PRESIDENT'S SPEECH Debate on the Address

Debate resumed.

Question again proposed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

5.02 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications (Mr Phua Bah Lee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion of the Prime Minister thanking the President for his speech.

The President in his speech has warned us of the serious problems that will have to be faced. All sensible people will take this warning seriously. With the British withdrawal, we will not only be losing a major source of income, but will also have to meet heavy expenditure to build up an adequate defence force within a short period. These are no small problems and it will be foolish to pretend that they are. Some of the steps to overcome these difficulties are explained in the Addendum to the President's Speech and in the Ministerial statements. These will minimise the effects of the British withdrawal, but it will be too much to hope that the normal standard of life to which we are accustomed will be unaffected. With the loss of a major source of income and the expenditure of a large portion of our resources on defence, there will be less available for consumption. We must therefore be prepared for a more Spartan life during the transitional period of the next five or ten years until our economy has stabilised under new conditions.

Adapting ourselves to new conditions may not be easy. Giving up luxuries which we used to take for granted may not be pleasant, but they are small sacrifices for a better and more secure future.

History has shown us that whether a nation will prosper or perish depends on its ability to change and adapt. Even great nations had floundered and gone into oblivion for clinging to old ways that no longer suited changed conditions.

The Employment Bill which seeks to regulate terms of employment to meet the challenges of today is, therefore, to be welcomed. No doubt it will not be well received by those who make it their purpose of life to expend the least effort and to grab as much as possible by abusing every privilege that is available. Such people are not only unfair to their employers, but also to society at large and, finally to themselves as well. Under conditions of a colonial administration where the Government tried to exploit the country and employers tried to exploit workers to the full, attempts to get their own back on their employers were excusable. Such behaviour, however, is unpardonable in an independent country striving for survival. Here every one must pull his weight. There can be no place for passengers.

I also welcome the proposal to extend the range of contributors to the Central provident Fund to mobilise savings. The need for increased funds to meet the heavy cost of measures to counter the economic effects of the British withdrawal has been explained in the statement by the Minister for Finance.. Mobilising savings by increasing the number of contributors is one of the most painless ways of doing so.

Though it is not the intention, the extension of contributors to include Government servants has also the effect of remedying the situation of Government servants having inadequate savings on their retirement. As an ex-civil servant, I know how modest is the sum known as gratuity which a Government servant gets on retirement. An officer who had reached the very top found, on his retirement, that his gratuity was insufficient even to buy a modest house. The Provident Fund contributions will be a very useful addition to what an officer will get under the Pension Scheme.

Mr Speaker, Sir, while on this subject, I wish to correct a wrong impression which the hon. Member for Punggo1 might have created when he said that by including Government servants as contributors to the Central Provident Fund, a Government servant will then benefit three ways for his services: namely, pension, gratuity and Central Provident Fund contributions. What is commonly known as gratuity payable to a pensionable officer on his retirement is actually no more than an advance of pension, which is recovered from the retired officer by paying him a reduced pension. Therefore, it is part of pension and cannot be deemed a separate benefit.

Inche Mohd. Ghazali Bin Ismail (Aljunied): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I beg to support the Prime Minister's motion of thanks to the President for his speech at the opening session of Parliament on Monday last. The President in his speech has outlined three important objectives which the Government will strive to achieve over the next five years. The three objectives constitute fundamental issues which must be achieved by the people of Singapore if we truly want to see Singapore succeed and the country capable of standing on her own feet and capable of defending her independence and sovereignty until the end of time. What we have to do now is to utilise every second available to us to strengthen our country's defences. At the moment, we have already a strong army. We need also a powerful navy and air force. Together with Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand and Britain, we hope our country will have an effective defence capability which can not only ensure the security of our nation but also be able to contribute to the security of this part of the world. In fact, Singapore's security cannot be divorced from the security of the whole of Southeast Asia. The Second World War has proved that when Singapore capitulated to the enemy, the whole of Southeast Asia fell to the enemy. With modern equipment now available, we can easily imagine that if Singapore falls into enemy hands, not only will Southeast Asia fall but the entire region of Australasia will face the same catastrophe. This demonstrates the importance of our having defence co-operation with all Commonwealth countries in this part of the world. We must have an adequate defence capability to ensure political stability in this region.

