ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [4th March, 1983] [2nd Allotted Day],

"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1st April, 1983 to 31st March, 1984.". - [Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam].

Question again proposed.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Alexandra): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Trade and Industry.

Since the debate started in the House yesterday, we have heard about economic growth, economic recession, protectionism, productivity, GNP, etc. I propose to depart from these traditional points while keeping within the general framework of this debate, and discuss a problem which I feel is of concern to many of us.

Singaporeans have had good government for close to 24 years now. There is no doubt that Government policies over the past two decades or so have contributed to Singapore the success it has achieved, unpopular though some of these policies might have been. It is recognised that the best of policies, no matter how carefully formulated, cannot please all the people all the time. Indeed it is one of the fundamental tenets of policy formulating that the interest of the majority must come first, even if a minority are left unhappy. It is this concept of Government without fear or favour that has been the hallmark of PAP policies for so long.

What I wish to question today is not so much policies themselves but the implementation and explanation of policies which, I feel, leaves much to be desired. I venture as far as to say that failure to explain policies properly or to implement them correctly can result in unhappiness and dissatisfaction. Our Ministers, as we all know, take great pains to explain policies but even the best of intentions can be suspect if at the grassroot level they are not properly explained or wrongly implemented. I know it is always very convenient for politicians to make the administrative arm of Government, i.e. the civil service, the whipping boy. It is not my purpose to do as such but I think in this respect it must bear part of the blame. Towards the end of the 1950s and in the early 1960s we inherited a civil service from the British colonial government. Over the course of many years we have been able to develop and build our own civil service, one that is to its credit able to identify with the aspirations of the nation and which is also known for its ruthless efficiency. I use the word 'ruthless' for exactly what it means, for how else can you describe a civil service that is well known for telling you the answer is no as its starting point. I can think of some instances. No new hawker licences are issued because existing empty stalls are reserved for resettlement of street hawkers. No new applications for taxi drivers' vocational licences are considered because the Registry of Vehicles still has a backlog of applications to process. An applicant for public housing has to follow the first-come-first-served system because, to be fair to all, there cannot be queue-jumping. As I stated earlier I for one, and I am sure most of us here, do not quarrel with these policies and we know that properly explained, people can be made to understand the rationale behind such policies. Yet you will find that in such instances the advice often dished out by Government departments is "Go and see your MP, he can get it for you." Of course, all of us in this House know what an MP can do; quite often, nothing.

But the MP can help salvage the situation, neutralize the resentment by explaining to his disgruntled constituent why he cannot get his taxi driver's licence, his hawker stall or his HDB flat. But what about the many hundreds, or thousands, who do not see their MP? For them, their everlasting impression of their Govern- ment has been that moment of contact with the civil servant on the front line and it would have left them dejected and demoralized. In the end, it would be the political leadership that suffers because having been in power for more than two decades the political leadership and the civil service have become so closely intertwined. And do not forget, Sir, civil servants have a way of becoming Ministers.

Today, there is a fair amount of resentment in Singapore, not so much against Government policies at large because people have over the course of 24 years grown to trust the wisdom of this Government, but more because of a lack of understanding of the rationale behind certain policies. How else can we explain the results of a recent survey that showed that while almost everyone in Singapore has heard of productivity most have missed the message behind the whole campaign? How is it that 75% of those surveyed felt that the whole campaign was more for the benefit of companies and employers than for workers? What is significant to note is that these cynical feelings were equally strong amongst the better educated as well as the less educated. Something must be seriously wrong if in spite of exhortations by Ministers, M P's, trade unionists, people still fail to see the point. I hope we can go back to the drawing board and study why in this case even Teamy has failed to pack in the sting it is supposed to.

Sir, I for one believe in giving credit where credit is due. I would like to illustrate an example of how careful explanation of Government policies can clear a lot of misunderstanding. If the Medisave scheme eventually achieves its objectives, and I have no doubt it will, we must attribute this not only to the soundness of the whole plan but also to what I feel has been one of the most carefully thought-out public relations exercise by any Government Ministry in recent years. From MPs to community leaders, to the ordinary man-in-the-street, no stone has been left unturned to clear nagging doubts about something that will affect the lives of each and every Singaporean.

Multiply this effort across the whole spectrum of Government, one can see how a lot of misunderstanding can be removed. And misunderstanding there has been aplenty judging by the number of letters written to the press as well as the type of letters written, i.e. mostly complaints.

Good public relations is what is needed in most departments and ministries. We cannot expect counter clerks to explain adequately all aspects of Government policies. They are not trained to do so, neither have they the time. To blame them would therefore not be fair. But suitably-trained persons can make the difference. As our electorate becomes an increasingly sophisticated one, it demands clearer explanations, not mere enunciations. What the Government can do is to capitalize on the goodwill that could be generated through the implementation of its policies.

The answer to all this is salesmanship. It is often said that a good product without a good salesman will not sell, but a good salesman can sell almost anything, even if it is a shoddy product as the Member for Toa Payoh will bear me out. Fortunately, this Government has got good products: its policies are sound, but good salesmanship is what is needed to bring closer the bond between the people and the Government. We have to iron out the irritations that rightly or wrongly irk some of our people, and these irritations are widespread. People have to continue to perceive us as a Government of the people, by the people and for the people. Only in this way can we ensure that Singaporeans will continue to enjoy the benefits of not just good government, but better government. 2.56 p.m.

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam (Anson): Mr Speaker, Sir, last year this time round, speaking in my first Budget speech, I said that the Budget debate in this House provided us an opportunity, as it were, to state our goals for our society and to see how far we have progressed along the road set for ourselves in the year under review. Sir I am not going to again set out the goals. i take it that we are all agreed on our goal and that is a caring society.

This year we have heard from the Hon. Minister, in presenting his Budget, that the road last year has been a dismal one for us and that there is very little prospect ahead of us to mitigate the hardship or the suffering that might be brought about by the world-wide recession. May I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, without any disrespect to the Hon. Minister, that it did not need him saying that. I think all of us are aware, or should be aware, of this world-wide recession; that all around us there is an economic slump. People are not buying the goods that are being produced because they do not have enough money and workers are being thrown out of employment. And we are all aware that Singapore particularly will be hit by economic forces outside Singapore. It does not need saying. It is obvious, as we are a country without any natural resources to cushion us against hard times.

May I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, without appearing to be presumptuous, that in presenting its economic plan to the nation for the year ahead, the Government must plan to do two things. First, it must plan for economic growth in the year ahead. In this, it should go on to spell out the measures that the Government proposes to take to maintain the economic growth or to accelerate the growth, if that were possible. Secondly, it must go on to see that the acquisition of wealth in the country or the subsisting wealth in the country is equitably and equally divided among all those who call this country theirs and who belong to it and who have some claim to the wealth that is being generated in this country.

