Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad he has made the point that he is not against that. As a matter of fact, I am all for it. But, as I said, I am a practical man. He is a well-known economist and I think I can take it further, he is more on the theoretical side. On the other hand, Sir, I will take up the issue of materialism, as I see it. After all, he is a good friend of mine. On this question of materialism, he has said that this had led to a sharp decline or reduction in the birth rate. I do not agree with his clarification there. The sharp reduction in the birth rate is the result of the success of the PAP Government's policies. First, equal opportunities for all on education. Secondly, as pointed out by the Member for Rochore, there is the question of abortion, ie, abortion on demand. In other words, abortion was made readily available in the Government hospitals or private hospitals and even in other private clinics. On the third point, unfortunately the hon. Member for Rochore is not here, otherwise I would have to ask him when he made mention that the PUB has got a captive market and that the cost of water is too high; in other words, the tariff charges on water are too high. Here, I am not replying on behalf of the PUB although I am a Board member but I shall come to it later. I would like instead to pose him the question as to whether or not he really understands how much it costs to get the water piped through, from raw untreated water into your homes so that when one turns on the tap, the water is potable. In fact, I would go on to say that the cost of treatment of water is quite high and the tariff charges are not commensurate with the costs. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I now come to the Budget statement delivered by the Hon. Minister for Finance last week. The balancing act performance of the Government in seeking ways and means of reconciling the budget in terms of revenue and expenditure takes on a new dimension. The tax changes, though not numerous and complicated, do show a shift in fiscal policy, particularly for 1987. Revenue yield from an increase in duties on bets, cigarettes, tobacco and liquor is expected to total some $88.8 million. In addition, Government has now decided to transfer $1.5 billion in FY 87 from the accumulated reserves of the statutory boards to the Consolidated Fund and it also requires statutory boards to pay into the same Fund an equivalent to what they would have paid if their annual operating surpluses had been taxed at the corporate tax rate of 33%. I shall come back, Sir, to this point later. But may I come to the question of consumption tax which has been referred to by earlier speakers. Apart from this tax, Government has also decided to introduce a longer list of individual items in preference to a comprehensive consumption tax at this point of time. The Hon. Minister has indicated that the public must be prepared for such an eventuality when we are faced with a permanent budget deficit. Therefore, Sir, he argues that there is an eventual need for a comprehensive consumption tax which must be seen in the overall context of Singapore's economic imperatives. I fully agree with him on this point but I would like to ask that for such introduction to be made it must be done on a selective basis. This is to be viewed from two angles. First, the domestic needs of our people, and second, the importance of the tourist industry in our economic growth. The tourist industry in Singapore is definitely a plus for our economic growth and Singapore has been featured as a shopper's paradise, and this point has been made by the Member for Whampoa. I come to the question of the domestic needs of the people, with particular reference to selectivity on consumption tax list. We have seen a steady rise in the standard of living and change in the lifestyle of our people in the last two decades or so. Our people can afford to have more in all respects. Therefore, the question of selectivity of items is pertinent to the item-by-item approach at this point of time. In short, I hope that the people kept informed and are persuaded to accept this policy as a necessity and also be prepared, as stated by the Hon. Minister, for a comprehensive consumption tax in the future. In other words, Sir, I welcome the setting up of a Consumption Tax Division under the Inland Revenue Department to look into the collection of such taxes. Previous speakers have also touched on the question of incentives to encourage procreation. But I would like to touch on other areas concerning this new policy on procreation and how to succeed. If I may venture to suggest, one possible area is the question of time, in the sense that time should be given for hospitalization and confinement or the care and upbringing of the children in the first two or three years. These are critical years. I am glad to note that Government has taken the first step by announcing incentives to allow working mothers in the civil service to have more time-off to look after their children. And I do hope the private sector will also respond positively in the same manner. Here, I hope the Government should seriously consider whether it is necessary to set up a committee comprising the various private sectors, the Finance and Health Ministries, with the objective of making recommendations on how such a policy can get the positive response and support of the young people as well as to monitor the success of these incentives. In respect of the latter, the public also need to have the Government's assurance that this new policy is here to stay and will not be reversed in future. In short, public confidence is necessary. Mr Speaker, Sir, mention has also been made about the policy on foreign workers and the levy scheme. I am glad the Government has decided to allow a con- trolled revolving pool of foreign workers on short term work permits to remain even beyond 1992 and the sectors involved are manufacturing, hotel, construction and domestic. But for so long as these sectors continue to rely on foreign workers as a result of a shortage of local workers, such a policy would only help alleviate the shortage for a time. As our dependence on foreign workers does bring about social problems, I would urge that there be a constant review governing the issuance of work permits. Otherwise I foresee social problems. An illustration was made by the Member for Rochore just now when he said that work permit holders are under the impression that after five years of working here they can get married. Yes, they can, but they have to apply. So there is a big difference between a right and a privilege. There is no right. This is the problem that I am addressing the Hon. Minister too. In this respect, Sir, I would also like to ask the Minister whether he would consider asking the manufacturing, hotel and construction sectors to make every effort to recruit local workers for the necessary jobs in the various areas and to give them the necessary training during employment (or what is known as learn-as-you-earn scheme). Needless to say, Sir, the manufacturing sector is an important and integral part of our economy and so is the hotel industry in the promotion of tourism. Whereas the construction industry may have suffered somewhat in the last two to three years, surely the industry can take advantage of this slowdown to consolidate itself and to upgrade by way of introducing new forms of mechanization or new building innovations which other developed