going on to this subject --- [The Minister proceeded with comments on voting on the Motion for the Address of Thanks by Mr Chiam See Tong (q.v.)]

Please get on with the item on the Order Paper.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with the phasing out of its pig farming activities, Singapore will have to import pigs to meet the need of its pork-eating population. There is a need therefore to build a permanent holding station for imported pigs. And it is recommended that the proposed station be located at Terumbu Pesek situated south of Pulau Pesek, taking into account the land use of the southern islands. Sir, Terumbu Pesek is a reef which is submerged at high tide. It is therefore necessary to reclaim the reef to provide usable land area of about 30 hectares as shown coloured pink and edged red on the plan marked as "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 3/84", a copy of which is deposited in the Library of this House for the information of hon. Members. Sir, fill for the reclamation will be obtained from Raffles Shoal shown coloured blue on the plan. The reclamation which will take about 10 months to complete at an estimated cost of $10 million will be undertaken by the Jurong Town Corporation as agents of the Government. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270) approves the reclamation by the Government of that portion of the foreshore and seabed at Terumbu Pesek containing an area of about 30 hectares as shown coloured pink within the site shown edged red on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 3/84" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore.

I noted with strange coincidence that when the votes were taken just now, the Member for Potong Pasir was at the entrance and it was most unfortunate that he was not given an opportunity to express his Aye or Nay. But I take it that his vote would have been affirmative since he said the other day that he supported the motion in the name of the hon. Member for Ayer Rajah. And if it was otherwise, I am sure he would stand up and say so.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as this matter about the motion has been brought up, for the record, I would say Aye.

It is very good to know, Mr Speaker, Sir, that both the Members of the Opposition have supported the motion and it is unanimous.

I abstained.

Mr Speaker, Sir, then the record should state that the Member for Anson has said that he abstained, which makes it more interesting in that the Member for Potong Pasir supports the motion and the Member for Anson abstains. An hon. Member: I think we should applaud.

We should applaud the Member for Potong Pasir. [Applause].

12.33 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Parliament, pursuant to section 51 B of the Parliamentary Elections Act (Chapter 50) -

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me assure you that I am not going to take up an hour. I will be very brief.

You can only speak once on this motion, Mr Jeyaretnam.

Yes, I accept that, Mr Speaker, Sir. I know that you are very anxious that we should finish by 1.00 o'clock. Sir, this motion is in two parts. We have, of course, no quarrel with the first part of it, which is, a purely declaratory motion that Mr Nair having failed to take his seat, that seat is now vacant. So I do not propose to say anything about the first part of this motion. It is the second part on which I wish to speak, and I understand my worthy colleague on this side of the House is also going to say something on this. Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope I will not be misunderstood when I say that we are opposed to this. When I say "misunderstood", I am saying that I hope we will not be misunderstood by the gentleman to whom this seat is offered. We have no objections to his occupying a seat in this House and indeed we think he will be a very worthy Member of this House. But my Party has from the outset declared its objection to this scheme of non-constituency MP seats, and it is because of that and not because of any objection to the worthy gentleman that I am here to oppose the second part of this motion. We say that this idea was born out of hypocrisy on the part of the Government. I was not here when the Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Office gave a long sermon on the politics of hypocrisy. Let me say that if anything is an act of hypocrisy, this is; trying to pretend that the Government is really interested in building up a credible Opposition in this Parliament. Mr Speaker, Sir, this idea of non-constituency MP seats undermines, in my view, the emergence of a strong credible Opposition. And that, of course, was at the back of the Government's mind and its purpose in introducing this. They thought they could somehow buy off the electorate from electing Opposition Members into Parliament by the first-past-the-post system and deluding them into believing that what have been termed as second-class MPs will be just as good. Well, it undermines the whole system of Parliamentary Opposition and it is for that reason that I propose to object or to vote against the second half of this motion. I am not going to call for a division, Mr Speaker, Sir, but I would like it recorded that we are voting against the second half of this motion for the reasons that I have set out, not because of any objection to the gentleman taking his seat.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am opposing the motion in principle and in line with what the Member for Anson has stated. It has got nothing to do with Mr Tan Chee Kien. He is an honourable man and, if he were here, I am sure he will know what to do. There is history in this non-constituency MP scheme. It is ironical that we are here to vote in an Opposition, albeit a non-constituency Opposition. In December 1980, Sir, you will remember that the Deputy Speaker declared to the whole of Singapore that if one Opposition Member were to be elected to Parliament, our economy would shake. Foreign investors would not come. But nothing of that sort happened. Ten months later in October 1981, the people did not believe him. "Anson" happened. It was the first time we had an Opposition, genuine elected Opposition, after 16 years. Immediately, the natural reaction of the PAP was to come out with six-gun shooting. An hon. Member: Two guns!