I propose to examine how this statement meets these two objectives. But before I do that, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say that the Budget Statement must address itself to all our people. I have just heard the hon. Member, speaking before me, say that the Government must legislate, take action, for the greatest number in the community and not be concerned with the needs of a minority. It is the majority with which the Government must be concerned, not the minority. And it must address itself, as I say, in its Budget to all our people. It must have something to say to everyone in our country; what it is doing to meet their needs, what it is doing to alleviate their hardships, what it is doing to give them relief, if relief were needed. In my respectful submission, Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall try and show that in this respect the Budget Statement fails abysmally.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in his Statement, the Minister says that we are not alone in recognizing the fundamental truth that our people are our greatest resource. I should have thought, Mr Speaker, Sir, that our people are our only resource. But of that resource, the greatest share or the greatest contribution is made by our working class, by our workforce. Now, how does this Budget Statement, this annual statement of the Government's intention, address itself to the workers who are our greatest resource? I say this without disparaging the contribution that is made by others, the capitalists, the entrepreneurs, But I say, without any hesitation, that our greatest resource comes from the workforce that we have in Singapore, and of which we can be justifiably proud.

Last year the Minister acknowledged, albeit a little grudgingly, the contribution of our workers to the economy of the country. Of course, we must remember that our economic growth in 1981 was greater than the one under review. He said then:

'A large part of this (economic growth) came from the efforts of individual Singaporeans. They worked harder and smarter...'

This year I am sorry to see that the Minister has not made any acknowledgment of the contribution made by our workforce to the economic growth last year. May I point out that, in spite of the depression around us, our economy still continues to grow.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Well, I hear Members saying "hear, hear", and I say "hear, hear" too. But I say, "Please acknowledge the contribution made by our workers to this economic growth." Is it because the productivity has dropped? And has it dropped because it is thought perhaps our workers were not pulling their weight in our country?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the drop in productivity cannot be blamed on our workforce or our workers. It is due to a number of factors over which we have no control. They are mostly external. The Minister's Statement, however, does not, in my humble view, go far enough in spelling out the measures that the Government intends to introduce to increase this productivity in the year that lies ahead of us. It is, if I may say so, Sir, without again being disrespectful, full of exhortations and pious hopes, without actually spelling out what measures the Government proposes to take in the coming year to see our people through the recession that is, we are told, undoubtedly in store for them in the coming year. It is not enough, may I say, Sir, to indulge in pious hopes and exhortations. it is the business of the Government to spell out the measures, and it will be my endeavour to show that the Statement does not do this adequately. It is, as I have said, filled with exhortations and pious hopes that somehow everything will be all right if we can only tighten our belts. May I say again, talking about tightening our belts, this exhortation would appear to be addressed mainly to our workers. Why is it - I know that it is not only in this country but all over the world - that when people are being asked to tighten their belts, it is the workers who are being asked to do this?

Before I go on to examine the Budget Statement to see how it has met with the two objectives that I have outlined, may I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, a few words generally about the recession, I, of course, appreciate that I am no economist. The past year has seen a contraction in the OECD industrial output which has been particularly severe in the European community and in the united States. As the Minister has pointed out, and I say this again, it did not come as a surprise, Singapore suffered as a result. We are subject very much to what happens outside Singapore.

The decline in Singapore's growth rate last year, even though commendable when compared with other countries, was largely due, if not wholly, to these unfavourable external events. But having said that, we must ask whether our own economic policy has in any way exacer- bated the decline. The Minister hints at this when he says that we must continue to ensure that our traders and export-oriented manufacturing firms are not handicapped by an over-valued Singapore dollar or unduly high domestic interest rates. We should ask whether the decline has been exacerbated, Mr Speaker, Sir, by our pursuing an unduly tight interest and exchange rate policy which undoubtedly resulted in the substantial decline in the competitiveness of the manufacturing sector. The fall by 6% in the manufacturing sector is a far more severe decline than in 1975 and, whilst it is not as large as in the United States and Europe, it is much greater than in Japan.

The Hon. Minister draws satisfaction from the fall in the inflation rate. It should be noted, however, Mr Speaker, Sir, if I understand from economists, that in the theory of those who give most prominence to the control of inflation, it is only the real wage resistance which poses a problem to the reconciliation of internal with external balances, and not inflation. Singapore up till now has had no labour market problem. Bargaining is centralized and controlled by the Government which determines the appropriate level of nominal wages in accordance with macro-economic targets. I am glad to see that the Minister has drawn attention to a possible pitfall in continuing this practice of a centralized body determining the wages.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is there perhaps a lesson for us to be learned from Germany which has paid excessive attention to the control of domestic inflation resulting in deteriorating economic performance in terms of growth rates of industrial output and rising unemployment since the mid-70s? It has grown much lower than Japan, the United States or France over this period. The downturn in manufacturing productivity indicates that employers are hoarding labour and, if recovery in demand does not take place, unemployment can become a problem. On the other hand, the Minister has drawn attention to a possible problem if the economy picks up and demand for labour increases. He warns that we may once face a tight labour market which under- mine our economic restructuring and that the problem could be worse with the repatriation of foreign workers over the next few years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I propose now to try and see how the Statement tries to meet the objectives that I have outlined for it. First of all, how far it goes to provide the measures that the Government proposes for economic growth - to sustain or accelerate our economic growth in the year that lies ahead. The Minister said, and I quote him:

'To successfully attract highly-automated projects, our non-labour costs namely, the cost of land, factory buildings, utilities and supporting services - must be kept competitive. We will therefore work towards moderating the increases in these costs.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, one does not have to be a Friedman or a Galbraith, two economists whose names come to mind, to know that Singapore's economy depends very largely on what we can produce with our labour, what we can turn out in our factories, and it is not good enough just to turn them out. We have got to sell them. We have got to sell them not only in Singapore where there is a diminishing market or a small market but we have- got to sell them outside. We have got to find the markets and we do not need the Minister to tell us that all the other countries are trying to do the same. There is less and less demand for goods, especially in a recession. So it does not need very much thinking to know that if we are going to survive, we have got to produce goods cheaper than the other man does, and you have got to produce not shoddy goods but quality goods.

Some hon. Members: How?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Well, that is for the Minister to outline. And this is why l.say he has failed. Of course, may I assure the Members that when we take over, we will outline the measures. But at the moment I am here to ask the Minister how he proposes to do this. It is not for me to answer.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister what does the Government propose to do to, as he says, moderate the increase in non-labour costs, the cost of land, factory buildings, utilities and supporting services? Are the statutory boards that are responsible for the building and letting out of our factories getting the message that they must not keep increasing their rents to the factory owners or those who are turning out goods for export? Unless there is a clear direction from the Government on this, I suppose the statutory boards may feel that they have to keep increasing to keep pace with the market.

Are we unnecessarily pushing up rents in Singapore so that it makes it no longer economically productive for our manufacturers? And it is not just factories we are concerned with. We are also concerned with offices for the services that we provide in this place. I do not have to remind Members of this House that rents for office space have shot up dramatically, astronomically. What are we doing about it to make it worthwhile for companies to come here because land is available at a moderate cost to manufacture or to provide services?

What about our supporting services, utilities? Are we doing anything to keep these costs within manageable limits? These are what our manufacturers and those who provide services contributing to the economy of the country would want to know. They just are not content with exhortations that they must produce better goods cheaply to compete with the world. They want to know what are you doing to help them. And it is not just the cost of land, factory buildings, the rents. There are other overheads.

We have, Mr Speaker, Sir, burdened the employers, people who are in the manuacturing sector among others, with taxes. We have, first of all, the payroll tax. This was introduced when we were in Malaysia by the Parliament in Kuala Lumpur, and I remember that there was objection to it here. Should the Government not consider whether it is still necessary to burden our employers, the manufacturing sector, the other sectors, with this payroll tax? I shall have something more to say about this when we come to the Estimates on the Ministry of Finance.

