The text
PERMISSION TO MEMBERS TO BE ABSENT Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:- Mr S. Chandra Das - from 28th February to 2nd March and on 7th March, 1994. Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap - from 2nd to 5th March, 1994. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong - from 2nd to 4th March, 1994. Mr S. Dhanabalan - from 3rd to 8th March, 1994. Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam - on 3rd March and from 13th to 19th March, 1994. Mr Loh Meng See - on 3rd March, 1994. Mr Davinder Singh - on 7th March and on 10 March, 1994. Dr Wang Kai Yuen - on 7th to 8th March, 1994. Encik Yatiman Yusof - from 9th to 12th March, 1994. Mr Chng Hee Kok - from 9th to 10th March, 1994. Dr Ow Chin Hock - from 21st March to 4th April, 1994. Mr Koo Tsai Kee - from 25th to 29th March, 1994. Mr Lim Hng Kiang - from 28th to 30th March, 1994. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore
ASSENT TO BILL PASSED The following Bill was assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated: 26th February, 1994 Singapore Armed Forces (Amendment) Bill 1994. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore
REVISION OF TIMES OF PARLIAMENT SITTINGS - (Announcement by Mr Speaker) Order. I wish to place on the record that I have, pursuant to paragraphs (3)(a), (5)(a) and (3)(b) of Standing Order No. 1 [Sittings of Parliament], revised the commencement time of sittings to 1.30 pm and the moment of interruption to 5.30 pm and made consequential revisions to times mentioned in the Standing Orders, to take effect from today's sitting, until further notice. These revisions have been notified to hon. Members and will appear in the Official Report (Cols. 551 - 552). Official Report - REVISION OF TIMES OF PARLIAMENT SITTINGS (Cols. 551 - 552)
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS - USE OF ABACUS IN SCHOOLS asked the Minister for Education whether he will promote the use of the abacus in schools.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS - USE OF ABACUS IN SCHOOLS Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry is conducting a pilot project on the teaching of abacus in seven primary schools starting in May this year. Based on the outcome of the pilot project, my Ministry may promote the teaching of abacus in more primary schools. In this project, Primary 3 pupils will be taught abacus skills in addition and subtraction to reinforce their understanding of relationships between numbers and the concept of place values. The pilot project will also evaluate the effects of abacus teaching on pupils' attitude towards the learning of mathematics. The training of teachers will take place in March and April after which the abacus will be taught during mathematics lessons for one period or 30 minutes per week over four months. As the learning of abacus skills is to enhance the learning of mathematics, it will not be an examinable subject.
RMCA REINSURANCE LTD - (Reasons for suspension) asked the Minister for Finance (a) what are the reasons behind the suspension of a trustee stock, RMCA Reinsurance Ltd; (b) who are its controlling shareholders; (c) how many investors have used their Central Provident Fund savings to purchase the shares; and (d) whether there is a chance for these investors to get back some of their money invested.
