ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [5th march 1980],

"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year lot April, 1980 to 31st March, 1981.". - [Mr Goh Chok Tong, Minister for Trade and Industry].

Question again proposed. 2.45 p.m.

Mr C.V. Devan Nair (Anson): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Budget session is always the season for scapegoats - a hunting spree which inspires enthusiasm on both Front and Back Benches, but perhaps a bit more on the Back Benches.

We might start by asking what the origin and meaning of the "scapegoat" is. It derives from ancient Hebrew. Among the ancient Jews, a goat was sent into the wilderness on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, bearing the iniquities of the people which are symbolically laid on its head by the High Priest.

I have not been able to discover what happened to the goat thereafter. But we might reasonably suppose that at least some of the crowd, both priestly and profane, must have followed the poor goat, thus burdened with the sins of the community, into the wilderness, chopped its head off, feasted on the mutton, and felt purified until such time as they became sufficiently defiled by the next Atonement Day, when they would look for another goat to bear their sins and to feast upon.

There is one particular scapegoat (or scapegoats) I am interested in; not in pursuing it into the wilderness and to feast upon the mutton. On the contrary, I am interested in taking a long overdue swipe at those groups in our society who have been saying unkind things about these scapegoats. For if they are sent into the wilderness, Singapore would perish. I refer, Sir, to our entrepreneurs, technocrats, professionals, skilled workers and political leaders who have between them securely laid the material foundations of our social and economic well-being.

Sir, the Minister was able to present the kind of budget he did because the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues never allowed themselves to live in cloud-cuckoo land. Beginning May 1959, when the PAP first took the reins of power in Singapore, they grappled with economic realities, not with ideological or metaphysical abstractions.

From the word "Go", their primary preoccupation was how to generate wealth, and how to garner and use wealth productively for social, educational, housing, health, cultural and developmental ends. In order to do this, they developed a realistic respect for wealth-generating factors, including the wealth generators themselves.

And they never regarded profit as a dirty word, as something sordid and unspiritual. The healthier the profit position of an enterprise, whether private or public, the better for the workers, for the public exchequer, and therefore for Singapore as a whole. Profiteering is a dirty word, but not profits. And that is why the NTUC founded CASE and the Government helps to fund it.

Also vitally important to economic progress was the fact that neither the political nor the trade union leaders subscribed to the imbecile egalitarian creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. Societies which adopted this creed are today the broken-back societies of the Third World, but it would be invidious to name them. In Singapore, both the individual and the notion as a whole must earn their keep. Performance, merit, productivity, the international and national market value of the skills or expertise involved - and not the rules of the lucky draw - determine a person's earnings.

Let our budding breed of new writers, poets and "back to the Beyond" philosophers also chew on the fact that foreign investors come to Singapore with their technology and their marketing skills, not because of the quality of our poets and philo- sophers but because of the quality of our social and economic infrastructure, the skills of our workers, and the assurance of a healthy return on their investments.

Let everybody also be assured that nobody in the political leadership regards affluence and economic well-being as ends in themselves but as the necessary material foundation for the development of higher intellectual, cultural and spiritual appetites in our people.

Some distinguished modern spiritual leaders, in both East and West, have affirmed that the higher things of life cannot exist or develop on empty bellies, on poverty and squalor. If the PAP Government had started off with poetry and philosophy, none of our poets today would be able to poetise the way they do, none of our liberals to liberalise the way they do, and none of our philosophers to philosophise the way they do.

One would have thought that all the simple basics I have listed are accepted as axiomatic in Singapore. They are not, and I will explain why.

One of the less desirable by-products of our increasing affluence and better education are the snooty arty-crafty types, who denounce materialism and materialists. And when they refer to materialists, they are not merely thinking of our Foreign Minister's "Ugly Singaporean" whose religion is moneytheism, who sees wealth as an end in itself, who is completely self-centred with no social concern whatever, and whose tastes in music, art and literature are vulgar in the extreme.

On the contrary, according to the snooty arty-crafty chaps, even the word "technocrat" is a term of abuse. And mere politicians like all of us in this House, from the Prime Minister downwards, belong to a lesser breed, people who think in mechanical terms, and are completely divorced from the rarefied worlds of art, music and literature in which these higher spiritual beings float about. They even turn down their lofty spiritual noses on something which we lesser breeds desperately seek for the physical survival of Singapore - technology.

Fortunately for Singapore, these bogus mystics of the spirit are in the minority. And they let off their verbal blasts against the materialistic and mechanical types like us, without taking the trouble to do their homework. Equally fortunately, because of the hard-nosed sophistication of our electorate, any one of these loafers of the spirit would lose his deposit if he stood for election. However, because of their glibness and their great capacity for verbal gymnastics, they do have a capacity to mislead those of our young people who take the arts and the humanities as their field of study.

The scapegoat seekers I have in mind come from the now breed of writers in Singapore. Not all of them, mind you, but at least some of them, especially those whom I have called the arty-crafty types. I know at least one of them, a Singapore citizen, who goes into raptures when leader writers of the Manchester Guardian take one of their regular, vicious and ignorant swipes at Singapore and our Prime Minister, but maintains a morose and sullen silence when Singapore speaks out against its foreign detractors.

Before I wade into these gentlemen (and ladies!) I might offer my own credentials. In doing so, I know that the position I will take will be shared by the generality of Members in this House.

I am ignorant about Singapore writers who use Mandarin, Malay or Tamil as their means of expression. But I have gone through a good number of those who offer their literary creations in English. A surprising number of them write well, and deserve praise and encouragement. No society is complete without its literati. So may they increase in number and flourish! But what some among the literati do not seem to appreciate is that no literati will be possible, without the rest of society, including our much-maligned entrepreneurs, technocrats and other "materialistic" types who are responsible for the foundation of material well-being in our society, and for the solid material launching pad from which our literati are able to shoot up into their ethereal spiritual orbits.

A good number of our poets, for instance, have managed memorable lines, and some even memorable verses of a sustained high quality. But alas, an equal number of them have also produced execrable stuff which they attempt to palm off as poetry. These are the confidence tricksters of literature - apes of style, barren of substance, and devoid of sincerity. And they exist in all societies. Only, we seem to have more than our fair share of such posturing humbugs. We could do with less. I would not mention names, but those who squirm when they read this in the papers tomorrow, will know whom the cap fits.

I might confess that I am temperamentally incapable of responding to some kinds of poetry, and the fault may be my own lack of receptivity. For instance, verses which offer me the erotic ecstasies which the poet has experienced, leave me unexcited. But this may be because with increasing age, some of my glands do not function as efficiently as they used to.

Along with our writers, there have also emerged the literary critics. Here, there appear to be two schools, one a club of mutual masturbators, who are constantly praising each other's works, and the other of critics who use hatchets with great vigour to chop up matchsticks.