In the next five years, we will be confronted with a multitude of problems which will affect our lives. For us every problem has its solution. Let us say to history, "We will decide on your destiny and not vice versa." Any nation that allows history to determine its destiny will become bankrupt and decadent. Let us determine the course of history. Let us influence history. We should not allow history to influence our destiny. If we can move ahead of history we will forever be safe. We will forever prosper and forge ahead. If we do not wish history to decide on our destiny, we must have a disciplined society, a society with collective leadership such as we have today. We need to have a society which can be likened to an army. If we succeed, it will be a victory for all the people of Singapore. If we fail, it will be a defeat for them.

Mr Speaker. Sir, events have shown that we are well on the road to success. I believe that the three objectives enunciated by the President in his speech will be brought to fruition. The next five years shall witness the establishment of a disciplined and rugged society, but efforts must also be made to ensure the creation of a productive society.

I would like to propose that we must now start to consider the possibility of having as our future slogan the establishment of a productive society. We must be productive in economy and productive in politics. We must also be socially and mentally productive. But for God's sake, let us be less productive in human procreation.

5.16 p.m.

Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee (Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the President's Speech and the Addendum to the speech in general. But I should also ask to be allowed to say a few words on the objectives of the Government as outlined in the President's Speech. That economic growth, especially in the direction of increasing productivity, be the Government's objective is praiseworthy. That high morale, internationally or internally, be another objective is also praiseworthy. The fact is that high morale and economic growth go hand in hand. In order that the people can be spurred on to greater efforts towards the economic growth and prosperity of the nation, the people's morale must be kept high. I am referring to the high morale consequent upon the confidence which

Mr Speaker: Mr Cheong, can you speak a little slower? I think the interpreters are having some difficulty.

Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee: Yes, Sir,I am referring to the high morale consequent upon the confidence which the people will have in being able to seek a better and higher standard of living. For it must be remembered that while the Government may measure economic growth in terms of the gross national product, the ordinary citizens measure economic growth in terms of per capita income. Further, income is here seen not just in terms of dollars and cents and what that money can buy, but also in terms of what may be broadly called fringe benefits. Sad to say, it is in the proposed Employment Bill that Government policy is cock-eyed. Take the extension of the 39-hour week to a 44-hour week. We are all aware that a high percentage of the economically-active population are unemployed. Even way back in 1965 we had a labour force of 573,000 of whom 502,400 were employed. On the basis of the recent Sample Household Survey and population projections, a total of 827,775 is estimated to be the labour force in 1977. This works out to be a labour force growth rate of 3.5 per cent per annum between 1966 and 1977. This, it may interest the House, is 1.3 per cent higher than the decade from 1957 to 1966, the decade which represents the full impact of Singapore's population explosion. Incidentally, who says that Singapore's population is not productive? In short, if our labour force in 1977 is to be completely employed, something like 308,000 additional jobs will have to be created.

Sir, the basic premise of the proposed Employment Bill is "to enable a wider spread of employment". This, if I may be allowed to say, is a laudable objective, bearing in mind that we have a high rate of the population dependent on the earnings of only a comparatively small income-earning group. This goal of the Government, if achieved, will go towards promoting economic growth and raising morale.

How, it may be asked, does it bring about high morale? It is evident by way of an illustration that a man with five mouths to feed will surely feel greatly relieved when his son gets a job, let alone the prospect of a bigger family income. The fact that there is one dependent less to feed means that there is more to go round the rest. Therefore, the Government's objectives of economic growth and high morale cannot but gain high commendation. But does the proposed legislation of a 44-hour week help in any way towards achieving these two objectives? Further, does it in any way help towards a wider spread of employment? Sir, I respectfully submit that it does not. I am, of course, not unaware that certain categories of workers are presently engaged on a 44-hour week. Extension of the present 39-hour week involves the working of an additional five hours per week per worker. Assuming that 50 per cent of our employed labour force of 502,000 put in the additional five hours per week, this would total 1,255,000 hours per week. If these workers had continued with the existing 39-hour week, about 32,000 additional jobs could be created. Sir, I repeat 32,000 additional jobs. This is surely a figure to reckon with in terms of economic growth and high morale.