RMCA REINSURANCE LTD - (Reasons for suspension) RMCA Reinsurance was admitted to the Stock Exchange Main Board in 1988 and became a CPF trustee stock in the same year. At that time, the company had a paid-up capital of $20 million and a three-year profit record which met the SES listing requirements fully. On 11th September 1991, RMCA Reinsurance requested the Stock Exchange to suspend its shares from trading pending the announcement of its results for the financial year which ended on 30th June 1991. The company had incurred a loss of $56 million in that year due to heavy claims for damages caused by natural disasters, including the Hurricane Hugo in the United States and Storm Daria in Europe and losses in its Asian reinsurance business. Insurance companies worldwide suffered losses on their reinsurance contracts as a result of the unusual severity and frequency of natural disasters in recent years. The $56 million loss reduced RMCA Reinsurance's equity to $9.6 million which was far short of the US$25 million considered adequate in the international reinsurance market. As RMCA Reinsurance was liable for claims on various reinsurance contracts still in force, the $9.6 million equity was insufficient to cover the potential claims. The company therefore requested the Stock Exchange to continue the suspension of trading of its shares while it re-assessed its future direction. Since then, the company has stopped writing new businesses and the suspension of its shares has remained till today. The company lost another $82 million in FY 92 and $10 million in FY 93. RMCA Reinsurance is 30% owned by the Insurance Corporation of Singapore (ICS) and 20% by Sime Darby Singapore Ltd. The remaining 50% of the shares are held by the public. As at 11th September 1991, the date of suspension, 2,120 CPF members used their CPF savings to purchase a total of 5.423 million RMCA Reinsurance shares. The shares were traded at 90 cents per share just before its suspension. After the suspension of RMCA Reinsurance shares from trading on 11th September 1991, the company ceased writing new business and conducted a review of its operations. The company concluded that it has no reasonable prospect of returning to profitability. On 1st October 1991, it appointed a run-off manager, RMCA Pte Ltd, to oversee an orderly run-off of the company's reinsurance liabilities. Subsequently, the company engaged insolvency expert Messrs Cork Gully of Coopers & Lybrand to independently assess the company's position and find ways to resolve its financial predicament. On 20th September 1993, upon the advice of Messrs Cork Gully, the company's board proposed to its shareholders a Scheme of Arrangement under section 210 of the Companies Act. The Scheme sought to avert an involuntary liquidation of the company and provide an early commutation of all claims against the company. Although RMCA Reinsurance would have no assets left after the Scheme is implemented, it will preserve the company as a corporate entity with a listing status. The Scheme was approved by the shareholders at an Extraordinary General Meeting on 6th October 1993. It has also been approved by the company's creditors and is now subject to the approval of the court. Although RMCA Reinsurance is not to be wound up, it will have no assets left after the Scheme is implemented. Its shareholders will not receive any distribution. Thus, their RMCA Reinsurance shares are likely to be worthless.
RMCA REINSURANCE LTD - (Reasons for suspension) Sir, does that mean, even if ICS belongs to Temasek, as long as it is a normal course of business, and it has gone bust, whether it is a CPF trustee stock or non-trustee stock, the investing public has to accept the fact that there is a risk involved?
RMCA REINSURANCE LTD - (Reasons for suspension) The answer is yes. ICS itself is 49.8% owned by DBS Bank and not by the Government directly.
RMCA REINSURANCE LTD - (Reasons for suspension) That would also mean that for all future investments in Government companies, the Singapore investors have to open their eyes that the Government will not bail them out even if it is directly owned by Temasek.
RMCA REINSURANCE LTD - (Reasons for suspension) I think this must be the case.
SHARE INVESTMENT - (Education and publicity) asked the Minister for Finance, now that the Government has succeeded in getting over 1.4 million people interested in shares, whether it will spend money to further educate the population on proper share investment as against share speculation through a sustained publicity blitz.
SHARE INVESTMENT - (Education and publicity) Mr Speaker, Sir, as part of Government's programme to promote widespread ownership of valuable national assets, Government ran a month-long share education programme just before the flotation of Singapore Telecom. The programme was aimed at educating Singaporeans on the essentials of share ownership. Its key message was that while shares would broaden an individual's range of assets and could be valuable long-term investments, there were risks involved and prudence should be exercised in selecting the companies to invest in. The programme was successful in encouraging more Singaporeans to own shares. Before the ST flotation, only 250,000 out of 1.9 million adult Singaporeans had ever bought any shares. Of the 700,000 CPF members who qualified for the CPF Approved Investment Scheme, only 120,000 had actually bought shares under the Scheme. For the ST flotation, 1.4 million Singaporeans subscribed for and were allocated shares in the company. In view of the coverage and success of the programme, there is no need for Government to launch another programme on share investment in the immediate future. If there is a need to, it can be done again when other Government agencies are subsequently privatised. Let me stress again that Government is not compelling or inducing anyone to buy shares. The share education programme was to help Singaporeans make informed decisions about whether to invest in shares, taking into consideration their family circumstances and financial resources. They must learn that share prices can go up and down, and choose carefully which companies to invest in. They should take a long term view, and not enter the stock market for quick gains. Most importantly, they should avoid buying more shares than they can afford, or borrow to speculate. Investors must recognise that the higher potential return from stocks and shares reflects the greater risks involved, and should therefore be prepared to risk losses when markets turn down or companies get into difficulties. However, investors who buy good quality shares in markets with strong fundamentals should be able to ride through market fluctuations, provided they have not bought beyond their means with borrowed money.