In this connection, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I toll the Minister of Education that I was alarmed to learn that in our secondary schools, a number of our local poets are read during appreciation of poetry sessions. I am alarmed, Sir, because I know a number of them who ought not to be read at all. I would submit that until such time as we develop in Singapore nationally as well as internationally credible standards of literary criticism, it would be safer to introduce our children to English poetry through universally acknowledged models of poetic content and diction like Wordsworth, Shelley, Milton, Shakespeare, and so on. I mean this seriously, for if I find that my daughter who is in secondary school now, develops depraved tastes in poetry, I may feel obliged to sue the Ministry of Education.

I will now say something about the credentials of the generation which made the Singapore of today, which the next generation will inherit. We must give these credentials, so that the arty-crafty dodgers of reality are not allowed to denigrate the virtues and, if I may say so, the passion, which went into the making of modern Singapore.

The Singapore we know today, warts and all, and are justifiably proud of, is not the product of our sins. It is the product and image of the virtues of a whole generation of people. What were some of the crucial collective experiences which went into the making of this generation?

They were children or adolescents during the great Wall Street collapse of the early 30s, followed by the Great Depression.

I remember that as an eight-year old boy, my unemployed father with my mother and seven of us children (There was no Lee Kuan Yew then to say "Only two", and a decent interval in between. There was hardly any interval between us.) were forced to live for nearly two years in a dilapidated garage near Muar. And we did not have meat or even fish for weeks on end. Others fared much worse, sleeping on five-foot ways and tin shacks.

Then came the maelstrom of the Second World War, the unrelieved horrors, the massacres and tortures associated with the Japanese occupation. The end of World War 11 and the British re-occupation did not bring with it peace and tranquillity. On the contrary, members of that generation found themselves caught up in a swelling, impetuous and irresistible tide of anti-colonialism which was to irrevocably change the political face of Asia. There followed rapid political changes, accompanied by social turbulence, riots, strikes, arson, bomb explosions, and the like - which Singaporeans of today are strangers to. And many a time it was a touch-and-go affair in successive and often simultaneous confrontations with the colonialists, the crooks, the communalists and the communists - the four C's if you prefer.

It was no ordinary generation, both leaders and led, which between them forged this nation into being, for they went through a fiery baptism which we sincerely hope that our children will be spared. Many of them are with us no more, and with every passing year, the relentless attrition of time will remove more of them. And our vapid poets (not all of them, please!) with their anaemic, neurotic and erotic verses, cannot even in their most vivid imaginings, capture the drama, the pain, passion, courage and sometimes sheer heroism which formed the warp and woof of the lives of the founding generation of Singaporeans.

And yet, the very uniqueness of Singapore is now used as a stick to hit us with. Here is a prize piece of nincompoopery. I quote from a forum on English language and literature in Singapore, published in the last issue of Commentary, a quarterly journal of the University of Singapore Society. The speaker is a senior lecturer in the University's Department of English. I quote:

'Quite unabashedly and without apology, the Prime Minister has said, if I remember correctly, that in the 60s, the early 60s, when there was a baby boom, the Government lowered standards of admission for teachers and they just admitted anybody, [including daily-rated labourers!]. And he took it as an accepted fact that we had to do this. The result has been a decline in standards of English, mainly or partly because of the decline in the quality of teachers. But the PM's remark points to something: in Singapore the solution is always mechanical. Numbers all the time. We think that once we assemble a number of people, a number of resources, and so on, hey presto, something will happen.'

More about this person later on.

So our Prime Minister is too mechanical. Remember the passion I referred to? But no, the Prime Minister is devoid of passion. He is a robot. His solutions are always mechanical. So we had better have an artist as our next Prime Minister. He would not be mechanical. Perhaps we might try out the chap who writes that poetry corner in the Sunday Times. He will not be mechanical, for he probably does not even know what machines are - let alone poetry!

I remember the Prime Minister had given the rationale behind the decision to lower standards of admission for teachers in the early 60s. But there is no mention of this. However, the senior lecturer is absolutely right in at least one respect. We did assemble a number of incorruptible people, a number of resources, and organised a hard-working population, and hey presto, something did happen - the swamps of Jurong gave way to an industrial estate, the slums of Singapore gave way to our numerous townships - and hey presto, we have got the Singapore of today. Only, we did not bargain for this senior lecturer in the Department of English.

I will continue with the quotation from this inspired senior lecturer:

'The other point I want to make is about the style of the leadership. If you look at the speeches, they always bring in statistics. We must be about the only country where the Prime Minister releases a sat of tables with his text. Every National Day speech contains productivity figures and projections of trade figures, GNP, and so on. So one does not really need great expressive power'.

Our PM has no expressive power as you all know! And the same kind of mindless gibberish goes on and on. This is the kind of intellectual food served to our students in the arts and humanities departments.

So what does this mean? We tell the Prime Minister, "Please, Mr Prime Minister, in your next National Day speech, leave out facts, figures and statistics." Use the expressive power of the English language, in the way some of the Presidents and Prime Ministers of broken-back societies elsewhere use their own languages, to treat their people to hock, platitudes, political chants - anything else but the truth, the hard facts about the state of the economy, the geo-political changes for the worse, etc., etc.

And our Minister for Finance! When you present next year's Budget don't you dare use statistics! Present your Budget in English verse, with appropriate rhythm and metre. Otherwise, the poor chaps in the English Department would not be able to under- stand you, with your poor powers of expression in the English language.

Another speaker in the forum worked herself into a lather over alleged remarks about Western values and chauvinism. A succeeding speaker goes on to make the astonishing assertion that Singapore is probably guilty of cultural protectionism. He says, and he is an expatriate:

'Dostoevsky, Marvell and Wordsworth are not relevant, maybe, but in the larger sense they are somewhat insidious. I resent this belief... .'.

Now, what in heaven's name are these learned blather skites blathering about? Mr Speaker, the Oxford Dictionary defines the word "blather" as "loquacious nonsense". If there is one place in the world where there is no cultural protectionism, it is Singapore. Who in Singapore is against Western culture or English culture, or for that matter against any culture, be it Chinese, Indian or Malay?

The present generation of leaders are persons reared, among other things, on English literature. Indeed, some of the values we cherish and admire are British values, which seem to be going out of fashion in Great Britain itself. But that is not our fault. Our Deputy Prime Minister, for instance, has drunk deep of Plato, Aristotle and the classics, quite apart from his mastery of Adam Smith and the classical economists. I have heard our Prime Minister discuss the development of Shakespeare's dramas over lunch. Our Foreign Minister, as everyone knows, is a walking library. Rumour has it that even his toilet is a mini-library! And I will take a dim view of anybody who thinks poorly of Dostoevsky, Marvell or Wordsworth.