Then there is the Skills Development Fund. We learnt last week, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Rochore, that we have accumulated $313.8 million in the Skills Development Fund but only $27.5 million have so far been paid out. So we have quite a substantial amount. Is it perhaps not prudent, I ask the Minister, for the Government to consider whether the collection of this Fund should now be suspended, if not done away with altogether, until the economy picks up again? I would like the Minister to say what he thinks about this.

Then there is the question of the CPF contributions. We have been told that the contributions to the CPF, both from the employer and the employee, will be raised in order to pay for the Medisave scheme, or medical care. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say that our manufacturers expect some help from the Government. If they are to help our people here, I think we should give it to them when they are facing a recession.

The Minister says that we must continue to ensure that our traders and export-oriented manufacturing firms are not handicapped by an over-valued Singapore dollar or unduly high domestic interest rates. I think it is becoming clear, Mr Speaker, Sir, that domestic interest rates are perhaps too high now in relation to the expected level of domestic inflation and to the desirable level of the exchange rate. Has the Minister got anything to say about this?

Turning to manpower development, the Minister tells us, which I think we knew, that more than half a million of our workers have less than Primary 6 education, and he says that upgrading their basic numerate and literate ability will not be an easy undertaking. Sir, why have we come to this pass that more than half a million of our workers have less than Primary 6 education? What has gone wrong with our education system, Mr Speaker, Sir? What does the Government propose to do about this? What we are doing now are panic measures. We are conducting a basic education for skills training programme, duplicating our costs, efforts, spending more money on something that should have been done at the commencement when these workers were in schools, in the primary schools. Why are we now put to the expense of this BEST programme. It is simply because we have failed. Why have we failed in our education system? Would the Minister answer that? And what does the Government propose to do to see that our workers get the best education when they are in school, primary schools because that is where we start? You do not weed them out for the construction brigade by this streaming that we have got and then complain that they are not good enough. Why are they being condemned to this?

On the wages problem, the Minister says in his Statement that it is the intention of the Government to promote more direct bargaining between employers and the unions. Mr Speaker, Sir, was it in the December sitting of this House that we drew out all the teeth of the trade unions? Are we to understand now that the Government thinks that the trade unions should be strengthened? Some power should be given back to them so that they can bargain directly with their employers on the question of wages. Is it the intention of the Government now to strengthen the trade union movement? I would welcome that assurance from the Minister because, I say, a strong trade union movement helps us in maintaining our economic growth.

Now, motivation of our workers. This is crucial. We have heard this time and time again. We know about Productivity campaigns. We hear from the Minister that in spite of the productivity campaign last year, productivity has slumped. Obviously the campaign is not getting through. Why? Why do we not ask ourselves the question honestly? Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say.in this House that you will not get the best out of our workers unless you give them a stake in their employment. You give them a stake in the prosperity of their employers, the company they work for, and you give them a stake in the prosperity of this country. So long as you continue to treat them as though they were recipients of charity, to take whatever is given to them, you are not going to get the best out of our workers. I would ask the Government to think about this. We can only get the best from a man, from anybody, if you con- vince him that his future is closely bound up with the organization or the company that he is working for, that he has a stake in the prosperity of that company.

How are we giving this stake to our workers? I have spoken before, not once but several times in this House, about the lack of security that is felt by our workers in their employment. I do not want to repeat what I have said before. Our employment laws are archaic. Is it not time we moved on a bit further and had progressive labour laws which guarantee basic rights for our workers? Why do we have to have colonial, archaic laws?

Now, homes. What are we doing about providing our workers with proper homes? I said this last year and I say it again, homes within their workplaces, decent homes, so that they can feel proud of them. What are we doing?

What about medical care? What are we doing to ensure that they and their families will be properly cared for in the event of any illness or sickness hitting them?

An hon. Member: Medisave!

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, Medisave. We will talk about Medisave when we come to debate it.

Last year, Mr Speaker, Sir, I asked about the question of giving our workers an equity in the companies that they work for. Is it not time we thought of a scheme linking workers' pay directly to the productivity and profitability of the enterprises they work for? This could be done, Mr Speaker, Sir, by linking yearly bonus to a fixed percentage of total current cost profits, as defined by standard accounting conventions. It should also be possible for workers to participate directly in the ownership of the companies they work for. This could be done through distribution of bonuses for long serving employees in the form of equity. Tax incentives could be given to private sector companies to encourage them to do this. In addition, part of the employers' CPF contributions might take the form of equity in the companies themselves. It will be best if public sector enterprises took the lead in this direction. We in the Workers' Party hope eventually to see the employees of public sector companies owning shares in the companies, with the result that they share directly in the need for risk-taking and improvement efficiency which at present involves only management.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I remind Members that it is standard practice in the advanced capitalist countries for senior management to receive part of their remuneration in the form of shares in the company they work for. Why should this not be extended to the workers? Let us start thinking about all this, Mr Speaker, Sir. Let us not go on year after year with archaic labour legislation, treating our workers as though they were only recipients of charity. Give them the dignity that they deserve.

Time is running on, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I shall no doubt be told very shortly that I am exceeding my time limit, and may I move on to this other matter about energy and water conservation. The Minister has mentioned the installation of thimbles in many high-rise buildings - schools, hospitals, public toilets and other premises. He says, "Water consumption in these places has dropped by 12%." He said "in many high-rise buildings". I know that most of the high-rise buildings in Singapore are those built by the Housing and Development Board occupied by our people. Are these thimbles for the conservation of water installed only in these HDB buildings, or is it being uniformly applied also to private properties? Or are private properties being spared this water conservation? If water is to be saved, it must be the task of not only our dwellers in HDB flats but it must also be the task of all those who live in private properties. What is the Government doing to see that this contribution is made by everybody, not just by our workers largely living in HDB flats? I know, Mr Speaker, Sir, that in many private properties - I have seen this myself - water is being used to spray on to the grass and the trees; there is considerable waste. I am sure Members are aware of this.

Now we come to Construction. He says Construction is the only bright feature in the dismal year that we have just gone through. He talks about Singaporeans aspiring to own their own homes at a price within their means and that they can look forward to have their aspirations fulfilled. Only yesterday afternoon I was asking about the rise in the prices of HUDC apartments and drew attention to people opting out. What is being done by the Government to ensure that these homes are going to be kept within the reach of our people, and that they are being built not just for those who come here from abroad with large bank balances to buy properties in Singapore? We were told yesterday that the HUDC was not making any loss. That was before it was taken over by the HDB, but somehow the HDB has, by its accounting suddenly discovered that the cost should be at least 78% to 143% more than what it used to be.

There is the other construction that he has referred to, and that is the construction of the Mass Rapid Transit system. Mr Speaker, Sir, we welcome the construction of this Mass Rapid Transit system at the present moment, but I would ask whether the Government would take steps to ensure that some of the money that is being spent goes to our own people. We know that we spent $10 million in getting advisors from abroad just to come and tell us whether we should have MRT or whether we should have something else in preference. I do not know why it was not possible to find advisors from our own universities. What is wrong with our own university, with our own education system? So let us take care that a lot of this money does not go out. And let us take care also that when they do come here they bring their technological know-how and impart it to our workers, that access to the technological know-how is made available to our people and that it is not kept secret by these companies. Would the Minister tell us what steps the Government is taking in this regard?