Opposition politics, they said, meant chaos, bloodshed, strikes. But no such thing happened. The Opposition now are responsible people. This is not the late 5Os or early 60s. We are here to build a nation. In November 1983, the Prime Minister, in one of the PAP's big meetings, announced that in fact it was quite a good idea to have an Opposition. They would make good sparring partners, to keep fit.

Were converted?

They would keep the Ministers and other Members of the Government agile. Why is there this sudden change of mind? I am sure the PAP has its feedback machinery, and they probably know that people wanted an Opposition. That is why there was this sudden change of mind. The Senior Minister in an interview with a foreign journalist said, "Yes, we are thinking about introducing Opposition in Parliament, two Chambers. There are many intellectuals who have got opposite views but they don't want to join the Party. They don't like the hassle of politics." And then we have got other schemes, two-Member constituency. One is to be contested amongst the Opposition and other schemes. Of course, just before the elections, in July of last year, the amendment was made for this non-constituency Member. At the outset, my Party did not agree with this. People have said that it is a second-class Opposition, not genuine. Why is that so? Because by its very name, they do not represent anyone - non-constituency. There is a motion before us and I am sure it will be passed. And people will say that it is by the patronage, probably by the grace of the Party that he is here. This non-constituency MP represents no one. I wonder what we shall address him when he comes here. I represent Potong Pasir. I am the Member for Potong Pasir. Mr Jeyaretnam is the Member for Anson. When the non-constituency MP is here, what do we call him? An hon. Member: NCMP.

Well, these are your words, not mine. Representation is important. It is the very soul of democracy. It is not by appointment. An NCMP cannot vote to amend the Constitution, cannot vote on a Supply Bill or a Money Bill, cannot vote on a No Confidence Motion. He can only hear, just to talk. And this is the very thing that the PAP does not want: Opposition for the sake of opposition. Now we have it. We are voting in an Opposition just for the sake of opposition. So where is the genuineness? Where is the sincerity? For these reasons I have to oppose the motion. Thank you.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is incredible that the two Opposition Members who are supposedly advocates of a democratic form of government should oppose this motion, We have in this country an Act which allows for opposition in Parliament. I do not know whether they are aware that there is no such Constitution existing anywhere else, where you allow for opposition in Parliament even if voters in the constituency vote against the Opposition. The real reason, I suspect, Mr Speaker, Sir, why they are opposing this resolution is that they think it will undermine their position. But whether or not the Opposition is going to gain strength or weaken depends on the calibre of the Opposition Members which, I must say, leaves very much to be desired at this stage. It depends on what programmes they have, it depends on whether or not they can provide alternatives. As far as the motion is concerned, Parliament is being asked to offer the seat to Mr Tan Chee Kien of the SUF. And I would say that we leave the SUF Member to speak for himself.

I just want to register my views about N on-Constituency and Non-Elected Members. I feel that if a man is good and if the people want him, let him come in by the front door. Why do we have to humiliate him by making him come in through the back door? Who are we here to give away seats in this Parliament and to decide how many seats the Opposition should have? Let the people decide. The people have just decided that we should only have two Opposition Members, no matter how miserable they are. So let it stay that way. Why should we upset their decision. The newspaper this morning has said that some of the Back-benchers have taken the role of the Opposition and even outshine the Opposition. So why do we need an extra Opposition Member? Would he make any difference to the arguments, to the substance and to everything that we are going to bring up in this House? Criticism is what you decide it to be, and true criticism can only come from the heart of the Members speaking with their conscience clear. No one should stand here telling Members what criticisms they should make and what criticisms they should not make. You will make a mockery of this House if that is the way you behave and if that is the way you want this Parliament to behave. You can win arguments by better, sounder arguments. You cannot win arguments by stuffing words into other people's mouth and make a fantastic story out of it and say that you have won the case. I have brought up many points in my speech previously and I was waiting to be discredited. I was like Noah sitting there, waiting for the torrential downpour to drown me. And what did I get? What I got was drips and sprays from the other side. So I was waiting to be debunked. If my arguments are wrong, go ahead; debunk them. Slaughter me. Discredit me. I would be quite happy, more than happy, because if the Government can prove that I was wrong, I was telling lies, then naturally the Government has made the point and the people would be happy. And if the people are happy, I would be happy too. Why should I worry about being discredited and debunked? So, Mr Speaker, Sir, my view on this matter may sound like those of the Opposition, but rest assured that I would not go along with this one. It is the last thing I would do - to follow the way of these two feeble beings. I will vote with the Government. This may sound like politics of hypocrisy. Well, this is the rule of the game of this House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the points made by the two Opposition Members are not new. The Member for Anson was here when the Bill to amend the Parliamentary Elections Act was debated. He made the same points during the Second Reading; he tried to make the same points at the Committee Stage. The Bill was passed. It has been assented to by the President and is now law. Parliament is being now asked to exercise the power under the law. The Opposition Member is a champion of the power of Parliament. He claims to be a respecter of laws passed by Parliament and he should respect all laws, not just the laws that he likes. He claims to be a believer in democratic principles and the main principle in democracy is not what he has been claiming which, he says, is that there should be Opposition in Parliament. I do not know where he got his definition of "democracy", but it certainly does not mean that there is democracy only when there is opposition in Parliament. But even if we accept that argument that there is parliamentary democracy only when there is opposition in Parliament, will he now go and make a public statement to all the foreign correspondents, to others as well as in this House, that there is now parliamentary democracy in Singapore, because he and the Member from the other Opposition party are now in Parliament? Does he agree that there is parliamentary democracy now in Singapore?