So let us tell these ladies and gentlemen, do not try to give the misleading impression to our students that those who sit on the Front and Back-benches of this House are a bunch of cultural and literary morons. What we do object to is not Western culture and civilisation, or English culture and literature, but the yellow pop culture and the cheap literature churned out by the pulp mills of the West. Not only of the West, we also get pop mandarin and pop culture through Taipeh and Hong Kong. If we were against English culture and literature, our senior lecturer in the English Department would not have a job, for there would be no English Department.

Although I do not personally subscribe to any institutional religion, I would not object if anyone described me as somebody who values things spiritual. And I know a number of Members of this House who, in their different ways, are deeply religious men.

But it is not with the empyrean that we in this House are busy. Rather it is the opposite end of things that engage our attention. And, quite rightly, for ladders to Heaven for earth-bound mortals like us must yet be rooted on firm ground. As an Indian scripture put it: "The earth is our footing".

Our major preoccupation therefore is to ensure the secure livelihood of our people, including the literati and members of the English department, in conditions conducive to continued political stability and economic progress.

But the best answer ever given to the growing number of artistic and literary refugees from reality, both in Singapore and elsewhere, was one given by the great American architect, philosopher and futurist, Buckminster Fuller. He once told an audience of culture-vultures in America, who looked down snootily on mundane and unspiritual things like technology, as follows:

"Throw all the technology into the ocean, and millions will starve. Throw all the philosophers into the ocean, and nobody will starve!"

And Singaporeans ought to know, especially our students, that if we throw our Government Front benchers, our Back benchers, our top civil servants, our technocrats, systems engineers, entrepreneurs, skilled workers, and managers into the ocean, there will not be any Singapore. But throw these arty-crafty reality-dodgers into the ocean, and you might get a bit more literary and spiritual realism. You might even conceivably get a better poetry corner in the Sunday Times.

There are some people who seem to think, I am told in the University, that the official establishment in Singapore will look with favour on poetry or prose writings which have a propagandistic content. This is utter rubbish. I do not know anybody in the Singapore Government who believes in the communist theory of socialist realism in literature, initiated by the late and unlamented Josef Stalin and his cultural henchman, Zhdhanov. If there are any, they must have escaped the eyes of our ISD and should not be anywhere in the Government.

I hope that our writers and artists are patriotic. But it requires more than patriotism to produce good prose and poetry. For good literature in all languages, while it may have a local content, colour and flavour, must yet have a more than local and, if possible, a universal significance. That is why I am suspicious of some writers who appear to suck up to authority in their writings, in the hope of securing official approbation. I personally would not trust them, either as writers or as patriots.

I might conclude, Mr Speaker, Sir, that often it is our technocrats, economic planners, and entrepreneurs themselves who draw upon their heads the contumely of the arty-crafty. For several of them are also guilty of a snobbery in reverse. You mention art, music, poetry or literature, and they snigger, and you can almost see them making a mental note to the effect: "This chap must be soft in the head." Such an attitude betokens an absence of culture and is the sad result of excessive specialisation enforced by the demands of modern disciplines in our tertiary institutions. It would therefore be a healthy development for Singapore if our technocratic elite attempt to widen and deepen their awareness of matters cultural and literary. By the same token, some of our writers could benefit from a heavy dose of the economics of development. It would be a pity if we developed too many Singaporeans with capsule minds, effectively, insulated against exposure to other fields of human experience and knowledge. As far as possible, we should aim at what I might call "the rounded Singaporean". And a rounded Singaporean will not be an ugly one.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I assure the Finance Minister that I for one would not want him to present his next Budget in poetical form. I want my facts, figures and statistics. I will go elsewhere for my poetry. 3.16 p.m.

Mr Rohan bin Kamis: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to congratulate the Honourable Minister for Trade and Industry for what is generally considered as a good Budget. I support his Budget, especially when it has been formulated on the basis of financial prudence and development objectives with a good measure of forward-looking and positiveness.

Although, like all honest taxpayers, I would like to see more tax reductions, we must, however, be pragmatic and thankful for these concessions when we look at the troubled backdrop within which the Singapore economy has been operating. Therefore, the idea of lowering the tax rates across the board to afford reliefs from inflation is very much welcomed. I am delighted to note that the taxpayers in the first taxable bracket will, on average, pay only 1% of their incomes in tax and the others are given tax reductions commensurate with their bigger tax liabilities. I am furthermore cheered by the aim of the Government to further reduce the levels of personal income tax in the next two to three years until the maximum effective rate is no more than the company rate of income tax, i.e. 40%.

On the Government development strategies for the Eighties, it is commendable, especially for the Government's objective under Services Development and, in particular, its emphasis on increased productivity through automation, mechanisation and computerisation. I wish to quote a paragraph from his Budget speech:

'With our high investment in tertiary education and the knowledge potential of our population, computer services is a crucial area to concentrate on. We shall be using more computers ourselves to improve our pro- ductivity. Government departments and statutory boards will increase their use of computers.' This far-sightedness in the field of computerisation augurs well for the Government because I feel it is the appropriate time for Singapore to seriously consider extensive as well as intensive computerisation, especially when we intend to restructure our economy. However, it is important for us to remember that the computer is not a panacea - a cure for any management or administrative ailments. It has its pitfalls. I would like to submit my comments and observations on this area because it is important that the Government, especially those people who will be executing this policy do not get over-zealous in going into computerisation. This computerisation danger has already occurred in several other countries and large organisations.

Computers are essentially management tools - a means to an end, not an end in itself. Like a drug in the hands of a doctor, it is a cure. In the hands of the uninitiated, it would be disastrous. Therefore, I believe it may be necessary for us to consolidate our position because, over the last four to five years, several Ministries and departments, particularly the statutory boards, have gone to town and bought several large computers. It is always worthwhile to take one stop back in order to progress three steps forward, especially in the right direction.

Let us review the position of our control loop by examining:

1 Need for centrally co-ordinating the requirements of computer services.

As early as 1973, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) was concerned with the proliferation of computers in Government Ministries and statutory boards and recommended in the Second Report of the Public Accounts Committee (Paper Parl. 3 of 1973):

'It is the view of your Committee that serious consideration should now be given by the Ministry of Finance to the desirability of centrally co-ordinating the requirements for computer services, the carrying out of feasibility studies and purchase of computers by ministries, Government departments and statutory institutions with the view to achieving maximum utilisation of computers at the most economic cost. The objectives are to avoid wasteful duplication in the acquisition of computers and training and use of trained personnel and the full utilisation of computers and expertise by time-sharing.'