Now I turn, Mr Speaker, Sir, lo, what I call, the distribution or the caring for all sections of the community, This, of course, concerns the tax reliefs that the Minister announced in his Budget Statement. The Minister says he is not introducing any new taxes and for that we have to be thankful for small mercies, but he is going to give tax reliefs to a very small minority of the community. I shall come to these tax reliefs, that he is giving in his Statement, a little later because I want to talk about the tax reliefs that he has not given and which concern not a minority but the majority of our people in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am of course referring to the personal tax reliefs that are being given to our people in Singapore under our Income Tax laws. As I said in my speech last year on the Budget Statement, the Income Tax Ordinance was introduced in 1947 and at that time the personal relief that was given, was $3,000 to the taxpayer, an individual; and if he had a wife living with him, there was an additional $2,000, making it $5,000 for a husband and wife. This, Mr Speaker, Sir, was a relief that was given by a colonial government to its subject people, the colonialists. In 1959, we changed our colonial masters to local masters. In 1960, not very long after, our masters took steps to remedy this. They said we were getting far too much, $5,000 for a husband and wife. It had to come down. And so it came down, Mr Speaker, Sir, to $2.000 for the husband, for the man, and $1,000 for the wife - a $5,000 relief reduced to $3,000. Of course, there was thrown in the earned income relief. Today, the relief stands at $4,000 for a husband and wife. It is $2,000 for the taxpayer, $1,000 for the wife and $1,000 for earned income relief. So it stands at less than what was given in 1947. And this is 1983, Mr Speaker, Sir. As I said then, it was not a question of not increasing it; it was a question of deliberately reducing it. Why? Is it not thought possible to increase it now? On that debate last year, 3rd March, a number of our hon. Members of this House spoke about that. I see that yesterday none has spoken this year on it. There is a growing discontent, may I assure the Minister - the hon. Members speaking before me then mentioned about the growing discontent - may I tell the Minister and to the Government Ministers that there is a growing discontent in Singapore about the inadequacy of the tax relief. We do not have to go very far, Mr Speaker, Sir. Across the Causeway the tax relief, as I pointed out, is $7,000 for a husband and wife. We lire supposed to be an affluent society. We claim to be affluent. We say everybody is very affluent. Yet we say we cannot afford to give, leave alone $7,000, but we cannot afford to give $5,000. I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a betrayal of the trust of our people.

May I move on, Sir, to the other glaring omission, and that is the absence of any increase in the relief for aged dependants. Mr Speaker, Sir, this relief was introduced some years ago, and it was put at $300. We. along with other parties, protested at this pittance. It was then raised to $750, and last year it was raised to $1,000. We have heard, particularly over recent months, a lot about the filial duty of children to their parents, how children should look after their parents, how it is their moral duty and what a virtue it is for children to look after their parents. May I say from this House, Sir, that the people of Singapore could do with a little less of this moralizing, this moral preaching. They could do with a little bit of practical help. That is what they want. They want to know how the Government is going to help them to look after their aged parents. They are prepared to do it. I do not think that our people are unmindful of their duty to their parents. Let us not preach to them. Let us help them a little bit to carry out these duties.

Only yesterday, Mr Speaker, there was a letter in the Straits Times. I am sure the Minister and the other Ministers must have seen this letter. The writer speaks about her aged parents. She says her mother is bedridden, and I think they are both over 70 years old. The writer says she is the only child. The mother is bedridden and the father has to struggle - it is a struggle for him to look after his wife - and she says that the father has grown thinner. The writer says she worries very much about them while at work and abroad, and ends with a plea for some practical help. That is what she wants. That writer does not need any moral preaching. She knows what her duties are, So I say to the Minister and to the Government: let us help where it is needed. But this Budget Statement does not do that. It does not meet the needs of our people, and that is the duty, I say, of any government which seeks to be a government, as an hon. Member said, of the people. This is not a government of the people. Let us not delude ourselves any more. You go out- side and you talk to the man in the coffeeshop, in the street, and he will tell you that this Government has long ceased to be a government of the people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministers go on preaching day after day. We were told a little while ago about the Hong Kong syndrome, about the flaunting of wealth by the rich. Has the Minister who spoke this or the other Ministers sat down to think who was responsible for this state of affairs? If the rich are flaunting their wealth, who has contributed to this? I say this Government has, with its accent on the pursuit of wealth, as though that was the only thing that mattered, as though human needs do not matter, human suffering does not matter. Pursuit of wealth is the main object in life, the be-all and end-all of life.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at the beginning of this century, a notable Prime Minister in England spoke of his country as being a country of two nations - a nation of the rich and a nation of the poor. I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that is what we are becoming in Singapore today. I tell this Government: take care that you do not accelerate this; take care to stop this trend towards Singapore becoming a two-nation country; caring or looking after only those with money, those who are able to pay, and be indifferent to the needs of those who are unable to pay. Let us restore in this country of ours dignity of the human being. Let us not despise the sick, the aged. They also have dignity. Let us give them the dignity.

I said I would talk about the relief that has been given. I do not think I have the time, Mr Speaker, Sir, to talk about all the reliefs. But I want to talk about one relief that has been given, and this is the enhanced child relief for specially qualified married women. Why has this minority in our community being singled out again for another relief? In the 1981 Budget Statement - and last year we passed an Act to implement it - we handed back $3 million to them by way of tax relief when we provided that income from investments of earned income would also be assessed separately. This year we are going to hand back $1.4 million. Why do they need it? As somebody pointed out in a letter to the Straits Times, this has a snob appeal. Who is responsible for this? Why is it that only specially qualified women should get this help? What about the countless other working wives who have got children to care for? Why are we singling out this minority and ignoring the majority?

As has been pointed out, it is the duty of the Government, of any government which is sensitive of its needs, of its responsibilities, to look after the majority in the community. But this Government goes on caring for selected minorities, completely ignoring the majority of this country. The Minister says that it is because the cost of domestic help has gone up. Of course, it has. Everybody knows that. But why should they be given relief? And has the Minister wondered whether in every case there would be domestic help engaged? I take it that domestic help here is domestic help to look after the children. What is the position in families where they do not need any domestic help?

Mr Speaker: Order. Your hour is up, Mr Jeyaretnam.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I knew you would call me up. Mr Speaker, may I just end by saying --

Mr Speaker: No. Your time is up, Mr Jeyaretnam. You have spoken for one whole hour. 3.56 p.m.

Mr Lai Tha Chai (Henderson): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard a lot from somebody that the PAP Government, which has been in power for over 20 years, is not a government of the people or for the majority of the people but a government that serves the interest of the minority. I would like to give two clear examples for the reference of all. We have heard that the HDB has been building flats for over 20 years for the majority of our people, i.e. the workers. This is what he himself said. It is not for the minority, the rich men. I do not know whether it could be achieved by a capitalist government.

Eleven days ago, on 4th March, the Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs had, in his reply to a question in this House, explained how the Government acquired land to build more houses for the majority of the people. The second example is the Medisave scheme. Like what the Member for Alexandra has said, we all know that this is a scheme to look after the workers who comprise the majority of our population. The rich people do not need Medisave scheme because they can afford to go to first class wards in the hospitals. However expensive it is, they are able to pay. Therefore, I say this Medisave scheme is for the care and welfare of the majority of the people. I would say that the Budget proposed by the Minister for Trade and Industry is a farsighted budget which will show us the way into the next 10 years. If we just look at the present but not plan for the future, then we will be short-sighted.