We are going to build it.

The next thing, Mr Speaker, Sir, he will say is that he needs more Members in this House before there is parliamentary democracy. If he has more Members, he will say that he has to be in power before there is parliamentary democracy. Sir, this is like the Communists. They have their own dictionary. Words that we use, they have their own meanings. They talk of people. When we talk of people, we mean the people at large. But when they talk of people, they mean people who support them. They talk of independence; we know what independence is. But when they talk of independence, it means that only countries which are under Communist government or Communist rule are independent. They have their own dictionary. I think the Member for Anson is now in the process of compiling his own dictionary of political terms. By his definition, we are still not a parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary democracy means rule of the majority. I think this is the first point that he should note, rule of the majority. Secondly, it means periodic exercise of the people to elect the government of their choice. Do the two Members of the Opposition think, or claim, that the people of Singapore have not exercised their choice freely? Do they claim that the elections were not clean? If so, they should say so. The people have over many elections exercised their choice, and their choice has been that there should be no directly elected Opposition Members of Parliament. That is their choice. And so it should be. It is parliamentary democracy in practice. The Member for Anson cannot claim that because the people did not elect Opposition Members, therefore, there is no parliamentary democracy. It is because, in election after election, no Opposition Member was returned to this House in the normal process of first-past-the-post system, that we amended the Parliamentary Elections Act to provide for up to three Non-Constituency Members. Well, in spite of all the sound and fury of the Opposition, they managed to get only two directly into this Parliament. So we can still provide for one more. The Member for Potong Pasir, as well as the Member for Anson, has made the point that the Non-Constituency MP is a second-class MP, that he cannot do what an MP is expected to do. I thought, Mr Speaker, Sir, that politicians are practical people. They look at the practical exercise of influence and power. In what way can the two Opposition Members here do more than the Non-Constituency Member, in practical terms? Can they block a Constitutional amendment, or a Money Bill, or carry a Motion of No-Confidence? The Non-Constituency Member can move a motion on any Money Bill. He can move a motion on any Constitutional Bill; he can support a motion; he can debate a motion; and if he is unwise he can continue to say what the Member for Anson has been saying in this House. He can do everything.

Can he vote on everything?

I am talking of the practical outcome: can the vote of the two Members change anything in this House? The Government will continue to govern, in spite of all the sound and fury of the Opposition Members. So there is no practical difference. As I said, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would have assumed that politicians are practical people. Are the two Opposition Members afraid that some other party member will share what they think is the limelight that they are now enjoying? If they have no arguments against Mr Tan being deemed to be elected a Non-Constituency Member under the law, they should say so. The Member for Potong Pasir says, "Mr Tan will represent no one. Who does he represent? He represents no one." Well, if I accept his argument, can I therefore ask both of them to state quite clearly whether, in the case of the Member for Potong Pasir, he represents only the 10,000-odd voters who voted him in Potong Pasir, and, in the case of the Member for Anson, that he only represents the 9,900-odd voters who voted for him in Anson? In other words, if they claim that the 46.6% of the people in Kaki Bukit who voted for Mr Tan are not to be represented, then they themselves should not claim to represent any one other than those who voted for them in their own constituencies. And I do not think they will claim that. So if the two Members have no reason to adduce as to why Mr Tan should not be declared as a Non-Constituency Member, they should hold their peace. I think we have been quite liberal in allowing them to say what they have said because, strictly speaking, Sir, these are not matters relevant to the motion. The motion is just to implement the law. The points they made, at least in the case of the Member for Anson (he has had an opportunity to make them when the amendment was debated) were made and the Bill has been passed. It is now law, and we intend to implement that law.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, pursuant to section 51 B of the Parliamentary Elections Act (Chapter 50) -