On the question of regulation of over-time, I should like the House to see this in the light of the proposed 44-hour week as against the 39-hour week. The additional five hours per week that would be so affected represents a loss of five hours per week of overtime earnings. This is certainly not a situation conducive to high morale. I do not suggest for one moment that excessive over-time should be encouraged in the face of massive unemployment. But the basis upon which excessive over-time must be curbed is so that people can be employed and national income may be increased. The basis is not for the purpose of exploitation of labour. Yet this is what it will amount to if overtime work is curbed on the one hand and hours of work are extended on the other.

I fear, that this so-called comprehensive Employment Bill that is to come is nothing but a cock-eyed and retrogressive policy. It is to be noted that among the measures to be implemented in order to achieve the objective of economic growth is one which seeks to "limit certain fringe benefits to lessen abuses and increase productivity". I propose to deal with the aspect of productivity first.

It is agreed that the ultimate goal of increased productivity is to raise the standard of living, not the cost of living. In other words, such a drive is calculated to achieve greater economic growth and high morale. This is certainly another laudable move. The success of a productivity drive may best be evidenced in the lowering of prices of goods and services. It has been mentioned earlier that the sum total of a man's high morale constitutes, amongst other things, not merely his income, but rather what his money can buy. Is any drive to increase productivity likely to result in lower price levels? I humbly submit, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the chances are not too bright. At least not unless some form of price control is established. I submit the following reasons for maintaining price controls which are necessary before lower domestic prices can result:

(1) Protection of infant industries, necessitating the imposition of import quotas and restrictions. This results in an immediate rise in prices of commodities, i.e., a price mark-up.

(2) When these same commodities are produced in Singapore, the prices are the same, if not higher than the marked-up prices.

(3) Even when productivity is increased by virtue of the smallness of the local market, the producers are not likely to demonstrate their concern for lower prices of their commodities. In short, coupled with the continued protection of industries, a take-it-or-leave-it attitude will prevail. Who then benefits from increased productivity? Not the workers who have sweated for it and not the consumers in the domestic market. For these reasons, there arises the urgent need for a system of controls which will make it imperative for producers to lower their prices. If such a system of controls is not established to give an assurance of just rewards, it is not unreasonable to say that our workers will participate in this productivity drive with suspicion. For it would be a fair question for them to ask, "Why should I sweat it out so that my employer can make more exorbitant profits at my expense?"

Incidentally, it should be borne in mind that many of these ventures are either foreign-owned or joint ventures with high participation by foreign capital. The outflow of profits would, therefore, affect our balance of payments position.

On the question of limiting certain fringe benefits to lessen abuses, I should like to hazard a few guesses as to what this would mean. It would mean that paid annual leave will be reduced. As to how much is another question. It would mean that a number of paid public holidays will be out. It would mean that the worker's entitlement of sick leave will be reduced whether drastically or not is to be seen. Sir, I am wondering what the Government seeks to drive at by limiting such fringe benefits. Does the Government hope, along with the proposed 44-hour week, to provide a wider spread of employment? If the answer is in the affirmative, then I beg to submit that something has gone wrong with my little head and the heads of many people who share my view.

The effects of limiting fringe benefits are not inconsequential in terms of morale as well as money. When examined closely, this is tantamount to a subtle wage cut. Mr Speaker, Sir, I repeat - a subtle wage cut. I am not an economist, but the House will recall that not so long ago the necessity for expenditure was emphasised, expenditure to counter recession. The necessity for expenditure was argued on the ground that "expenditure generates income and creates employment". My argument is this. In order to spend, we need income. If income is cut, how much can we spend? Further, as presented earlier, there is the argument for non-extension of the 39-hour week on the ground that additional jobs will then be created. With the availability of jobs and income, expenditure is forthcoming. All this results again in the creation of further employment, greater economic growth and high morale.