I fully support this recommendation and I am proud to call those PAC members, my contemporaries in the computer profession. However, regrettably this recommendation needed to be reiterated in 1976. Obviously, it was not satisfactorily accepted. To make it worse, in 1979, it again had to be reiterated. Why?

With the advent of technology, computer hardware has dropped in price most significantly. Therefore, proliferation without proper control is made easier. This could mean unnecessary wastage due to duplication of manpower and machine.

To ensure that the taxpayer's money is put to good use, a more effective body to exercise such control would be desirable and urgently required. However, sufficient flexibility must also be exercised by this body so as not to stifle healthy growth and creativity. In short, we should have a central body to control all mechanisation, automation and computerisation for the Government Ministries and statutory institutions but tempered with a fair measure of flexibility.

As an approach to ensure flexibility, I propose that this body examine the desirability of proceeding with the concept of what is known as distributed processing in computers. This has been said to offer flexibility and yet give effective centralised control.

2 Under-Utilisation of Computer Power.

Obviously, when Ministries and statutory boards start to acquire their own in-house computing power, under-utilisation would result in order to cater for their "peak-usage." Based on a recent Public Accounts Committee Report, the Computer Services Department, for instance, has used only 50% of its computing power. I rather suspect that with some of the statutory boards, the percentage of computer utilisation could even be less than this. Any gross under-utilisation is undesirable because it represents wasteful duplication.

Judging by the experience to-date of Government and statutory boards in computerisation, I am not at all sure that a thorough evaluation has been conducted prior to the acquisition of these large computers. This apparent gross under-utilisation tempts me to conclude that in some instances they might have bought the computer first, then decide what to do with it later. I am deeply concerned that with the Government accent on computerisation, the Management of statutory boards in particular may overreact and jump into computerisation as the "in-thing" to do. This "keep up with the Joneses" syndrome is too expensive for taxpayers. Apparently, it is becoming more fashionable for statutory boards to acquire large computers (some through privately incorporated companies) and go into marketing computing power on a commercial basis. Are these in line with their statutory objectives which, I believe, are to serve the members of the public better? I suggest that they should be mindful of their statutory objectives at all times, and should concentrate on their in-house needs. Otherwise, there would be a strain on the limited manpower available in Singapore.

3 Computer Services Department and Management Services Department

With the push for computerisation, two departments, namely, the Computer Services Department (CSD) and the Management Services Department (MSD), come into the limelight. I am concerned to note that in the Public Accounts Committee Report of 1978 it stated:

'It would appear that neither the CSD nor the MSD is engaged in a positive effort to identify areas where computerisation would increase efficiency and productivity.'

I trust that this situation has changed or et least is being considered for a change. It would be beneficial for the services that could be provided by both the CSD and the MSD to be properly publicized amongst both the Government Ministries and statutory boards. Possibly the Civil Service Institute, in conjunction with these two departments, could organise appropriate appreciation courses for the various Ministries. I propose that in order to ensure a more positive thrust in the fields of automation, mechanisation and computerisation with a view to increasing efficiency and productivity, the two departments should work as one entity.

Computers, like all mechanical means, are as good as the people who operate them. CSD and MSD should make specific and concerted efforts to attract and retain the right kind of people. It is encouraging to note that from the Establishment List the people in the computer services has been increased. It is my hope that they would be just as successful and continue to be successful in attracting and retaining these people.

To be able to attract the right kind of people into these two departments is not enough. To retain them after they have sufficient experience is an important, if not more important matter as the investment involved in the costs of training is very high. To lose people after being trained is, therefore, not a sound proposition.

4 Audit Department

To ensure that the computers are properly run, of course, we have got to ensure that the Audit Department is also geared to meet this new challenge at the same time. "Auditing round the computer" is no longer desirable nor possible as now computer concepts and new computers are being introduced. "Auditing through the computer" is therefore necessary. The Audit Department must be appropriately geared. I trust this is being done and, I hope, will be done with the same speed that computers were acquired.

5 EDBs Proposal for a Japan-Singapore Information Technology Institute.

The proposal for this Institute is excellent and opportune, especially when the need for data processing (dp) practitioners is great and the supply is small. As we shall be thinking in terms of producing 10-15,000 Singaporeans trained in data processing in the next 10 years, it would be worthwhile to ensure that quality would not be sacrificed for the sake of quantity because mass production has the tendency of producing substandard goods. In this connection, I suggest that the views of professionals, bona fide professionals, be sought as to ways and means of ensuring quality control.

6 Tertiary Institutions

To complete the control loop, we need the tertiary institutions to produce more computer science graduates. Experiences in other countries have shown that the computer science graduates they produce tend to be academics. They lack practical experience. In the UK, to overcome this problem, they have slightly successfully experimented with "thin and thick sandwich" courses which combine theoretical study with practical applications. It would be worthwhile to consider adopting a similar approach.

To ensure a balance, the selection of lecturers with both theoretical and practical experiences is important. No doubt bona fide practising data processing professionals should be called upon to advise on the curriculum.

7 Need to Regularise Computer Profession

After completing the control loop, we should now operate it.

In view of the Government emphasis on computerisation, the highest degree of professionalism in data processing is important. I suggest that Government patronage in setting up an institution or association of professionals is desirable - similar to those of the lawyers, accountants and doctors. This would help ensure that the standard of professionalism would be brought up and maintained at an acceptable level.

On that note, Sir, I wish to thank once again the Hon. Minister for Trade and Industry for his go-getter budget. 3.32 p.m.

Mr Lai Tha Chai (Henderson): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that our Minister for Trade and Industry, Mr Goh Chok Tong, has presented a better and more steady Budget this year than that of lest year. It is a more farsighted Budget which reflects the needs of our country in the changing Eighties. I feel it merits our praise. Yet I cannot give full marks to him. The reason is that in such a sure-footed Budget statement, he has not mentioned something that is, in accordance with my personal view, very important.

Before his statement, the Government has already increased taxes and tariffs on water, gas and electricity, taxes on vehicles, road tax and others. Of course, this might not be his duty. He need not be responsible for all this. What I am saying is that he did not touch upon any of these in his otherwise well-rounded Budget speech. This has some-what dimmed the lustre of this Budget statement. Why could he not clarify the Government's move to levy taxes on such items? Of course, I can realise that the purpose of increased taxation on cars and other items was to reduce traffic congestion and improve road communication in Singapore rather than for revenue. But he did not explain to the House the reason for all these measures. So that what little lustre there is in his Budget speech has been dimmed.