Order. It is 1.00 pm. This Sitting is suspended until 3.15 pm this Afternoon. Budget Statement. Sitting accordingly suspended at 1.00 pm until 3.15 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.15 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion standing in my name under item No. 5* in the Order Paper. *The motion reads as follows: That this Parliament, pursuant to section 7 of the Civil List and Pension Act (Chapter 52) resolves that the schedule to that Act be varied by deleting the figures "$407,000", "$36,400", "$1,868,400", "$354,900" and "$39,900" in the second column and substituting the figures "$478,300", "$39,000", "$2,123,700", "$388,900" and "$29,600", respectively. Sir, it is proposed to increase the provisions for the Privy Purse and Salaries of personal staff to $478,300 and $2,123,700 respectively. The higher provisions are to cater for normal increases in manpower costs. It is also necessary to increase allocation for Entertainment marginally by $2,600 because of the higher estimated cost of the National Day Reception. A sum of $388,900 is required to meet Expenses of the lstana household. This is an increase of $34,000 and is due to higher expenditure on public utilities. These increases are partly offset by a reduction in allocation for Special services from $39,900 to $29,600. The drop in allocation is because of a reduction in provision for replacement of equipment. Sir, it is, therefore, necessary to vary the provisions in the Schedule to the Civil List as follows:- for "the Privy Purse" from $407,000 to $478,300; for "Entertainment allowance" from $36,400 to $39,000; for "Salaries of personal staff" from $1,868,400 to $2,123,700; for "Expenses of household" from $354,900 to $388,900; and for "Special services" from $39,900 to $29,600. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, "That this Parliament, pursuant to section 7 of the Civil List and Pension Act (Chapter 52) resolves that the schedule to that Act be varied by deleting the figures "$407,000", "$36,400", "$1,868,400", "$354,900" and $39,900" in the second column and substituting the figures "$478,300", "$39,000", "$2,123,700", "$388,900" and "$29,600", respectively."