UNUSED/EXCESS MOTOR CYCLE CERTIFICATES OF ENTITLEMENT - (Allotment to other categories of vehicles) asked the Minister for Communications whether he has decided on how the unused/excess motor cycle Certificates of Entitlement are to be allotted to the other categories; and if he will allot a good proportion of these COEs to goods vehicles and buses.
UNUSED/EXCESS MOTOR CYCLE CERTIFICATES OF ENTITLEMENT - (Allotment to other categories of vehicles) Mr Speaker, Sir, a total of 5,157 unused motor cycle Certificates of Entitlement (COEs) has been frozen since 29th January 1994. The Government has announced that it will redistribute this to other vehicle categories. The formula for conversion and distribution of the unused motor cycle COEs has yet to be finalised. It will be announced together with the quota allocation for May 1994 to April 1995.
UNUSED/EXCESS MOTOR CYCLE CERTIFICATES OF ENTITLEMENT - (Allotment to other categories of vehicles) Would the Minister consider a weekend category for commercial goods vehicles and buses for delivery purposes outside the normal trading hours? Would such a category be allowed for those who do their delivery outside the normal trading hours as they do not jam up the roads? It will be cheaper for these small businessmen to own the vehicles.
UNUSED/EXCESS MOTOR CYCLE CERTIFICATES OF ENTITLEMENT - (Allotment to other categories of vehicles) Currently, as the Member knows, there is a category for private car owners under the weekend car scheme. We have not received any request for such a category for commercial vehicles. However, if there is such a request, we will consider it.
TRAFFIC INTERCHANGE AT UPPER SERANGOON ROAD/BOUNDARY ROAD - (Construction) asked the Minister for National Development whether plans for the construction of a traffic interchange at the junction of Upper Serangoon Road and Boundary Road have been finalised and, if so, how it will affect existing buildings in the area, including the Braddell Heights Community Centre.
TRAFFIC INTERCHANGE AT UPPER SERANGOON ROAD/BOUNDARY ROAD - (Construction) Mr Speaker, Sir, plans for the interchange at the junction of Upper Serangoon Road and Boundary Road are being finalised. In the proposed plans, it is envisaged that some of the existing buildings near the junction will be affected by the project. For the Braddell Heights Community Centre, the frontage of the site will be affected.
TRAFFIC INTERCHANGE AT UPPER SERANGOON ROAD/BOUNDARY ROAD - (Construction) Sir, how many residential units will be affected and how are they going to be resettled and compensated?
TRAFFIC INTERCHANGE AT UPPER SERANGOON ROAD/BOUNDARY ROAD - (Construction) The details on the number of residential units or shop units affected have not been finalised. When it is finalised we will make it known to the people affected. Under such a road widening project, the land will be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and the compensation and procedures will follow accordingly.
TRAFFIC INTERCHANGE AT UPPER SERANGOON ROAD/BOUNDARY ROAD - (Construction) When will these residents be informed about the project?
TRAFFIC INTERCHANGE AT UPPER SERANGOON ROAD/BOUNDARY ROAD - (Construction) Sir, as you can well appreciate, in such a project, the Public Works Department makes every attempt to minimise the impact on the surrounding area. So they have to draw up their plans carefully and make sure that they do not take more land than is necessary for the road widening project. When that is finalised, we will inform the MP of the area and we will coordinate with the Member and let the people affected know.
TRAFFIC INTERCHANGE AT UPPER SERANGOON ROAD/BOUNDARY ROAD - (Construction) I notice there is already provision for the development of the interchange in this year's budget. I suppose the project will start very soon. How soon can I know the answer?
TRAFFIC INTERCHANGE AT UPPER SERANGOON ROAD/BOUNDARY ROAD - (Construction) For budgeting purposes, we have indicated the project will start this year. When the project is finalised, we will let the Member know. I assure the Member that he will be the first to know.