countries have already been doing for some years now. In this respect, Sir, I want to make a plea for the reduction of the levy, particularly for foreign workers in the construction industry. This may seem contradictory to my observations but I am informed that some foreign workers in this sector are more ready to accept longer hours of work since the wages are better and they come here because of this need. Hence, they work harder. Thus, in making these suggestions, Sir, it is envisaged that our dependence on foreign workers in the sectors mentioned will be reduced somewhat. Hence, I am optimistic that Singapore can achieve its objectives if we are conscious of the undesirable social consequences of having to rely on foreign workers all the time. In short, the local skills pool in all these industries must be continuously developed and upgraded. Now, Sir, I come to this question of surpluses of statutory boards. The Minister for Finance's decision to transfer the surpluses of statutory boards, which have been accumulated in excess of their development needs, to the Government's Consolidated Fund is indeed timely and I do support this policy. But in doing so, we must not forget the primary objectives of setting up the statutory boards and the services they provide to the nation. Sir, I have stated earlier that I am a Board member of the Public Utilities Board and I have been there since the last five years and am still serving on the Board. What I want to point out is this. I am not speaking on behalf of the PUB, the Board, nor its members. So the views I express are the views I want to share with Members of the House and they are purely my own. Because of this appointment to the Board, I have become aware of the tremendous amounts of capital that have to be invested from year to year to provide a reliable and efficient supply of electricity, water and piped gas to the public and to continue to make improvements on these services. Whilst the surpluses may seem to be large, nevertheless the surpluses have always been insufficient to cover the capital expenditure programme and over the years the Board has had to borrow substantial sums from the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and other financial institutions to help finance development projects. And these loans, of course, have to be repaid at market interest rates. In this respect, Sir, I hope the Government in implementing its new policy would not merely look at the surpluses per se, but also into the extent these surpluses are required by the statutory boards to be ploughed back to finance the capital development which is necessary for the improvement of their services to the nation. So let us take the case of the Housing and Development Board. The HDB was set up in 1960 and charged with building homes for the people and even better homes for our citizens. At that time, homes for the people was one of the main and numerous preoccupations of the PAP Government which had been voted into power in the 1959 general elections. The acute shortage of housing and the replacement of the Singapore Improvement Trust (SIT) by the Housing and Development Board saw the acceleration of housing programmes on five-year plans. So lands had to be found for the high-rise blocks, slums had to be cleared and people had to be persuaded to cooperate and make way for this major development programme. In short, to meet the challenges and to surmount the problem of public housing, Government had to expend large sums of monies in the form of subsidies, capital grants and loans to the HDB. And it is only through the Government's continued assistance that we have subsidies to the public housing projects that our citizens today have been able to own their homes. More than 80% of our people live in HDB flats today. Indeed, the success of our public housing programme is a showcase in the region, if not the world. So year in year out, hon. Members need only look at the amounts of monies voted to subsidize the HDB for its operations and grants and loans for its housing projects to be able to see for themselves that there is an obvious need for continued Government assistance. On the other hand, other statutory boards such as the Port of Singapore Authority (PSA), Telecoms and Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore have, with less extensive government assistance, not only performed well and produced good track records but have even accumulated large operating surpluses in recent years. But, Sir, I see the success of the statutory boards as a result of the autonomy they enjoy. With operations and decision-making entrusted to the integrity of a selected few, these statutory boards were set up at considerable public expense, not to mention the MRTC. In my view, Mr Speaker, Sir, the statutory boards are well and efficiently run and make acceptable returns. We make no apologies for this. They have come a long way since their inception and it is only right and just that they be taxed on their returns, as with other corporations. It is only right, but I would nevertheless suggest, that the Government implement this new tax policy with caution. As I have said earlier, Mr Speaker, Sir, some statutory boards need loans to help finance their capital development projects because the surpluses are not sufficient to finance their development projects, and some are only sufficient for partial financing of their projects. With this new policy it would not be unexpected of statutory boards to now maximize the use of their surplus in funding development projects. Sir, another point I wish to make is that statutory boards cannot and should not be compared to private corporations where the directors receive substantial fees and allowances. Appointments to the statutory boards are made by the Government through the respective Hon. Ministers and each member on the Board is paid a nominal allowance. Some even forgo this allowance and serve gratis. So what I am trying to emphasize, Sir, is that the people who serve on these Boards merely take it as a privilege to be called upon to shoulder responsibility of their appointment and to make contributions to the nation. They do not expect rewards and, suffice to say, they will be satisfied, at the end of the day to see a job well done. This means that the remuneration of the Board members is negligible compared to that of the private sector. Therefore, Sir, when I suggest caution in the light of my observations, I just want to draw the Hon. Minister's attention to this point: that if it is imperative for surpluses to be transferred to the Consolidated Fund account, would it not be better to require only those statutory boards which have surpluses for which there is no justification to retain them or such surpluses have already been channelled into areas not related to the objectives of the statutory board concerned, these surpluses are to be paid into the Consolidated Fund account. I know of one statutory board which has invested some of its funds by way of shares in a public company. Therefore, Sir, I would urge the Hon. Minister to consider a selective recovery of statutory board surpluses, and such selection based on the extent to which each statutory board relies or does not rely on the surpluses in meeting the objectives of that Board. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope that by bringing up these points, the public will become aware of how the statutory boards are run. And in conclusion, I support the motion in the Hon. Minister's name.