We have heard the Government saying we should encourage the aged and also the housewives to come out to work. What is wrong with giving them some tax concessions? Is there anything wrong with encouraging the handicapped persons to be on their own by giving them certain tax concessions? What is wrong with that? The Government does these things to look after as many people as possible. To increase Government revenue, if you are able to pay more, you can afford to pay more for your cigarettes. So what is wrong with paying a little bit more tax? If you are able to pay for your liquor, what is wrong with paying a little bit more tax on liquors? The Member for Yio Chu Kang yesterday suggested that if you want more revenue, you should tax more on tobacco and cigarettes. Mr Speaker, Sir, you know better than I that if one should stop smoking one would not die, but if one should smoke excessively, one has a better chance of contracting cancer. So I agree that, if necessary, other than increasing taxes on tobacco, we should levy more tax on liquors also, because one also would not die from stopping drinking. If you drink too much, you will not necessarily forget every worry, you will be in a state where you will lose your senses and do something harmful against your conscience Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Government finds it necessary to have more money, then the Government should tax more on people who indulge in luxury such as smoking and drinking. I feel all the people will give their support.

I wonder whether those people who have been criticising the Government of caring only for a few have done so with any thinking. I have been thinking: the French Government, in implementing protectionism, wilfully claimed that our goods did not bear the name in the French language and so were not allowed to be imported into France. Yet, under these circumstances, some of our people still want to drink wine and brandy imported from Paris, France. Sir, do you not think this is a strange phenomenon?

Here, let me quote what the Prime Minister has said 10 years ago in his 1973 New Year message.

'Cultural values determine what a people consider to be desirable goals for the individual and the nation. If a people believe that happiness is obtained by enjoyment they see advertised, they will fall prey to the hedonist cult by consuming more of the good things.

The consumer society tends to make pleasure the main purpose of life. The stimulation of the physical senses, whether by food, alcohol, tobacco, drugs, sex, is regarded as the chief good and an end in itself.'

Sir, at this time of world economic recession and prevailing protectionism and at a time when Russia is relentlessly pursuing its Communist expansionism in this region through Vietnam, we should be clear of our purpose and stand upright as Singaporeans, as members of ASEAN and not agent of Britain or France. If the French Government wants to harass us, then we should let the Mitterand government know that the socialism that he is pursuing as a government of the workers is far from the fragrance of wine. If the Australian Government wants to bully us, then we should let the new Hawke Government know that since he has derided the previous Fraser Government as no good and thereby replaced it, then he himself, the Hawke government, should not be like the previous Government antagonistic towards ASEAN countries in such matters as air flights and shipping.

Sir, while we are developing our economy through upgrading of skills and technology by computerization and automation, we should also propagate, the field of culture, our seasoned cultural values, for we should then be able to overcome difficulties and obstacles, and make Singapore so attractive that many tourists would like to come to Singapore. Some people are concerned that the number of tourists is too few while the number of hotels is too many. In the short run, there is inevitably the worry that supply exceeds demand, but I feel that in the long run since Singapore does not have natural resources, tourist industry will be one of the main pillars of an enduring economy to ensure economic development and continued survival. So we must develop tourism and make it a success. In fact, there are several factors which must be given attention in order to succeed. If there is political stability, law and order, easy communication, good environment, good services and the like, then tourists will flock to Singapore. On the other hand, even if the world economic situation is fine and the tourist trade in many other countries is flourishing, if in Singapore some other wolfish government were to be in power and claiming itself to be better than the PAP Government, there could be no political stability but social disorder and rampant crimes. In such a situation, I would like to ask: "Would you as a tourist like to go to such a place for a holiday?" No, neither would I like to risk my life in such a foreign country.

In truth, for the past few years, the Tourist Promotion Board has done quite a lot, but I feel that there is still much more it can do. For instance, it is very important, to provide good services to the tourists. I can give my personal experience as an example. While my family and I were in Hong Kong on holiday, a guide-photographer offered to take our photograph at the cost of HK$5. I agreed. But the following day when he turned up with the photographs, he demanded more than HK$100. He had mounted one or two photographs on some poor quality ceramic plates. He made use of this as a pretext to extort a large sum of money. This is an example. Here in Singapore if we do not take precautionary measures but allow some trishaw riders, taxi drivers or businessmen to cheat the tourists, then we would be following Hong Kong's example. The whole world will then feel that we are a people of mean character whose conscience is wont to be blinded by greed, that we are mean persons and not gentlemen.

Sir, after I have carefully read the Budget Statement, I feel that the contents in the Budget Statement reflect a magnificent spirit of loyalty and patriotism of a gentleman. Therefore, I am sure that in the light of such inspiration, we shall succeed and the people will certainly support it. On this note, I give my support to this motion. 4.10 p.m.

Dr Toh Chin Chye (Rochore): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a sympathy for Ministers for Finance who have to balance the Budget, but this year's Budget could be aptly called "The Battle of the Bulge". The bulge I am referring to is the astounding and unprecedented Budget surplus of nearly $2 billion, $2,000 million, for 1983. This is a surplus arising out an estimated revenue of $8.8 billion that will be collected for the next financial year. The ratio of surplus to revenue is 22%. You can call that ratio a very handsome profit, assuming that the Singapore Government is behaving like an incorporated company. This, of course, leads to two questions, namely, how did this surplus come about? Does the Minister for Trade and Industry budget for a surplus, budget for a deficit, or have a balanced budget?

I would just like to speak briefly on two points, one from the point of view of the taxpayer, the household and the company, and secondly, from the point of view of assisting industry, particularly in a recession year.

First, listening to the speakers yesterday, it would seem to me that there have been, quite correctly, allegations of over-budgetting by Government Ministries, and this over-budgetting tends to stimulate the collection of excessive revenue or taxes. I can give three examples where there has been a gross over-budgetting of development expenditure for FY 81-82. Take the Ministry of Finance. It over-estimated by $707 million; the Ministry of National Development over-estimated by $68 million, and the Ministry of Trade and Industry by $91 million. These are the Economic Ministries which have over-budgetted very grossly indeed and have stimulated a greater collection of taxes.

Although the Minister for Trade and Industry has warned that there may be a reduction in income tax, I do not see this happening because Class I taxes, i.e. direct and indirect taxes, will increase by 42% over the figures for 1980. It is an increase over a three-year period. Class 11 revenue, which comes from the sales of goods and services, will increase by 118% a kid Class 3 revenue, which comes from interest and dividends, will increase by a modest 5%. So the deficit, which the Minister for Trade and Industry predicted would happen in the financial year 1983, will probably not come about. He has given personal deductions or reliefs amounting to $3.8 million, and deductions for companies, $6.2 million, a total of $10 million, but the tax increase for 1983 on tobacco and liquor will yield altogether $54 million and he has assured us that there will be a $2 billion surplus. I would like very much, indeed, if those who frame the Budget policy will return to the old practice of presenting a comprehensive budget so that the taxpayer and the company that has to invest and to prepare its own budget, will be in a better position to know that their liabilities are.