I am not unaware of the proposed second Central Provident Fund contribution which, for the purpose of collective bargaining, would count as part of the wage bill. But I have doubts whether this compulsory contribution will be able to offset the losses that arise with the proposed Employment Bill. The spate of retrenchment has grown quite alarmingly. I fear that the proposed Employment Bill will aggravate the situation, not mentioning the temptation of management to misuse their authority. In this connection, I would support the hon. Member who spoke before me and would urge the Government to consider seriously the setting up of a retrenchment and! or unemployment insurance scheme. The ranks of the unemployed are already massive without the retrenched workers swelling their ranks. The price we have to pay for such a restive, displaced and literate population is too heavy. In many developing countries, Marxist theory has won great appeal. Our task is to see that this threat does not become real. If radical changes must come, be it in the Employment Bill or elsewhere, I plead that this threat be borne in mind.

Finally, the proposed additional Central Provident Fund contributions are indeed commendable. I should like to consider this in relation to the civil service employees when they resign. The present Government regulations are such that when an employee resigns, he does not get a cent by way of gratuity or accrued retirement benefits. This is the case irrespective of whether the employee has served five or 15 years. We are all agreed that such regulations are trappings of a colonial era intended to exploit the workers in a colony. We are further agreed that the Government, being the largest employer, must be a model employer in terms of fairness and justice to its employees. I maintain that if the Government is a government of the people, it must rid itself of the vestiges of colonial trappings and give its employees a fair deal. I therefore urge the Government to consider granting gratuities and such other relevant benefits when their employees resign.. Forfeitures may possibly be made where an employee resigns in order to avoid dismissal. Such entitlement then may be put into the proposed second Central Provident Fund contribution scheme.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have stated at the outset that I have only a few words to say, but perhaps I ought to amend that by saying that I have had quite a few words to say. I should like to end here as I began, by saying that except for the views expressed by me, I support the President's Speech.

5.34 p.m.

Mr Lim Guan Hoo (Bukit Merah): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, every head of state of a country has to make a policy statement. Perhaps in some countries, the delivering of the policy statement will be merely an official ceremony. Singapore is now an independent Republic after 150 years of existence, and the President delivered the policy statement at a time when new faces appeared in this House to instil a new spirit into the leadership of our country. This is a milestone in our social development and it also reflects the direction of the social development and changes that will come about. We do not have to wait for five years to judge the results and the worth of the policy statement delivered by the President because it is well planned. At the same time, we have a strong and dynamic leadership and, therefore, we can foresee the results of the policy statement.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the President's Speech has made us understand that not only is our society changing but the whole of South and South-east Asia is also changing. We must be awake to this situation. We must recognise our attitude and the work we are doing, which are factors that contribute to the changes. Although we cannot foresee future events in detail, we can make use of existing factors to create favourable conditions and guide the trend of events in a direction that is more favourable to us. In order to achieve this, we must first consolidate ourselves. The more stable our society, and the more consolidated we are, the greater will be our influence over these changes. I call this trend stabilising strength. Generally, when we talk about stabilising strength, we do not mean just economic and defence strength. The comparative strength in party politics should also be taken into account. The present phenomenon of one party in this House is also a valid reflection on the comparative political party strength. But this comparative strength comes within a constitutional scope. The existence of one party in this House and the near unanimous opinion of its Members should not be interpreted as the proportion of the comparative political strength among the people to be 100 to one without any latent or apparent opposition force. But it cannot be denied that the existence of one party in this House can adequately reflect the comparative strength between the majority party and the minority extremists. In fact, the victory of democracy is normally defined by majority support. Our democratic victory is true and reliable, because the existence of only one party in this House is the result of the general consent of the people of Singapore through democratic elections.