There is also another point concerning the various concessions on taxes. There is nothing beneficial to cultural and artistic activities. Whatever tax concessions there are do not cover or benefit cultural activities. Last year, I mentioned that organisations such as the Singapore Symphony Orchestra Company and other cultural organisations should be supported by the Government. In his Budget speech, he has not made any reference to this. This has greatly disappointed me. I do not mean that the Government should specially lend support to such culture like yellow culture or decadent type of pop culture as mentioned by the Member for Anson which would turn our city state into another Copenhagen. I am not asking the Minister to give support to such decadent sub-cultures. But he has not thought fit to encourage our healthy cultural activities here which we should support as they would also help tourism. Thus the aim of the Minister to promote Singapore as a tourist destination is not being encouraged.

There is another point about tourism which I hope the Minister will ponder well. Just now the Member for Anson has also pointed out that Singapore is a free country for culture where cultures from all over the world are gathered and displayed for all to see. Samples of world cultures found here include the Singapore Girl Bagpipers which is a good form of culture, and there are other good forms of culture also like the Singapore Symphony Orchestra. All these should be supported as they also help tourism. Tourists have come to Singapore not to visit our nightclubs because our nightclubs are not as exciting as those in other countries. So they come to Singapore for other purposes and the Minister hopes that they con stay in Singapore longer. Unless we can provide better resorts and attractive facilities, we cannot attract travellers to stay longer in Singapore. Where can tourists go in Singapore? Of course, having more gardens, good scenery and shopping centres for them to go to in the day time is not enough because they have no interesting places to go to at night. Not long ago, there were the Orchard Road bazaar and scenes at Kreta Ayer where tourists could visit. But now there are no more such interesting sights for them to see because most of the houses have been demolished by the URA. I am not suggesting that these dilapidated houses should not be pulled down to make way for development. Places like Bugis Street, which have been thriving very well and frequented by tourists, have also to make way. I do not mean that tourists like to go to such places. They come here, only to be introduced to such places by our local touts and STPB tourist guides. If they were not introduced to such places as Bugis Street, they have no better places to go to. So I %el that the Minister should carefully consider how to develop further tourist resorts and cultural attractions so that people from all over the world will find it meaningful to come to Singapore where they can enjoy equal treatment, irrespective of the colour of their skin. We must give people abroad a good impression of our unique charac- teristics and give them the feeling that Singapore is a nice place to visit with excellent cuisines of all sons to satisfy their palate and multifarious goods to suit every fancy.

Once I invited a friend to tea and he asked me whether I had tasted any Italian coffee here. I said, "No, but I had taken it while abroad." He asked me why I never knew of the existence of such a thing here. So we must promote something special about Singapore and present her as a gourmet's and shopper's paradise to the tourists. If the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board and the Government cannot actively promote better attractions for the tourists, then we cannot encourage more tourists to stay here longer than 48 hours.

On the whole, measures to raise our standard of living, of course, are good. Just as the Member for Anson has said, what we have to cultivate should be the quality of the Singaporeans, not just those theorists out of mere reading of textbooks who could recite by rote or just blab away with empty talk. Such people are useless.

Sir, I hope the Minister can give more thought to these items and take some solid measures to give added lustre to his policy speech in order to make it more effective and practical for the progress and prosperity of our country.

Sir, I support the motion. 3.41 p.m.

Mr Teo Chong Tee (Changi): Mr Speaker, Sir, with the slow growth of the economies of the OECD countries and the uncertainties in the economic prospects of the developed as well as the developing countries due to the continued escalation of oil prices and the increasing protectionism in many advanced industrialised countries, one would expect that the best we could do was to maintain our previous growth rate of 8.6% in 1978. However, the real growth rate of our economy turned out to be better than what many people had expected.

The results of the incredible 9.3% real growth rate of our economy obviously out-paced all our ASEAN neighbours. Comparing it with the growth rate of our other close competitors in Asia, we are second only to Hong Kong. This, in fact, is a marvellous achievement for our small nation.

The comparatively high rate of growth was by no means achieved by chance but through the careful planning and the farsightedness of our Government leaders who, I am confident, will continue to soundly steer us through any economic crisis ahead of us.

Having an efficient Government comprising capable and farsighted leaders is by itself not sufficient to ensure that we have a bright future. We need the co-ordination and the co-operation of employers, employees and trade unions without which the Government's economic policies could not be implemented smoothly. Fortunately, employers, employees and trade unions realise that as an independent country, we have to look after our own future as we cannot depend on big powers to support us economically. Past experiences have shown that the bigger nations looked after their own interest.

Having recognised the concerted efforts that employers, employees, trade unions and the Government have worked hand-in-hand for the benefit of the people and the economic well-being of the nation as a whole that brought about the 9.3% real growth rate of our economy, I therefore extend to all concerned my heartiest congratulations.

However, what I am concerned about is the fact that our economic growth was achieved more through a quantitative input of workers than through productivity increases. According to the Economic Survey, productivity dropped from 4% in 1978 to 2.6% in 1979. That was the effect of an influx of foreign unskilled workers to Singapore.

We all know that the Government's aim is to increase productivity of our workers. Measures have been introduced to upgrade our economy to a higher technological level. Wages have been increased to compel employers to economise on the use of manpower by organising work practices for more efficient manpower utilisation. At the same time, incentive schemes are also implemented to enable employers to upgrade the skill of their workers through intensive training and to replace their labour with modern labour-saving equipment. Notwithstanding efforts that have been taken to effectively implement these measures, foreign unskilled workers continue to be attracted to fill the vacuum of labour shortage in the Republic.

As these foreign workers, most of whom are unskilled, continue to flood the labour market, would they not frustrate the aim to increase the productivity of our workers? The Economic Survey has already revealed that productivity of workers as a whole dropped last year. If the influx of foreign unskilled workers continues at the same pace as it has been over the years, will the productivity of workers fall further this year? May I ask the Hon. Minister what positive stops will the Government take to reverse the trend?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Budget though considered painless has brought little joy, particularly to most income taxpayers. The across-the-board reduction of income tax rates proposed by the Hon. Minister is benefiting taxpayers in the higher income brackets. Why is there such a discrimination against the lower income wage-earners?

A closer look at the different brackets of taxpayers shows that there is only a token concession gained by the lower income brackets. The token concession will not benefit the lower income brackets in the light of inflation that has taken place in the past years.

The average saving for income taxpayers is 16.1%, but in terms of dollars and cents, this gain is negligible, e.g. taxpayers in the first, second, third and fourth tax brackets save a significant 19.9%, 16.8%. 13.8% and 12.0% respectively. In fact, the actual saving in terms of dollars and cents for taxpayers in each of these tax brackets is a meagre $12.60, $36.20, $61.30 and $86.50 on the average. The saving hardly comes to $100.00 a month. With the escalating cost of living as a consequence of high oil prices, what real benefits does this saving give to taxpayers in these tax brackets? I am not against the rationale for a wider tax base so as to cover as many individual taxpayers as possible, but I am not in favour of the Government's usual principle of having the higher income earners benefiting more than the lower income wage-earners in the tax reduction. As the lower income wage-earners form a larger base in contributing their services to the notion as a whole, they should be equally rewarded.