RESIDENTS IN WELFARE HOMES FOR DESTITUTE AND AGED PERSONS asked the Minister for Community Development, of the 1,380 residents in welfare homes for destitute and aged persons in 1993, how many of them were in homes run by voluntary and religious organisations; and whether their stay was free of charge.
RESIDENTS IN WELFARE HOMES FOR DESTITUTE AND AGED PERSONS Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Bukit Gombak may have obtained the figure of 1,380 destitute and aged persons from the FY 1994-95 Budget Book. This is only an estimate of the number of destitute persons likely to reside in the three welfare homes administered by my Ministry in FY 93/94. As at 28th February this year, there were actually 1,341 destitute persons living in the three Government homes, ie, Woodlands Home for the Aged, Woody Lodge and the Pelangi Home, and all of them stay in these homes for free.
BILL INTRODUCED - SUPPLEMENTARY SUPPLY BILL "to provide for making supplementary provision to meet additional expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1993 to 31st March 1994", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.
ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [23rd February, 1994), "That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1st April, 1994 to 31st March, 1995." - [Minister for Finance]. Question again proposed.
ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Finance. I would also like to thank the Minister for his generosity. First of all, I would like to report the mixed reactions of the public to the Budget Statement. The Feedback Unit conducted a dialogue session on the Budget Statement on 28th February. Most of the participants felt that this Budget should be welcomed by the people because there are many goodies given to the people, for example, personal income tax rebate, HDB service and conservancy charges and rental rebates, and also the $300 for the CPF share ownership top-up scheme. I think our people will welcome these goodies. However, some representatives from the business community expressed their disappointment over this Budget because the corporate tax has not been further reduced. On the other hand, they were worried that the increase of 1.5 percentage points for the employer's CPF contribution would further increase labour cost. Most of the participants of this dialogue session have reached a consensus, that is, they are concerned with the impact of the forthcoming GST. The union and community leaders, academics and professionals are more worried about the profiteering and inflation that may come with GST. But the businessmen and employers are worried about the GST compliance cost. From these different reactions and the press reports, we can come to one conclusion, that is, "The more you give, the higher would be the expectation. What was given last year does not count. If you give less this year, there will be a lot of hue and cry." No doubt, asking for more is a natural reaction. But the Government should be very prudent and careful in dealing with this matter, that is, not to allow the people's expectation to be raised too high, and to take for granted that every year, there would be some hong bao and gifts to the business community and the ordinary citizens. The Government should also let the people realise the reasons for giving all these concessions. In my view, the reasons for giving these concessions in the past few years are mainly two-fold. Firstly, to improve our competitiveness and to stimulate our economy. Secondly, to return the wealth to our people according to our economic performance so as to encourage our people to work harder and to upgrade their skills. For example, the reduction of income tax in 1993 and the GST to be implemented are measures to promote our competitiveness through tax reform. The second example, for last year and this year, the various tax incentives given to the finance and other industries and the incentives for overseas development have the primary objective of increasing our GNP. The third example is the CPF Share Ownership Top-Up Scheme. Its aims are to return the wealth to our people, to reward the people for their past contributions, and to encourage them to strive for excellence. Mr Speaker, Sir, now let me talk about the implementation of GST. With regard to GST, the biggest fear among the people is profiteering and inflation that may come with its implementation. How to contain inflation rate at below 6% is the main challenge facing the Government. The Government will not only have to prevent businessmen from using GST as an excuse for profiteering, but also to pay attention to the fact that inflation may lead some unions and workers to demand for higher wages, thereby triggering a price-wage spiral. Most of the participants at the dialogue session also suggested that the Government departments and statutory boards should freeze their fees and charges for the next two years. Otherwise, it would undermine the Government's moral authority to persuade the businessmen not to increase prices at random. Furthermore, if the Government departments and statutory boards continue to increase their fees and charges, it may create an impression among people that "we allow only the magistrate to set fire, but disallow the people even to light their lanterns" ( ). The business community is very concerned that in order to collect GST for the Government, it has to incur additional costs. The business representatives at the dialogue session felt that the Government had underestimated the private sector's cost in this aspect. They also feel that they are merely acting as collection agents for the Government, so the Government should compensate them for their