Another reason lies in the fact that in the history of Singapore since 1946 - two decades ago - political victories could only be won through constitutional channels. Constitutional victories have been won by the democratic socialists. Such examples are not lacking. On the other hand, we do not see many such victories going to the Communists. It is very seldom that they have achieved victory through constitutional means. Today, we know that our democratic victory has been achieved in a series of waves which are not isolated from one another. Our victory has been won on a constitutional basis. But the changes in turbulent South and Southeast Asia and even in larger international confines are not entirely in keeping with constitutional development. For instance, the war in Vietnam is not a constitutional war. Not one bomb dropped in Vietnam is done constitutionally by a prior statement to that effect. Many of my colleagues and I appeared on the political scene when politics reached a decisive stage at a time when there was a struggle against the Constitution. Some of us went through the constitutional upheaval when Singapore withdrew from Malaysia. We should, in our minds, make certain preparations to meet the changes, whether our feeling is one of hardship after the trials and tribulations or one of great daring after overcoming these difficulties. The greater our achievements, the greater is our need for making these preparations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak more about these preparations. The first concept in making these preparations is to have the fullest control over the time and human factors so that we can progress as fast as possible. In this respect, we cannot remain static in our approach or adopt a wait-and-see attitude. We should try to progress as fast as possible. We should try to run a 3,000-metre race at a speed as if we are running a 100-metre race. It is only in this way that we can ensure our survival. This principle is known by many of our neighbouring countries. We are not the only people who know about this. We are endeavouring to develop aviation whereas our neighbouring country, Malaysia, is already negotiating a civil aviation agreement with Indonesia and relaxing some of the restrictions on aviation. Furthermore, Indonesia is prepared to train Malaysian pilots. Mr Speaker, Sir, when we are doing this, we cannot help thinking that we are a small country. In terms of manpower, we should equate one man to 100 men. In terms of expenditure, we should equate $1 to $100. In other words, we should try to achieve maximum results at a minimum cost. In terms of time, one year to us should be longer than 100 years to other people. Of course, this does not mean that we live in a fairy land where seven days are equated to 1,000 years. Rather we should try to strive for the highest value in every respect.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I go on now to the second concept in making these preparations. Put simply, it is this. Our basic standpoint should be inflexible, but in strategy we should be flexible. If we make these preparations, even though we have won our constitutional struggle, we will not be like the Romans in history who, while they were still dreaming beautiful dreams, were invaded by the barbarians and as a result, their civilisation was destroyed. Although they preserved the Justinian Roman law or legal code, it was no use to them. One of our objectives should be to try to have the constitutional supersede the unconstitutional. When we talk about flexibility, I think we should take note that in our Parliament we have only one party. This, however, is not contrary to the spirit of democracy. It is merely an expression of democratic strength which has led to the creation of a somewhat unusual situation. The main reason is that the democratic system has a certain tradition which is based on the Westminster model. Therefore, by comparison, our democratic system is rather new. We should therefore adapt ourselves, in concept and in theory, to the democratic system. In any case, although we have only one party in Parliament, this does not mean that we have a one-party autocracy. Our constitution still provides for an Opposition party and it can enter Parliament by taking part in democratic elections. What the Communists want is a one-party autocracy. If our party were a one-party autocracy, we would have gained the praise and support of the Communist Party. However, the slanderous and derogatory remarks made by the Communists on Parliament show that we do not have a one-party autocracy.

Mr Speaker, we know that in transplanting the democratic system from Western soil to Asia, there are difficulties involved. These can be likened to the difficulties that beset a heart transplant. For example, in the case of Burma - the Chairman of the Revolutionary Council of Burma, General Ne Win, came to Singapore recently - social democracy was practised at one time. But later they had to abolish the traditional election system. In fact, in some developing countries in Africa, there has emerged one school of thought which holds that the one-party system rather than a multi-party system is necessary during the transitional period between independence and stability. For example, in Kenya, there was practice of a one-party system for some time before the multi-party system was revived in the face of great stability. In Tanzania, we can see the present practice of a democratic one-party system. What is the feature of the one-party system? It is the intoleration of Opposition parties. This is quite different from the system that we have in Singapore. Here, apart from the party in power in Parliament, there are Opposition parties outside Parliament. This is a clear indication that we are not practising a one-party dictatorship.