On the qualitative aspect, there are many workers whose limited skills do not qualify for earnings in the higher salary scales; thus they are deprived of better benefits from tax reduction. This is unfair to them, as they will continue to enjoy a meagre benefit in tax reduction even though they may strive as hard as they can. This is because they fall within the lower income brackets.

The higher income groups, however, are a happier lot most of the time because they benefit very much more in the tax reduction. Although their saving in terms of percentage is lower, their actual saving in terms of dollars and cents is a substantial sum, as can be seen in Appendix Ill of the Budget Statement presented by the Hon. Minister. Why is there this disparity in granting benefits to the different groups of income earners? Where equally hard work has been contributed by both income groups for the general well-being of the country, equal benefits should be fairly awarded to both groups. A favourable solution would be for the Government to increase tax reliefs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my colleagues in this House would share my sentiments that personal income tax reliefs need to be reviewed to lessen the burden of taxpayers, particularly the lower income wage-earners. Year in and year out, many of us in this House have argued for an increase in personal and earned income reliefs from income tax for taxpayers, but our representations have again fallen on deaf ears. The personal relief of $2000 which has remained stagnant for more than three decades and the meagre reliefs granted to dependent members of the family have become absolutely unrealistic in view of the significant rising cost of living over the last few years.

Prices of foodstuffs continue to rise. PUB charges have increased. Even SBS took the opportunity to increase the bus fares some months ago.

Mr Seah Mui Kok (Bukit Ho Swee): They are going to increase the fares again.

Mr Teo Chong Tee: I hope not. All these increases have caused much hardship to the lower income wage-earners. The tax reliefs of $1,000 for the wife and $750 for a child are hardly adequate in view of all these increases. That is why our representation as elected Members of Parliament on such matters should not be ignored.

I welcome the additional relief given to a taxpayer who maintains a handicapped person in the same household. Additionally, it only benefits a handful of such taxpayers, but this is not good enough. I hope the Hon. Minister will not continue to ignore our representation again.

Finally, Sir, may I congratulate the Hon. Minister for Trade and Industry for the favourable Budget Statement on the whole presented to this House on 5th March 1980. 3.55 p.m.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Alexandra): Sir, I congratulate the Hon. Minister for his presentation of the Budget. In the eloquent and concise manner to which we have become accustomed to, he has outlined the salient features of the economy and charted the path we are to take as we march into the eighties. Few would quarrel with the course he has chosen. This year's Budget Statement comes amidst another glowing report of our performance last year. In 1979 our GDP grew by 9.3%, more then what was generally expected. What is even more incredible is that this has been achieved in a year of rising oil prices and higher wages, with inflation kept down to only 4%. Our progress in the last decade has been remarkable. In spite of a major world recession in the mid-seventies brought about by the first oil crisis in 1973 and the practice of protectionism in the leading industrialised countries, our economic growth averaged 9.4% in the last decade.

In fact, Singaporeans have never had it so good. Per capita income in 1979 rose to $8,233 compared to only $2,825 at the beginning of the decade. In 1979, there was already one television set to every six persons, and one telephone to every four. These figures are but some of the many indicators of the high standard of living we have achieved.

All is well then, or so it seems especially to those who have labelled this year's budget a "joy" budget. I wish they had not done so. It seems that tax deductions are all that matters. Less emphasis has been placed on the Hon. Minister's point that we have the perfect recipe for trouble in the months ahead and the warnings he has sounded. Certainly many Singaporeans, especially those in business and industry expect the first half of 1980 to be good, but beyond that nobody knows. OPEC ministers meet again in May, and with that the prospect of another review in the price of oil. The superpowers continue their tussle for political and military supremacy, bringing about turmoil in the Middle East, Africa and Indo-China. Added to these, we have the uncertain outcome of the US Presidential Elections, and the likely policy changes that may come about in the largest industrialised power in the free world. A period of uncertainty, therefore, is ahead of us. Hopefully, Singaporeans in their elation over our good economic performance and the tax rebates, will not be lulled into a false sense of euphoria.

The Hon. Minister has given his warnings: we must not squander our tax rebates and we must at all times avoid waste. In other words, we have to continue to tighten our belt. Singaporeans in recent years have unfortunately developed a tendency to spend more than what they really should. Aggressive advertising, wanting to "keep up with the Joneses", rising real incomes, the widespread use of credit cards, have led to many people buying at ease, or at impulse, many goods in excess of what they really need. Some even say that Singapore has already reached the stage of a "throw-away" consumer society like the United States, where rapidly changing fashions dictate that consumer goods be discarded and replaced long before they outlive their durability. But what is taking shape very fast nowadays is the thinking that if one does not buy today, it is going to be more expensive sooner or later, so better buy now. Such fear of imagined price increases is psychological, but it would be one of the biggest obstacles in the efforts of Government in checking inflation. The Minister's warning not to waste our money is, therefore, a timely one.

There is another reason why I do not share the ecstasy of others in calling this year's budget a joyful one. Singaporeans are already quite resigned to the fact that Budget time need not be the only time of the year for the Government to announce new fiscal measures that will hit their pockets, and that what the Government gives away with ons hand during Budget time will usually be taken back with the other hand in between budgets. Only this time there is a difference: the taking was done just before the giving.

The Public Utilities Board has already announced its increase in rates - 27% more for electricity and 35% more for gas - the third such increase in less than a year. Singapore Bus Services raised its bus fares on 1st September last year, and according to a newspaper report yesterday, another increase in fares is around the corner. Even the oil companies have been allowed to raise the prices of petroleum and they have already done so twice within three months. Road taxes, registration fees of vehicles, additional registration fees have suddenly been increased hitting the pocket of the poor motorist, without really solving the problem of traffic congestion.

Escalating oil prices from the oil-producing countries have always been blamed for many of the increases that are imposed on us. Quite justifiable, I might say, but if you take a hard look at SBS you begin to wonder if their increases in bus fares have not been partly motivated by the guarantee of a 7% dividend they have given to shareholders. In the end, shareholders make the profits because management has given them the commitment, but this is at the expense of a much larger group - the travelling public. Let us take another hard look at the PUB - trading surpluses of $89 million in 1976, $116 million in 1977 and $109 million in 197 8. To be fair to them, they do need profits also to plough back for development, but the PUB could at least have shown more compassion for the lower income group instead of slapping on an increase of such magnitude. At this stage, I would like to ask the Hon. Minister if he would not consider waiving the Government tax on PUB bills. This tax is an unnecessary burden on consumers, even more so with the new rates, and if removed would go a long way in compensating for the rise in rates.