On the other hand, it has been the practice in recent years to adopt a "striptease" budget - show a little, but not too much. The painful part of paying for what you have seen will come sometime in the middle of the year. So I have scrutinised [Laughter] not the Hon. Minister for Trade and Industry, but his Budget. I notice, Mr Speaker, Sir, that there will be a 24% increase in revenue from the Ministry of Health and its hospitals. And there will be a 34% increase in revenue from the Registry of Vehicles. I have no idea what other new levies or new rates will be imposed during the coming fiscal year. But I think it is very unfair indeed for households and businesses to be caught in the middle of their own fiscal year with new rates, new levies.

It is a serious point that I am presenting, namely, that a comprehensive budget be given to the House so that there will be a frank and honest assessment of what it is going to cost the taxpayer.

Recently, there has been a hiving off of Government departments into statutory bodies. Obviously, statutory bodies are public bodies. They must be accountable to the public and we would like to know which Ministries are responsible for these statutory bodies. What is the contribution of these statutory bodies to Government revenue? What is the contribution of Government companies, of which there are quite a number, to Government revenue? Can their contributions help to alleviate income tax collections or other levies which are made on fixed charges?

Let us take the Monetary Authority of Singapore. Over the last few years it has consistently been giving the Government a handsome dividend of $100 million. And it is estimated to provide another $100 million for FY 83. I am very pleased indeed that with assets of $8.3 billion as of 31st March 1982, the Monetary Authority is able to provide a consistent dividend of $100 million. Of course, I am more pleased to learn that its assets have now grown to $31.3 billion but it made me ask, from its holdings of gold and foreign exchange, how did $8.3 billion suddenly increase to $31.3 billion? I find it irksome indeed, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I should read all this in Fortune when all this should really be reported to the taxpayers in Singapore, to Parliament, because the Act which governs the operations of the MAS spells out that the MAS should present annually a report to Parliament. Will the Minister for Finance assure us that the activities of the Government Investment Corporation and its balance sheet will be included in the next annual report of the Monetary Authority of Singapore and submitted to Parliament? I think it is of considerable concern to all of us who have savings in the Central Provident Fund. Others would like to know how did these surpluses accumulate. After all, the MAS is not only the central banker for the Government but is also the financial agency of the Government. So I presume that it also handles all surplus funds, including the $2 billion surplus for FY 83.

It is not that we do not trust the Monetary Authority, but when we hear or read that it is an unusual practice for a central bank to form subsidiary companies, then it would be more comfortable if we could hear from the Monetary Authority itself about its investments and how profitable it has been.

I need not remind Members of the House that there was the case of Granite House which was discussed by the Public Accounts Committee in 1976. I think the Government bought Granite House for o22 million. Then when the property market in the United Kingdom collapsed, it was worth very much less than o22 million. If we had bought property in Queensland or Brisbane, it would have been that much less by 10%. So as a public body that is accountable, it is the right of Parliament to be kept fully informed by a report from the Monetary Authority.

"Governments do not and cannot create wealth but they can create the environment that will make it either more or less likely that the productive sector of society will, in fact, create wealth." I did not say that, Mr Speaker, Sir. This is a quotation from Mr Donald Regan, Secretary of the United States Treasury. And the Minister for Trade and Industry is absolutely correct when he said that economic growth and full employment will depend on the corporate sector remaining strong and vigorous.

I would like to give my point of view on how we can make the corporate sector strong and vigorous so that we can ensure full employment. I go back to a passage during Question Time last week when I pointed out to the Minister for Finance the increasing cost of labour incurred by companies contributing to the Central Provident Fund, payroll tax and Skills Deve- lopment Fund. It is proposed under the Medisave Scheme that the CPF contributions will be increased to a total of 50%; 25% will be paid by the worker, 25% by the employer. From the point of view of the employee, it must mean that his take-home pay will be one quarter less. The starting point of wage negotiations or collective agreements with unions is the take-home pay. So when workers' take-home pay is reduced by one quarter, they will ask their employers to top it up. So you have a spiralling increase in wages. For the employer he is paying proportionately 25% in CPF contributions, a payroll tax of 2% on income, a skills development tax of 4%, again, on income. That adds up to a total of 31% on income. Even before he starts business, he will have to examine the cost of labour. On top of that, what are his dues in terms of property tax?

Over four years from 1978 to 1982, property tax collections have increased by 108%. For this year, I am told that some companies have received notices increasing their property tax by 150% to 250%. The argument behind these increases has not been spelt out. And I know from my own personal experience that although you have the right to appeal you are never heard at all.

In a recession year, I think there should be a little more flexibility on the part of the Government in alleviating levies or taxes that they collect from companies. Because if companies go down, then of course the workers will be out in the streets. The Minister for Trade and Industry cannot deplore the drift of labour from manufacturing into the trade sector, simply because if we were to automate or mechanize the manufacturing industry, which is quite relatively easy to do, surplus labour must move off into the trade sector which is labour-intensive.

If we calculate productivity or added value per dollar salary, instead of added value per worker, and if the added value remains constant, we will find that with increasing salaries productivity must come down. If there is no gross operating profit that a company can make, there will be no added value at all. So productivity must be zero. In other words, it might be useful for the Government to consider setting up a committee to examine the impact of its proportionate taxes. They are proportionate to income - the higher the income, the higher the levies that are made on CPF, payroll tax, Skills Development Fund and so on.

I casually mentioned to the Minister of State for National Development that there was this levy of 3% on live entertainment. It is discouraging to the tourist to find that he has got to pay to be entertained in Singapore. What is it that the tourist comes to Singapore for? Has he come here to admire the flats in Toa Payoh? I do not believe that any of us in our adventures abroad goes around to admire high-rise buildings!

There is another unfair levy, a 3% levy which is payable to the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board. This levy begun several years ago was quite correctly to collect money to promote tourism. Over the years, the catchment for this levy has increased enormously by the increase in the number of hotels, restaurants, boarding houses and so on. The Singapore Tourist Promotion Board finds that it has a surplus and excess funds but from the point of view of the operator of a restaurant or cafeteria, his prices are marked up. So all this adds up to making Singapore less competitive in the export market, whether in the export of goods or in the export of services.

I would like indeed the Government, the Minister for Finance in particular, to examine some of these taxes that we have been collecting so far. In the early years, in the 1960s when we were hard-up for cash, when a surplus of $10 million or even $100 million was considered a windfall, these taxes were appropriate. Now we have a surplus of $2 billion, so are we not over-collecting? I think this is a point worth examining or looking into.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have some questions to put to the Minister for Trade and Industry, and I would like him to clarify. What is the impact on Singapore's economy if the price of oil falls down to US$29 per barrel? What effect will it have on Government revenue, particularly on excise duty, because, as I understand it, tax is collected ad valorem. Will consumers of electricity and motorists benefit from the drop in the price of oil? What is the future of the Petrochemical Complex to which the Govern- ment has committed a billion dollars? These are questions which occupy our minds but which have not been touched upon by the Minister for Trade and Industry. 4.31 p.m.