3.17 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1st April, 1985 to 31st March, 1986. Section I The Annual Economic Survey (Cols. 513 - 804), which reports on the performance of our economy in 1984, has already been distributed to Members and the details have been widely reported in the Press. My colleague, the Minister for Trade and Industry, has also commented this morning on our economic performance. I, therefore, do not intend to go over the same ground. Instead I should like to take the opportunity in this Budget Statement to look further afield, to try and discern what will be the state of our economy in 1985 and over the next four to five years. What are the economic problems which will loom large? Where are the opportunities that we can exploit? What economic strategy should we adopt in order to enable us to continue our fast rate of economic growth and improve the quality of life of our people. Before we can chart our course for the future, we must first take stock of our present situation. The outlook for 1985 at this point of time is not as rosy as for last year. Our economic growth this year is likely to be lower than the 8.2% recorded in 1984. But growth there will be and we should not let a temporary slackness in business blind us to the very considerable progress we have made in the last five years. The Economy in 1980-84 Notwithstanding the prolonged world recession in 1980-82, the most severe the world has experienced since the Second World War, the last five years have been years of exceptional prosperity for Singapore and for Singaporeans. Singapore's gross national product (GNP) grew at an average rate of 8.5% per annum in real terms in the period 1980-84. As a result our per capita GNP increased from $9,400 in 1980 to $12,600 in 1984 at 1980 prices, a rise of 34%. As a proportion of Japan's 1980 per capita GNP of $19,100, Singapore's per capita GNP has risen from 49% in 1980 to 66% in 1984. If we continue to do as well in the next five years as we have in the last five years, we will attain our target of reaching Japan's 1980 per capita GNP before the end of this decade. Our workers have benefited substantially from this rapid economic growth. We have had full employment throughout the last five years. The highest unemployment rate during this period was just over 3%. The unemployed mainly comprised those who were in-between jobs or fresh school leavers or University graduates. Unlike the situation in almost every other country in the world, no worker in Singapore has been unable to get a job if he wanted one. With full employment and rapid economic growth the average earnings of workers in Singapore have increased significantly. After discounting for inflation, earnings have increased on average more than 8% per annum over the last five years. Consequently the standard and quality of life of workers in Singapore has improved. More Singaporeans are employed in better-paying and higher skilled jobs. With the setting up of more sophisticated industries and the diversification of our economic activities, the value-added per worker will rise further, particularly for those workers who upgrade their skills. Despite rapid economic growth we have managed to hold down our inflation at a level which is far lower than that experienced in other countries. The average rate of inflation in Singapore in the last five years was 4.9% in a period when double-digit inflation rates were the rule rather than the exception in many parts of the world. Our low rate of inflation is a direct consequence of our policy of maintaining the free-enterprise open trading system in Singapore so that our traders are able to import our requirements of goods and services from the cheapest suppliers in the world. Strong economic growth has generated a surplus in the balance of payments every year. The balance of payments rose sharply from $1.4 billion in 1980 to $3.2 billion in 1984. The Singapore dollar is regarded as one of the soundest currencies in the world. The strong confidence in Singapore by the international business community is reflected in the healthy level of investment commitments. On the average, about $1.7 billion of investment commitments were made annually in the last five years. These investments provide the cuffing edge to upgrade our industries to a higher level of sophistication thereby introducing a new range of skills and products to our economy. The Private Sector as the Engine of Growth So much for the past. What of the future? How can we continue to build on our strengths and minimise the adverse effects of our weaknesses? In what areas of economic activity do we have a comparative advantage over other countries? These are the vital questions which I will now address. By the standards of the older industrialized countries, Singapore is still a very young nation. The economies of the developed countries grew and matured over a period of centuries during which private enterprise flourished, laying the foundation for the modern industrial state to be found in Europe, America and Japan today. We have not had the luxury of time in Singapore. We are a young, impatient, high-achieving society who will not be content to wait for decades before acquiring the attributes and accoutrements of a modern industrialized society. To accelerate the pace of development it was necessary for the Government to intervene in the economy on a large scale. And over the last 25 years the Government in Singapore has ventured into areas which would traditionally have been regarded as being the preserve of the private sector and not within the province of government. In my view such intervention was necessary in order to build up our economic base. If the Government had not taken the initiative in areas where the private sector was hesitant, especially in the earlier years when the political climate was unsettled, our economic framework today would be a far cry from the strong, resilient structure which has enabled us to weather so many economic storms. The Government's involvement in business activities commenced in the early 1960s. Government then had a handful of companies under the auspices of the Economic Development Board and the Ministry of Finance. With intensified industrialization and steady economic growth, other Ministries and statutory boards started to form companies to carry out some of their operations which were more commercial in nature. The original objectives of Government companies were to promote economic growth, provide employment and to encourage domestic capital formation. But conditions have changed. There is ample capital in Singapore today and instead of massive unemployment we have a labour shortage. Policies which were correct when we were in the early stages of development are no longer appropriate now that we are on the verge of becoming a newly industrialised society. In the 1980s the engine of economic development should be the private sector and not the Government. The private sector must be encouraged to set the pace in leading Singapore to a new economic era. Towards this objective the Ministry of Finance has over the last year conducted a thorough review of Government's role in business activities. Following the review, the Ministry has decided that the following guidelines should be followed for all Government companies, including those which are owned by the statutory boards:-

3.58pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the proceedings on the item of business under discussion be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. This is to enable the Finance Minister to go beyond 4.30 pm, the Moment of Interruption.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings on the item of business under discussion be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1.

Resumption of Motion.