expenses incurred. Now, let me go on to the issue on external economy. Apart from the amount of our investments abroad, the size of our external economy can also be measured by factor income from abroad. In 1993, our income from abroad was $1.23 billion as compared to $1.37 billion in 1992. I wish to ask the Minister for Finance: what was the reason for this decline? At the same time, I like to know, from the $1.23 billion income from abroad, how much of it came from the public sector's investment overseas. In the Budget debate last year, I mentioned about the mutual repellence between civil servants and the entrepreneurs. This point was raised in the two dialogue sessions held by the Feedback Unit with the entrepreneurs on venturing abroad. Coupled with my personal interaction with the entrepreneurs, I have now a better understanding of the local enterprises, particularly the small and medium enterprises, and their complaints and reservations on partnership with the Government-linked companies. The private sector feels that GLCs are slow in making decisions. They think that there are three reasons for this. Firstly, because the people in charge of these GLCs are mainly civil servants. They are more careful and prudent. For every project, they need to have a feasibility study conducted before they commence action. Secondly, it is the same group of civil servants who are managing the Government-linked companies. They have to participate in rounds and rounds of negotiations. They are very busy and they have to travel all over the places - China, Vietnam, India, or Myanmar. If they are not overseas, then they are in the meeting rooms. Therefore, they are unable to make "quick" decisions on various projects. Thirdly, the Government-linked companies are participating in too many projects. So for particular projects, they lack the sense of urgency and the motive of quick completion. Apart from being slow, the entrepreneurs also observed that despite their "golden reputation", when these Government-linked companies go overseas to negotiate for projects and investment plans, they may not necessarily secure the most favoured terms. Also, some of these entrepreneurs are not quite happy with the attitude of the civil servants because the civil servants are used to being the "regulators". They have given people the impression that "you have to beg them, they would not beg you". On top of that, some civil servants who are in charge of GLCs are not familiar with the local situation and they lack the tact necessary for business dealings. Very often, these have resulted in some unnecessary obstacles and delay, even to the extent of spoiling the whole project. Despite that, I still believe that the Government should have some means to narrow the gap between the private entrepreneurs and the Government-linked companies. In fact, they should complement and supplement each other. At the same time, the Government should play the catalytic role through these Government-linked companies and statutory boards for our overseas ventures. The private entrepreneurs have also complained that the local banks are too conservative in their management style. They insisted that the local assets should be used as collateral for loans for overseas development. This has resulted in our entrepreneurs who are venturing overseas having to bear double risks. Some of them thought that this might be the requirement stipulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. I hope that the Minister for Finance will be able to clarify this point. More importantly, how are we going to allow our local entrepreneurs to use their overseas assets as collateral for loans? The entrepreneurs felt that the conservative style of our local banks is not in line with the Government's encouragement for our local people to venture overseas. They also suggested that the Government should consider setting up an overseas development bank at this critical moment, or to set up an overseas development fund with the banks to provide loans and thus spread the risk. In my personal view, the Government should do its best to assist our local entrepreneurs to venture overseas. The Prime Minister and the Senior Minister have been making many overseas trips to look for opportunities for Singaporeans to venture overseas. This is the Government's greatest assistance to our local entrepreneurs to venture overseas. This political goodwill is indeed an intangible asset for our overseas ventures. Some entrepreneurs who go overseas for development are prone to complaining that they do not enjoy protection under the local laws, the lack of transparency of regulations, and the frequent changes of government policies. As a result, they have to take very great risks and sometimes they do not even know what to do. These entrepreneurs should realize that if these countries have all the comprehensive legal framework and regulations, strict enforcement of the law and consistency in policies, then they would not need our investments for development. To put it simply, when we go to these countries where the development policies are still in the groping stage, we are trying to find an equilibrium in a disequilibrium situation. While we encourage Singaporeans to venture overseas, we cannot hollow out our domestic economy. We must not only maintain our economic competitiveness, but also continue to attract foreign investments. I notice that the investment commitment from foreign sources in the manufacturing industy has steadily increased from $1.63 billion in 1989 to $3.15 billion in 1993. Recently, a foreign consortium has committed a $3.5 billion investment commitment in the petrochemical industry. This is encouraging. The