So much for the so-called give-away budget. The pain was already inflicted before the goodies were handed out. It reminds one of the parent who gave the child a beating but offered the sweet later to stop the crying.

It just occurred to me that things might not be that bad for our people if some of our Government departments, statutory boards or Government-backed organisations think less of making profits and concentrate more on providing the service they were originally set up to perform. It seems to me that those who are in charge of these bodies do become obsessed at times with making excessive and large profits, and the larger these are, the better for these people. There seems to be an unwritten rule that you are a good and efficient fellow if you can make a lot of money, but you are a bum if you turn in red figures. Profitability rather than the ability to provide sound and efficient service to the public, has become the yardstick by which efficiency is measured. Even SBC wants to get in on the game. We have all read in the newspapers the recent quarrel over who to pay what and to whom for the right to telecast live the recent football matches. Anyway, Sir, to cut a long story short we have seen how SBC managed to wrangle another $2,000 from the sponsor, ostensibly to pay the other parties involved, but in the process shamelessly pocketing another $500 for itself - and this was already on top of the substantial sum they got from the sponsor in the first place. Call it shrewdness, if you like, but just think what some people are prepared to put themselves through to make a few miserable dollars. Our administrators could take a lesson from the example of the Welcome supermarkets run by NTUC. Welcome has in the past years kept the prices of essential goods as low as possible. It does not mark its prices unusually high. Yet it has managed to survive competition and it makes enough to cover its administrative costs, leaving still a little return on capital each year, but this is low.

Indeed, some of our statutory boards could earn the admiration of our people if they follow the example set by Welcome and get out of this excessive profit-making preoccupation which they seem to have landed themselves in.

Sir, I support the motion. 4.03 p.m.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour (Mr Fong Sip Chee): Mr Speaker, Sir, since the Whip is not lifted, I have no alternative but to support the Government on its financial policy for the year 1980/81. In so doing, Sir, I will have to be extremely cautious with my remarks, lost I stop beyond the bounds.

I have perused the statement of the Minister for Trade and Industry several times over. It is a good Budget statement, though not quite conformed to the standard demanded by the Member for Anson. But it is good enough to bring cheers and happiness to many Singaporeans. It has been described as a "give-away budget", "go-getter budget", "sweet budget" and "painless budget". I am sure Members will shower the Minister with more adjectives of that son during the course of this debate. But I must caution that one should not simply regard it as a give-away budget because there is a reason for giving. True, we have done well in our economic development. It is true that we have amassed a reasonable amount of wealth in the coffer. It is true that we can afford to give away a little but we must understand that it is not because we con afford to give but rather the reason for giving. The hon. Member for Alexandra has likened the budget to giving the child first a beating and then giving him a candy so as to stop him from crying - thereby causing noise pollution!

But I would rather liken it in this manner, Sir. It is for a good cause, we must understand the reason and the thinking behind the giving. It is not just because we can afford to give. I think the Minister has done well in cautioning us that, in so giving, we expect the people to respond and, most important, to understand the reason behind this give-away budget. It is our expectation that Singaporeans will respond and do well, perhaps even better.

It is a very useful thought for Singaporeans to know why we are able to afford to give now, and the reason behind it is that we have done well. Not out of luck, Sir, but through sheer hard work all these years from the threat of the British military withdrawal and mass unemployment to the need of having to import foreign workers which, in the process, has given us some social problems. We have gone through all that ore through sheer hard work, and we are now able to give away just that little.

The Minister is not altogether an unthinking fellow. He has also given us hints in his statement that there may be further reductions in future to rationalise the income tax structure to bring Singapore in line with other countries, particularly in this part of the world. We hope to attract more investment and to provide more incentives for the professionals to work even harder. An hon. Member has complained that the tax relief is not sufficient. If he could be a little more patient and, if the Minister is true to his words, perhaps in the next few years the hon. Member for Changi would be able to satisfy himself and his constituents.

I have gone through the statement and I have found that something is amiss. I am particularly impressed by this statement of the Minister, and I quote:

'I am grateful to him (Minister for Finance) for this privilege and for the confidence he has in me. I can assure the House, however, that whilst I have the liberty to fly [I do not know the altitude - whether it is high-fly or low-fly] in the direction I please and in any manner I choose, I have no intention of flying off-course or performing any aerial acrobatic. That will be kamikaze.'

I found it right at the second paragraph of the Minister's statement. There is something amiss. True, the Minister can fly in any direction but I must caution him - make sure that he flies with a gyroscope - a little gadget to maintain stability and balance, just in case he flies upside down. Any pilot can tell you, Sir, that at a certain altitude you do not know where the land is, or where the horizon is, in which direction you are nearer to God, or in which direction you might just vanish into thin air! And the gyroscope in this case is a political gyroscope.

In saying this I have in mind a statement made by the Minister for Health almost 20 years ago. The Minister for Health, Dr Toh Chin Chye, then the Deputy Prime Minister, said this on 31st December, 1960, at the sixth anniversary of the Party, and I quote:

'It is obvious that our political ideology must be brought to bear in the execution [of any policy] if it is not to be regarded as a simple and straightforward piece of work. In other words, the task of bringing it to fruition cannot be divorced from our political thinking.'

The emphasis then was quite different from today. But it does not mean that having reached the stage that we are in today we should totally divorce ourselves from the political objectives. I went through the Budget statement and I found it fairly devoid of any political thinking. Perhaps, in wanting to save time, the Minister did not include this in his statement. I have no doubts of his ability to include it, but it is important in any budget statement to set down the political and social objectives. Of course, in his statement, the Minister said:

'Development objectives. The Budget should reflect the thrust and objectives of our policy to restructure the economy and of our development strategies for the Eighties. It should balance economic growth with social objectives.'

What social objectives? The economic objective is very clear hers. What do we hope to achieve? What kind of a profile do we hope to mould for Singaporeans? There is no mention in the Budget statement, I do not know whether we really have that objective in mind at all.

The motion before the House reads as follows:

'That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1st April, 1980 to 31st March, 1981.'

Frankly speaking, having gone through the Budget statement, I think it should rightly be:

'That Parliament approves the trade and industry policy of the Government for the financial year 1st April, 1980 to 31st March, 1981.'

It is heavily orientated towards that line. Once you are in the "trade", you just cannot escape this little inclination. I do not know whether it spells out a financial policy. Its social objectives are not mentioned. Only the Ministry of Education and Housing development were mentioned in the Minister's Budget statement proper. Of course, mention was made in the Memorandum to the Budget statement. This is an innovation by the former Minister for Finance when he presented his budget in 1967. He observed quite rightly, and quite contrary to what the Member for Anson has said earlier, that most Members in this House as well as the public were not quite interested in statistics. So he proposed at that sitting to introduce an innovation by incorporating the statistics and other details in a memorandum, and this has since been the practice.