Sir, I shall now continue. The Singapore and Ngee Ann Polytechnics, VITB and industrial training centres and institutes operated jointly by EDB and industry have also expanded their outputs. In 1980 only 1,600 engineering technicians graduated from the Singapore and Ngee Ann Polytechnics, In 1985 this figure will rise to 3,290. As regards the VITB and joint industrial training centres, their output of skilled workers has risen from 8,119 in 1980 to 10,701 in 1985. It is this systematic infusion of skilled and trained manpower, added to the pool of existing workers who are upgrading their skills through in-company training, which gives me confidence that our economy will continue to progress and that, in due course, we shall enter the ranks of the first league of industrialized nations. Section II Mr Speaker, Sir, I now turn to the FY 85 Budget. The FY 85 Expenditure Budget emphasizes the building up of economic and social infrastructure. The allocation for infrastructural and economic development is increased. A larger provision is set aside for education and training to expand the pool of skilled, technical and professional manpower required for upgrading the economy. Substantial funds are also provided to the Housing and Development Board (HDB) for public housing. Total Government spending in FY 85 is estimated to be $18.83 billion, about $2.35 billion or 14% higher than in FY 84. This rate of increase is lower than the average annual growth of 24% over the period FY 79-83 because of the completion of a number of major development projects and restraints on recurrent expenditure growth. More than 58% of the total outlay is for economic services, education, and public housing. Provision for recurrent expenditure takes up 44% of the total budget. The allocation for recurrent expenditure for FY 85 is $8.36 billion, an increase of $875 million or 12% over FY 84. The increase is to cover higher manpower and operating costs as well as expansion of such services as education and manpower training. The rate of increase is, however, much lower than the average annual growth of 21% over the FY 79-83 period. The reduced growth in recurrent expenditure will make more funds available for development projects. Of the total allocation for recurrent expenditure, Expenditure on Manpower accounts for $1.95 billion or 23%, Other Operating Expenditure for $2.77 billion or 33%, Grants, Subsidies and Other Transfers for $1.50 billion or 18%, and Public Debt Servicing for $2.14 billion or 26%. Expenditure on Manpower is expected to go up by $289 million or 17%. A total of 766 permanent posts is provided for new or expanded areas of work, The additional manpower is mainly for new wards in existing hospitals, new schools, and extension of the Neighbourhood Police Post Scheme. The increase in the permanent establishment is partly offset by a decrease of 559 temporary and daily-rated posts, the majority of which are no longer required following the implementation of mechanization, automation, computerization and work reorganization schemes. It would be appropriate at this point to refer to the 13th month Non-Pensionable Annual Allowance (NPAA). Members will recall that during the Budget debate last year, the Acting Minister for Labour, who was then the Minister of State (Finance), agreed to take a fresh look at the long-standing practice not to pay a pro-rated NPAA in the case of those who retire on or b&ore 31 December of the year or who die while in service before that day. My Ministry has completed the review and Members will be pleased to know that, with effect from today, a pro-rated NPAA will be paid to: (i) officers who retire during the year on reaching the compulsory age limit, on medical grounds, on abolition of office or who are medically boarded out; and (ii) the dependants of officers who die in harness during the year. The rationale for extending the NPAA to these categories is that the officers leave Service due to circumstances beyond their control and, as such, they and their dependants should not be penalized. I wish to emphasize here that this is a one-time payment restricted to those who leave the Service during a particular year and is different from pensions which are recurrent. Excluding Armed Forces expenditure, Other Operating Expenditure is expected to fall by $8 million. This is because of lower agency fees to the Urban Redevelopment Authority for managing the sale of state lands on behalf of Government, transfer of major purchases and replacement of equipment to the Development budget, and a smaller allocation for fees to banks and other agencies for management of Government assets. The allocation for Grants, Subsidies and Other Transfers is increased by $172 million or 13% because of higher manpower and operating costs of statutory boards and other institutions dependent on Government financing, larger pension gratuities, and a further transfer to top up the Advance Accounts for housing, home renovation and vehicle loans to civil servants. The bulk of the increase is taken up by the tertiary and technical education institutions whose total enrolment is projected to grow by 30% over the next year. The provision for Public Debt is increased by $286 million or 15% to meet interest payments and Sinking Fund contributions on domestic borrowings which have grown in volume. The anticipated current revenue of $10.62 billion will be sufficient to meet the recurrent expenditure and leave a surplus of $2.26 billion for transfer to the Development Fund to help finance development projects. Total development outlay for FY 85 is estimated to be $10.47 billion, an increase of $1.48 billion or 16% over the FY 84 allocation, Expenditure on public housing, education and economic services takes up $9.03 billion or more than 86% of the Development budget. A sum of $5.0 billion or 47% of the budgeted Development expenditure is for the public housing programme. The allocation for economic services is $3.55 billion or 34% of the Development outlay. Of this, $2.09 billion is for land reclamation, Changi Airport expansion, development of industrial estates, the mass rapid transit system, roads and other infrastructure. Loans and capital assistance grants totalling $1.46 billion will be extended to industrial and commercial enterprises. The Development budget for education and manpower training is $480 million. This is for the school and junior college building programme, expansion of the National University of Singapore, Nanyang Technological Institute, Singapore and Ngee Ann Polytechnics as well as vocational and industrial training institutes. Section III Revenue Consolidated Fund receipts on existing tax rates are expected to amount to $10.62 billion for the Financial Year 1st April 1985 to 31st March 1986. The revenue of $10.62 billion for FY 85 represents a marginal increase of 1.6% over the revised estimate of $10.45 billion for FY 84. The main contributor to revenue is income tax, which accounts for about a third of total revenue. Because of anticipated poorer business conditions, income tax collections for FY 85 are expected to be $3.3 billion, some 8.2% lower than the revised estimate for FY 84. The decline in income tax collections will be offset by increased collections from property tax, customs and excise duties, interest and dividends and currency surplus. For FY 85, income from the Development Fund is expected to amount to $3.74 billion, bringing total Government revenue to $14.36 billion. With budgeted recurrent and development expenditure for FY 85 of $18.83 billion, there will be a deficit of $4.47 billion which will be financed by borrowings and drawing down from the Development Fund.