Economic Development Board has put in a great effort in this aspect, and we must compliment EDB for that. I also notice that from 1989 to 1993, in the same period, the local investment commitments have fluctuated very much. I understand that the nature of investment is volatile. But why is it that the local investment commitment has fluctuated so much more than the foreign investment commitments? Does it mean that there has been a diversion of investment to foreign countries? Mr Speaker, Sir, let me deal with the next topic, ie, the role of government. The Minister for Finance said in his statement that the Government has a role to play in economic development. Although we rely on market forces, the Government needs to intervene in several areas such as education, skill training, upgrading of economic structure and the provision of a stable environment. I agree with the Minister for Finance. The Feedback Unit has also discussed the issues relating to market forces and Government intervention with the community leaders. I noted that many people do not quite understand the operation of the market forces. More people ask for the Government to intervene in public housing, public transport, education and health care by providing subsidies. But, on the other hand, for any government intervention measure that affects their own pocket or to increase the Government's coffers, such as the foreign workers' levy and the COE, they will inevitably express strong objection and dissatisfaction. All over the streets, in coffeeshops, in restaurants, people discuss these matters. Many people want to know how much the Government has collected in these two areas. I note that in terms of fees and charges last year, the Government has collected $3 billion. How much of this came from COE and the foreign workers' levy? I would ask the Minister to give us some figures on these two items. Although the Minister did not put it explicitly, it is in fact quite clear that there is Government intervention in the distribution of income and wealth through subsidies on education, health care and social services. On 11th March last year, in answer to my question, the Minister said that because of the tax rebate and the lowering of tax rates, 74% of our residents will not have to pay any direct tax. In other words, from 1st April this year, although every consumer has to pay GST, the income tax burden will be shouldered by fewer taxpayers. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some statistics to compare the changes in the number of taxpayers and tax collected for different income groups before and after the implementation of the Goods and Services Tax. In this way, our people will be able to understand better how the Government has redistributed wealth and income in order to benefit the lower income groups. The Minister has also referred to the surpluses and reserves in his Budget Statement. This year, the estimated surplus is $2.2 billion which is much lower than the $6.97 billion for last year. Over the past two years, most of the surpluses were put into the Edusave Endowment Fund, Medifund and the CPF Share Ownership Top-Up Scheme. The Pension Fund to be set up will also be getting some of these surpluses. On the other hand, our reserves reached the level of $77.87 billion last year. However, this apparently massive amount of money can only sustain six months of imports. Furthermore, it is also lower than our GNP of $90.23 billion of last year. It is just like a family with savings of less than one year's income. I agree with the Minister for Finance that in good years, we should put more surpluses into our reserves for emergency use. Reserves and surpluses belong to the State and the people, not the Government. The Government only collects and manages the funds. It collects taxes and charges on behalf of the people in order to pay for defence, social services and economic development. The money does not go into the pockets of the Ministers or the civil servants. It is only when the country enjoys prosperity and when the people are wealthy that the coffers will be enriched. It is very vicious and vilifying to say that "the Government has money but the people have none." In conclusion, in the short-term, the Government's task ahead is to deal with the impact of GST. But over the long term, the Government has to face three challenges: (1) how to focus the people's attention on our national competitiveness, to build up our external economy, and to address the issue of our aging population; (2) how to manage the rising expectations of the people. The Government cannot ignore the wishes and views of the people. But at the same time, the Government should not try to please everyone with material incentives. (3) how to strengthen the bond between the people and the Government. In this respect, we should enhance our people's national consciousness, the family concept and the moral values of the individuals. At the same time, the Government must make greater efforts to explain its policies so as to convince the people, to win their minds and their hearts. The Government should also adopt a caring attitude and take practical actions to help citizens who are not regarded as elite so that they will also understand that they have a part to play and a contribution to make. As for those poor and unfortunate people, the Government should provide assistance with warmth. Mr Speaker, Sir, the way to govern is to implement benevolent policies ( ). The tactic to govern is to win the hearts of the people ( ). As it is said, "He who wins the heart of the people, wins the universe." ( ). This is the lesson of a few thousand years. We must never never forget the teaching from history.