Mr Speaker, in a democratic system, we should be more concerned with the multiplicity of political parties. There should always be one or two political parties strong enough to take over the reins of government. However, the multiplicity of political parties would mean the emergence of a feeble coalition government followed by the tragedy of a coup d'etat and the abolition of the democratic system itself. For example, in trouble-stricken Congo there were at one time about 200 political parties in existence. But their existence did not bring any happiness or benefit to the people. Instead the existence of so many parties brought crises and troubles. In Singapore there are about 20 political parties, both active and dormant. In so far as the democratic system is concerned, this is not necessarily a bad sign. We are still in good health.

Mr Speaker, whether a new Opposition party will emerge in Parliament in the l970s is a question for the future. At the present juncture, we need not over-emphasise the advantages of a one-party Parliament. If we do have to emphasise it, we can very well say that in a small nation like Singapore surrounded by other countries, we do require a strong and invincible party in power in Parliament. If we do have to explain why there is the emergence of a one-party Parliament in Singapore, we can very well say that it is because of the enlightened leadership in our party. It is because of the obvious achievements which we have made, and which are well known to everybody, that it is no wonder that we have been able to sweep the board of all the 58 seats. These are not matters which we should argue about. We should, however, adopt this attitude; we must accept a one-party Parliament as a fait accompli. Then under the democratic arrangements we must try to do better than a multi-party Parliament. In any case, we should try to do no less better than a multi-party Parliament. At the present moment, there is no Opposition in our Parliament, but the reform and the reorganisation that the present Government is seeking to carry out is beyond the imagination of any Opposition party, even if one were to turn up. Furthermore, we have new blood in our Parliament and we have made our Members of Parliament more representative by choosing them from all walks of life. In the President's policy speech we can see that there is determination to seek improvement and changes. We have no desire to rest on our laurels. All these are indications that even without an Opposition, we are capable of marching forward. This has been the point raised and agreed to by Members of Parliament when they support the motion of thanks.

Mr Speaker, I now wish to deal with some points raised by several Members of this House. The Member for Punggol and the Member for Jurong have mentioned the difficulties of some fishermen who, when they went out for deep-sea fishing, were themselves whisked away by pirates. I remember on the 24th January last when Parliament sat, these same Members raised the same question that they are raising today. I would like them to read the report in Hansard concerning this matter. The answer given by the Minister of State concerned is still valid. There has been no change. What I would like to explain to this House is that the Ministry of Defence has now strengthened the marine patrol system which will improve the situation. There will be more patrol boats to handle this kind of situation.

The Member for Ulu Pandan has mentioned the two-year military training under the national service scheme for university and college students, and he requested that the period of training should be reduced to one year. He said two years would be a waste of their knowledge. But I would say that we are still growing and the youths are still growing. So this is the best time for us to contribute our strength. What we need at the moment is not a very large army but a small army of regulars supported by a large reserve of national servicemen. We are adopting the principle of quality and not quantity. If we want quality, two years' military training may not be too long for university or college graduates to man our future army. If we look at the Hitler type of hair-do of the Member for Ulu Pandan, we can know that he is frustrated by the considerations he has in mind. But we must, first of all, consolidate our defence, so that everybody will have a sense of security, before we can put all our talents to better use. If we are faced with the problem of national security, even if we have enough graduates with a wealth of talent, we cannot make full use of that. When a country does not exist, where can its people use their talent? Their capability and knowledge cannot be used at all. The best one can do is to compile statistics to show how -

6.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker: Mr Lim, I am afraid you will have to conclude your speech tomorrow. It is six o'clock now, and pursuant to the resolution made earlier today, the House will now rise. The debate will be resumed tomorrow.

Adjourned accordingly at Six o'clock p.m.