Payroll Tax and Tax on Telecoms Telephone Bills I now move on to the tax changes. In an Addendum to the President's Address at the Opening of Parliament, I stated that one of the objectives of the Ministry of Finance was to simplify the tax structure wherever possible. In line with this objective and to alleviate the burden of costs on companies, I have decided to suspend, with effect from 1 April 1985, the collection of: (i) Payroll tax and, (ii) Tax on telephone services and on trunk-call services to West Malaysia. The loss in revenue from these two sources is estimated at $176 million for FY 85. In Section I of my Budget Statement, I mentioned that the greatest promise for Singapore in future years lies in the area of sophisticated services, particularly banking and finance, tourism and technical services. I intend to give incentives to encourage the growth of these activities. 10% Concessionary Tax Rate for Asian Currency Unit (ACU) Income When the 10% concessionary tax rate for ACUs was introduced in 1972, it was limited to income from the booking of offshore loans in Singapore. With the growth of financial services, the concession was similarly extended to cover new instruments and activities. Banking services have diversified from more traditional areas into fee-based activities. I am therefore extending the 10% concessionary tax on ACU offshore income to cover the following categories of income with effect from Year of Assessment 1986: (a) Income earned by ACUs from providing offshore guarantees, performance bonds and standby letters of credit, (b) Commissions and other income such as custodian and nominee fees, handling and registration charges earned in respect of transactions on behalf of non-residents (excluding permanent establishments in Singapore) in foreign stocks and shares and other securities denominated in foreign currency and issued by foreign companies defined for the purpose of this concession to be companies which are not incorporated in Singapore or Malaysia, (c) Commissions and other income earned in respect of offshore remittances, and (d) Income earned in respect of offshore transactions involving interest rate and currency swaps. Stamp Duty Stamp duty on offshore loan agreements was abolished in 1980. The exemption covered stamp duty payable in respect of assignments of an interest in such offshore loan agreements, provided that the assignor was an ACU in Singapore. Thus, an assignment made by a person outside Singapore to an ACU in Singapore, for example, would not enjoy the stamp duty exemption. In order to further promote the growth of the Asian Dollar market and to encourage banks to use Singapore as their regional loans management centre, I am removing the restriction that the assignor must be an ACU in Singapore, with immediate effect. In view of the rapid changes in financial services offered by banks and the intro- duction of innovative financial facilities, there is also a need to extend the stamp duty exemptions. I am therefore exempting with immediate effect not only offshore loan documents from stamp duty but also documents involving other offshore credit facilities such as under-writing facilities, letters of credit (including standby letters of credit), guarantees and performance bonds. Entertainments Duty To encourage the tourist industry in Singapore I have decided that, with effect from 1 April 1985, duties on entertainments, with the exception of racing of animals, vehicles, motor vessels or aircraft, will be reduced to 10%. With your permission, Sir, I would like to table a schedule showing the revised duties (Appendix I (Cols. 505 - 506). [Copies distributed to Members.] The revenue loss for FY 85 is estimated at $26 million. Appendix I - ENTERTAINMENTS DUTIES (Cols. 505 - 506) I also propose to remove the existing legislative control on cinema admission prices so that prices will be dictated by market forces. This is in line with our policy of less Government regulation of private enterprises. It will also remove the existing anomaly whereby cinemas are the only form of entertainment which is subject to price control. Income from Professional Services rendered Overseas To encourage our firms and professionals to be more aggressive in exporting their expertise and services, I intend to give more favourable treatment than at present to income repatriated from certain countries. Currently, all income earned abroad and remitted back to Singapore is subject to Singapore tax. Where there is an Agreement for the Avoidance of Double Taxation (DTA) with the country of income source, Singapore will give a tax credit for taxes suffered overseas. This tax credit will be offset against the Singapore tax payable on the "grossed-up" foreign source income. However, there is no tax credit if income is remitted from a non-DTA country. In such cases, Singapore will tax the net income which has been remitted. Therefore, income which has been remitted from a non-DTA country suffers additional tax in Singapore. I now propose to extend a unilateral tax credit to service income remitted from certain non-DTA countries. With such a tax credit, where the income is remitted from a country with a rate of tax equal to or higher than Singapore's, no additional tax will be paid in Singapore if taxes have been paid overseas. Where, however, the income is remitted from a country with a lower rate of tax, it will be subject to Singapore tax, but credit will be given for overseas taxes paid. Even if some Singapore tax is payable, it will be less than what is due under the present system. This concession which will take effect from Year of Assessment 1986 will cover income from professional services such as accounting, legal, medical, engineering, architectural, computer-related, technical and other consultancy services rendered by firms and individuals. Tax Changes for Individuals In last year's Budget Statement, I announced substantial reductions in personal income tax rates and estate duty. With these reductions I am satisfied that the taxation of personal income and capital in Singapore today is equitable and not unduly onerous. I therefore do not propose to make any major tax changes for individuals this year. However, I would like to assure Honourable Members that the Government will review on a continuing basis the level and distribution of the tax burden. We will make adjustments when necessary to correct for inflation and to ensure that initiative and enterprise are not blunted by too high levels of income taxation. Tax Deductibility of Certain Educational Expenses for Individuals There is, however, one area of personal initiative which, in my view, deserves encouragement. Individuals who take the time, effort and expense to improve their skills and knowledge should be rewarded. In particular, those individuals who are in employment and take up pan-time or correspondence courses, or those who give up their jobs temporarily to further their education should be helped. I have therefore decided to allow tax deductibility of expenses incurred by individuals in pursuit of further academic and professional qualifications, or vocational qualifications related to their business, trade or employment. Tax deduction will be allowed for compulsory course fees, including examination fees, and will be subject to a maximum of $2,000 with effect from Year of Assessment 1986. No claims for textbooks, travelling or living expenses will be entertained.