Encik Saidi Haji Shariff (Kaki Bukit): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have listened with close attention and keen interest to the views of my PAP Members of Parliament who spoke yesterday as well as today in support of our Government financial policy for the year 1983-84 as outlined in the Annual Budget Statement. Our able Minister for Trade and Industry was most eloquent and precise when he presented his painless Budget on the 4th instant. He gave a realistic and frank appraisal of the problems confronting our nation in the year ahead and, in his concluding remarks on the economic policy, he presented practical suggestions as to how we should face the rough times ahead. I must therefore confess to feeling somewhat inadequate to make any critical comment or even to suggest an answer to our economic problems. But, as a Singaporean, I would nevertheless like to make some remarks in support of the Budget Statement.

The highest challenge we face today, in view of the problems that beset the world and the difficult years ahead of us, is first and foremost to ensure that we continue to have political stability and that our country is run by an honest and effective government and to maintain a high work performance and competitive efficiency which we have established through years of hard work. We must totally eradicate careless work attitude and take pride in our jobs. Our aim is to develop Singapore into a Centre of excellence, not only in the areas of finance and tourism but also competence in the field of science and technology. Despite our small size we must ensure that we are able to stand solidly on our own feet. At present there is a growing trend among our community for an ostentatious life-style and self-centred outlook fostered by our own seemingly growing affluence and constantly abetted by advertising. Thrift has become unfashionable in the race for conspicuous spending. Whatever the latent philosophy may be, it is an unhealthy trend which is alien to our Eastern tradition. We must reorientate an attitude of mind towards facing reality and not wallow in soft options like shorter working hours, longer vacations and earlier retirement. History has shown that the greatness of nations depends on the people; and a nation like ours depends entirely on our people's discipline, thrift and indomitable will to work. We need to have a positive attitude towards life and an appreciation of the demands of successful and satisfying community living. One of the most important of these demands is that of caring and concern for those who need help since we are apt in the pursuit of good life to forget those who have not had similar opportunities.

As citizens, our best contribution to ensure the survival of Singapore in the midst of a competitive world beset with a chaotic economic situation and political troubles, is to increase our productivity at our workplace. There is presently already an increasing awareness of productivity among employers. This productivity awareness must be enhanced not only among workers on the factory floor and in offices but also among our people in their homes and students in schools. Let the concept of productivity be driven hard to be the work consciousness and philosophy of our people to ensure at all times that our products and services are of the highest standard. Computerization and robotization will push further our drive for increased productivity but it must be remembered that it is people who make the organization or company tick. Hence there is need for an effective personnel management approach being adopted by employers. Apart from fostering team spirit, improving staff morale, implementing welfare schemes and incentive bonus payments, there is need to develop human relationship skills at all levels of the workforce in any organization. In view of the stress and strains of our present-day living in an urban environment and fast working pace, we need to develop a very informal and friendly social atmosphere or environment where our people could live and work happily, and this goes a long way to motivating them to excel for higher output. It is my hope that with cooperation between the Government, management and labour, we will be able to increase productivity to offset the effects of recession and protectionism. I am confident that with this effort from all quarters, we can increase or at least maintain an economic growth in the year ahead though at a lower rate.

On that note I fully endorse the Hon. Minister's decision to allocate 80% of the Development budget fol- expenditure on public housing, infrastructural, industrial and commercial development as well as education and manpower training. This, I hope, will adequately help to achieve the three-pronged objectives of our economic policy. I also do not grudge the allocation of 70% of the recurrent budget for combined expenditure on education, defence and public debt servicing. It is my hope that the allocation for recurrent expenditure is adequate to maintain the existing level of Government services and cater for expansion of essential functions such as education and manpower training. It is satisfying to note that funds have been provided for greater mechanization, automation and computerization in the Civil Service, as these will improve productivity and restrain the growth in recurrent expenditure and manpower. However, every care should be taken by those responsible for the implementation of Government policies in the provision of public services that they do not overlook the commitment of our Government to do the best for the mostest people.

In his Budget Statement, the Hon. Minister has decided to give three concessions to encourage the older- workers and specially qualified married women to remain in the workforce and thereby contribute to our economy. There would be a revenue loss of about $2.4 million by increasing the earned income relief from $2,000 to $3,000 for those over 55 years old and from $3,000 to $4,000 for those over 60 years old. I wonder how many of the senior citizens will benefit from this concession. I also wonder whether by remaining in the workforce they would be depriving our school leavers of job opportunities in future.

There are many other suggestions that I would like to make on the concessions, but since this has been brought up by the previous speakers I would like to end my speech here. On that note I support the Annual Budget Statement by the Minister for Trade and Industry. 4.38 p.m.

Mr Liew Kok Pun (Boon Teck): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I join my colleagues in congratulating the Hon. Minister for Trade and Industry on presenting to us such a painless Budget this year. In such a time as this, we can consider ourselves fortunate as we look at this year's Budget Statement. All around us, the world is fraught with anxieties, tensions, crises.

First, there is global recession. People elsewhere are thrown out of work. Unemployment is so massive that people have to work shorter hours and agree to lower wages in order that more jobs can be made available. Next, there is the dithering international financial system - threatened by the very people who cannot repay the debts they owe to the tune of hundreds of billions of US dollars. Then there are the atrocities of massacres and wars and blatant invasions. And yet, despite all this stormy weather, we are still able to have a painless Budget. It is clear to us all that being able to afford such a Budget against the backdrop of a gloomy world economy did not come to us by accident but by design, by good government. It is the result of farsighted, prudent monetary and fiscal policies, giving us a secure buffer of three years to see us through the lean times. It speaks of a maturity, a vision in planning and in good government which we can be proud of. This is our forte.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Budget is a means of allocating scarce resources according to our needs and priorities. In considering the Budget, the thoughts uppermost in my mind are: This is our country, our land, our people. What must we do to ensure our survival, to ensure that each Singaporean is being developed to the fullest so that we can have a safe and secure homeland?

Hence, as I pondered on each part of the Budget, I asked myself such simple questions as: In what ways is it good for the people? Is it well balanced? Does it correct a weakness? Is it the best way out? Is it enough or too little? Who will benefit from it and who will be affected by it? What is the price we have to pay?

Mr Speaker, Sir, my colleagues before me have covered a number of areas in this debate. I would first like to comment on two points which stick out in Section Ill of the Budget Statement, namely, the enhanced child relief for specially qualified women, and the first year depreciation for computers and office automation equipment.

Let me at the outset state that I fully support the provision of enhanced child relief to encourage the more highly qualified married women to continue to work even after they have children. Sir, the reasons are compelling. The latest Labour Force Survey reveals that about 2,000 or 17.5% of women with tertiary education rejected job offers because of home and child-care responsibilities. Sir, this is not a small number. Married women who are highly qualified should be encouraged to work and give the rest of society the benefit of their talents and abilities. However, the quantum of enhanced child relief is not sufficiently attractive. It is peanuts. It is also neither here nor there - a half-hearted measure that will not solve the problem. Moreover, restricting the enhanced child relief to specially qualified women only discriminates against the rest who form the bulk of the female workforce, about 97.2%. They too are partners in contributing to the economic development of our country. The restrictive enhanced child relief is not only unfair but socially unacceptable. I urge the Hon. Minister for Trade and Industry to lift the restriction and extend it to all female workers. I would like to ask what the cost to revenue will be if the enhanced child relief also benefits the other female workers. Sir, there are other equally cogent reasons why we must examine all other incentives to get more women back into the workforce. First, the female labour force participation rate in Singapore is regrettably low. Only 45% of our women are working. Secondly, in a labour-deficit economy with a small workforce of about 1.2 million and a two-child family norm, we cannot afford to have a low female labour participation rate. The result of this is the need to bring in a large number of foreign workers, which is socially undesirable.