May I come back to the point, Sir? It is true that mention of the other Ministries was made in the memorandum but, in the statement proper, crucial areas like Health, Culture, and community centres - which the Member for Kim Seng has been crying out so loudly recently and perhaps would do so again in this House later - are important social objectives but not given the right of place in the Budget statement. What are we up to? What do we want?

Members also praise the Minister for a painless budget and, of course, they complain, as I did in the post, that the pain always comes between budgets. Whilst we spend so much time in complaining about pains inflicted between budgets, I think we miss one important point and, that is, what is Parliament for? What is budget for? If the imposition of fees is not a budgetary measure, then the increase in registration fees is a measure that can be implemented without coming to Parliament, but any increase in tax ought to be a budgetary measure. Road tax is a tax. Otherwise you call it "road fees" and not "road tax". I do not want to discuss the wisdom of this measure. If anything, Sir, I subscribe and I support this increase in road tax.

The observation I wish to make is the manner in which it is implemented. It is not so much a question of imposing it before the Budget but a question that all of us MPs are concerned. Members of Parliament happen to be the lost people to talk about the road tax. It was discussed in the newspapers. It was debated in a TV forum. Members of Parliament, however, have to wait until Budget time and the Committee of Supply to discuss it. As Members of Parliament, I thought we should react to this matter promptly. It is not because we do not want to react to it promptly but because we have no opportunity to do so.

In that respect, Sir, I congratulate the Minister for Health. I have held this matter back, Sir. He has put before the House his proposed increase in hospital fees. When he did that the last time, Sir, he even engineered a debate through the previous Member for Potong Pasir. This is what Parliament should be. What are MPs for?

But now we find ourselves in a situation where we are the lest to discuss the increase in taxes. This is a very basic question, Sir, Maybe they thought that for such measures, there is no harm. It is a matter of one or two months before the Budget. So what is the hurry? Perhaps he wanted to beat the lifting of the excise duty. People have been buying cars, placing orders in large numbers. But it was the Government which decided in which month - was it April? - that the excise duty would be increased, hence removing the protection. This takes time. However, he suddenly found that he had to impose these taxes before Budget because by the end of the Budget debate it would be April. Having fixed the passenger car owners by raising the road taxes, barely two weeks later he suddenly punched the commercial vehicle owners. "Ah, I forgot to punch that fellow. Now I punch him." and promptly imposed another tax on the commercial vehicles. Why can't it be done at the same time? Maybe he wanted to lessen the pain. He hits at two different people at two different times. But my main concern is that Members of Parliament should be given the opportunity to discuss this matter.

As I have said, I support the tax increases, but I thought that Members of Parliament should discuss the matter in the proper place, that is, in Parliament, instead of discussing it at a TV forum and in the press. Of course, the press is doing its share of educating the public by conducting, sometimes even engineering debates in the press. I thought that is a healthy thing. This is my basic problem, Sir. Members here should be given the opportunity to discuss budgetary measures.

We have done well in most other aspects. The Minister has given us an outline of his objectives not only for the year 1980 but beyond. His Budget statement really covers the Government's financial policy for the Eighties. Emphasis is placed on world trade. The world is our market and we must increase our productivity to give us that much more competitive edge. We must increase our skills and precision, if we are to sell our products to countries which demand a higher standard. At the same time, we must not forget our closer neighbours. I think the Minister spoke with very cautious optimism about trade arrangements and development within the ASEAN countries. I remember Mr Dhanabalan said -

Mr Speaker: Can the Member refer him as "the Senior Minister of State"?

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Sir, your ruling puts me in a predicament. There are two Senior Ministers of State in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There are, of course, distinctive features to distinguish them but I do not wish to employ these in this House as it will be a more grievous infringement of Standing Orders. I have also considered whether I ought to classify one as the Senior Minister of State and the other as the junior Senior Minister of State. This, also, is unacceptable. And to refer to him as the Member for Kallang would be a disrespect. May I therefore be allowed to refer to him as Mr Dhanabalan?

Mr Speaker: In the circumstances you may, if you like.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: Thank you very much, Sir, for this leeway. Mr Dhanabalan has been making frequent statements on the development in ASEAN. He has taken a high profile in the Vietnamese refugee problem and a low profile in ASEAN arrangements. I thought that is the correct policy, Sir, in that while we want to develop ourselves with the world as our market, we should at the same time be very alert to the sensitivities of our ASEAN neighbours. The irony is that, Sir, while we increase our productivity, improve the quality of our products and so on, to sell our products to the world, this may be a disincentive for the making of a better ASEAN trading arrangement, for obvious reasons which, I think, the Minister will understand. It is the level of development. So taking a lower profile may be less objectionable. The trouble is that he has been highlighting our achievements in too many areas to the extent that we have become the envy of many. This envy can develop into something very hostile.

My point is that the Budget statement ought to go down in the history of Singapore that whilst we prepare ourselves for the Eighties, we must not lose sight of our social and political objectives, particularly on what I have quoted from the Minister for Health earlier on about his statement made in 1960. This must be borne in mind all the time. I do not know whether we deliberately want to depoliticise the population. If we consciously do, then we have done pretty well in the last five years. The point is that if we do not have a responsive population, that is, our people do not respond to Government policies in the right spirit, then with the facts and figures, and information, it can develop into a very explosive situation. In short, our political objective must be ever present in the minds of all Ministers. What we say in Chinese in this case is, hei gou tou chi, bai gou dang zai ( ) It is a Chinese idiom.

An hon. Member: Translate it.

Mr Fong Sip Chee: I do not wish to translate it. I will leave it to the interpreter. This is a common term used with no intention to describe the Minister as a canine. What it means is this: the black dog stole the food, the white dog received the thrashing. So while the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Communications imposed the taxes, the Minister for Trade and Industry stands before the House to take the punishment from the Members here. It may be a good tactic, Sir, a good image building. "We give away. It is not my fault. It is the other chap. Poor fellow." I do not know how this tactic will continue. I thought he has got nothing to do with that. It just happened that way.

The Leader of the House is here; I hope I have not stepped beyond the bounds. Finally, Sir, may I, my observation and my complaints notwithstanding, join Members in congratulating the Minister for a job well done? Well done in many respects. Well done, Sir, in that he gets away with a lot of things - on the road tax increase. Well done also, Sir, that he always gives himself a way out by moderating his statement. Well done also, Sir, that in so doing he has established himself as a pretty humane Minister. I am sure that such support and feelings for him would do him well and even propel him to greater heights in future.

Mr Speaker: I propose to take the Suspension now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.55 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.25 p.m until 4.55 p.m Sitting resumed at 4.55 p.m