Road Taxes on Motor Vehicles Finally, I will deal with the tax increases. In my Budget Statement last year, I mentioned the need to restrain the growth of the motor car population in Singapore in order to contain the problem of congestion on our roads. As a result of the substantial increases in registration fees and road taxes on cars, petrol duty and car park charges since October 1983, the growth of the motor car population was reduced from 12.1% in 1983 to 7.3% in 1984. However, this lower rate of increase is still much higher than the projected increase of about 3% per annum in the road network over the next 3-5 years. In view of this, I have decided that with effect from tomorrow, road taxes on motor cars and goods cum passenger vehicles will be increased by 15%. The revenue gain for FY 85 is estimated to be $32 million. Duty on Petrol I have also decided to raise the ad valorem duty on petrol from 50% to 60% with effect from today. This is one of the most equitable ways of discouraging excessive usage of motor vehicles and is in line with Government's energy conser- vation policy. The gain in revenue in FY 85 will be about $135 million. Diesel Tax on Taxis The diesel tax of six times the annual road tax has been levied on diesel-powered private motor cars since 1971. However, no diesel tax is imposed on diesel-powered taxis. Over the years, customs duty on petrol has been increased to restrain the growth of the motor car population. There was no similar increase in duty on diesel. This has resulted in a severe disparity in fuel cost between petrol and diesel operated vehicles. As diesel-powered taxis do not pay diesel tax, the fuel cost of taxis is unrealistically low compared to that of petrol-powered private motor cars. This is undesirable because taxis take up as much road space as other motor cars. Therefore, with effect from 1st October 1985, I propose to extend the diesel tax of six times the annual road tax presently applicable only to private motor cars, to all diesel-powered taxis. The revenue gain for FY 85 will be about $37 million. Details of the above increases in road taxes and consequent increases in taxi fares are set out in the Ministry of Communications and Information's statement (Appendix II (Cols. 507 - 512) which, with your permission, Sir, I will now distribute to Honourable Members, [copies distributed to Members.] Appendix II - MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION PRESS RELEASE (Cols. 507 - 512)

Mr Speaker, Sir, in contrast to last year's Budget, when I gave large concessions in personal income tax rates and estate duty to individual taxpayers, the focus of this year's Budget is on the corporate sector. This change of emphasis is deliberate. I expect 1985 to be a testing year as companies adjust their operations and trim their manpower to cope with a less buoyant economic environment. Some sectors may do less well than others. But we have the necessary reserves to ride through this bumpy period and Government will ensure that our economic poli- cies are sufficiently flexible so that no sector gets into major difficulties. But while coping with our present difficulties, we should not let ourselves be deflected from our long term objectives. In 1980 the Ministry of Trade and Industry put forward an economic development plan for the 1980s with the following broad economic targets:-

The Question is, "That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1st April, 1985 to 31st March, 1986." In accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 84, the debate now stands adjourned. Debate to be resumed on what day, Dr Tan?

On Monday, 18th March, 1985, Sir.

So be it.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to Monday, 18th March, 1985." - [Mr S. Dhanabalan]. Adjourned accordingly at Half past Four o'clock pm to Monday, 18th March 1985. Appendix I - ENTERTAINMENTS DUTIES (Cols. 505 - 506) Appendix II - MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION PRESS RELEASE (Cols. 507 - 512) Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document.