I would strongly suggest that the Government consider a long term plan to encourage more female workers to continue to work even after they have children. The Government has already set this direction of long term planning with all the features of prudence, foresight and sound judgement, as in housing, transportation, education and health. A similar long range social plan is badly needed. We would need to look at a tax relief which would make it worthwhile for women to come out and work. More important, we would also need to provide adequate creches and child-care centres if we want to get more women back into the workforce. This then is the crux of the problem. We do not have enough creches and childcare centres for the mother to place her children during the day so that she can work. Hence, from physical facilities, like buildings for creches and child-care centres, to professional expertise in the form of qualified teachers and nurses, a long range social plan has to be thoroughly worked out. We are aware of the importance of the mother looking after the children, but if she feels secure that they are in good hands, she may find it possible and attractive to return to work and thus also contribute to the economy.

Let me now move to the incentive given to enterprises to automate and computerize their operations by allowing all expenditure on computers and office automation equipment to be written off in a year. In strong contrast to the enhanced child-relief incentive, this is an attractive one and would certainly have the intended effect of speeding up the computerization and automation of more enterprises in Singapore. I am sure it would spur more enterprises to re-examine their labour-intensive operations. We have actually no choice - it is either automate and computerize or die. Our workers should welcome this as it would take away the repetitive and monotonous tasks, and replace them with more skill-intensive work, and hence higher wages.

But, as we look at automation, particularly the large scale robot-led automation, we have to anticipate what it can bring in its wake. We must study the impact it can have on our workers. We must take cognizance of what has happened in other countries, especially Japan. In other words, we have to prepare our workers to cope with a rapidly changing work environment, a machine-dominated environment. The first effect of large scale automation and computerization is the displacement of workers to different jobs. Psychologically, workers would have to be prepared to undertake different jobs during their careers. They may need to have multiple skills. It is therefore necessary to reorientate our workers' attitudes towards retraining, life-long learning, acquiring multiple skills and more frequent job rotation.

I would therefore look forward in future Budget Statements to seeing provisions that reflect a well considered and long term plan of action, first, to prepare our workers to look forward to automation; secondly, to educate them to take the adjustment problems arising from job displacement in their stride; thirdly, to look after those threatened by obsolescence by equipping them with alternative skills so that they do not become a burden to themselves or to society; fourthly, to analyse the machine-dominated environment and its impact on workers; and fifthly, to provide the necessary facilities for training, counselling and other measures.

In short, this plan should give the worker a fair chance in the face of psychological and social problems which automation may cause him.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my comments on these two points in the Budget have been prompted by my concern that we cannot afford any wastage in the only resource our country can claim to, and that is our human resource.

Sir, may I now touch on a matter totally unrelated to the first two topics. This concerns the subject of the excessively high Additional Registration Fee (ARF) charged on school and private-hire buses. Sir, before I continue I must hasten to add that although I am working in the transport cooperative, I am speaking on the subject mainly for the public interest and from the point of view of bringing about a more efficient school and hire-bus service. The ARF charged on these buses is 55% of the price of the new vehicle, whereas in the case of SBS and CSS buses, it is only 5%. I would like to draw the attention of the Hon. Minister for Finance to the problems faced by the 7,000 school and private-hire bus operators. According to the latest available 1981 statistics, there were 2,840 school and private-hire buses, or about 41% of the total, which were 10 years old and above. The problem with these buses is that they emit a lot of black smoke; their owners are often summoned by the traffic police and the ROV for excessive smoke emission of their vehicles; and the buses, especially the very old ones, cannot pass the ROV inspection tests - the passing rate being very low, and hence a number of them have been taken off the road.

I am all for the strict control on pollution and the high standards required in maintenance and in passing the vehicle inspec- tions. However, it must be pointed out that these buses, being old, are extremely difficult to maintain. In other words, to provide a better bus service without too much pollution and lay-offs, many of these old buses need to be scrapped and replaced with new buses. The bus operators appreciate this and are willing to replace their buses. But when they are faced with such a hefty ARF of 55% charged on new school and private-hire buses, they simply cannot afford to pay for it. A 44-seater bus would cost more than $100,000 to bring it on the road. Even if the bus is efficiently used, the bus driver would find the monthly loan instalment prohibitive. The alternative is to increase the bus subscription fare substantially for children and workers. And this is definitely not desirable. Sir, the 7,000 school and private-hire buses provide an important and indispensable supplementary service to the public bus transportation service. They now provide an efficient service to the commuting public. They help to take part of the load off during the peak hours and hence alleviate the shortage of buses during this period. It can be argued therefore that the school and private-hire buses themselves provide a public transportation service.

Sir, I would like to appeal to the Hon. Minister for Finance to reduce the ARF charged for school and private-hire buses, or alternatively to set a realistic ARF ceiling or an ARF quantum according to the age of the vehicle rather than to apply a straight percentage formula of 55%. This is the case for taxis where the ARF charged for a new replacement taxi depends on the age of the scrapped vehicle. The purpose is to provide monetary incentives so that we can have a younger fleet of taxis.

Sir, I gather from press reports that the Ministry of Communications is inclined to be sympathetic to the appeal of the school and private bus owners. Their case is cogent. It is a positive step which will encourage the replacement of old buses with new, trouble-free ones so as to improve the bus service. Thus, my appeal to the Minister for Finance is a simple one and, that is, for a speedy decision to be made on the review of the ARF for school and private-hire buses.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on this note, I support the motion by the Minister for Trade and Industry. 4.56 p.m.

Mr Chai Chong Yii (Bukit Batok): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister presented to this House a sombre Budget on March 4th, stressing grave world economic problems we are facing today. These problems we all would like to wish them away if we could. It is impossible. There is no choice but to face them squarely.

According to the Economic Survey for 1982, our Financial and Business Services Sector contributed 36% to the Real Growth in Domestic Product. This growth rate is the fastest of all sectors in our economy. The Minister made it very clear that it is the Government's intention to further encourage the growth of this sector. I fully support this move.

Singapore is a densely populated metropolitan state situated at the cross-roads of the world. Our weak point of having too many people to feed can also be our strong point if our people are able to provide high value-added services sought after by other countries especially by our ASEAN neighbours. Financial and Business Services are among the high value-added services we are capable of providing. Every encouragement must be given by the Government to upgrade the quality and reduce the costs of these services. The Minister's decision to grant five years' tax holiday to income earned by Asian Currency Units of banks and financial institutions in syndication loan activities is a good move. It has the effect of increasing profitability for ACUs operating in Singapore. It also enables progressive ACU managers to reduce their spreads to get more business.

Singapore's position as an important financial centre in Asia has grown from strength to strength. Its free enterprise economy and open-door financial policy in attracting foreign expertise have contributed considerably to this growth. The bankers and finance managers operating in Singapore are among the best in terms of trustworthiness, experience and skills. I am sure they will respond favourably to the Minister's desire of further promoting Singapore's status as the key centre for Asian Dollars.

To achieve this objective, our bankers and financial institutions must do their best to make their services more conveniently available and cheaper. Convenience and costs are the two most important factors affecting corporate managers' funding decisions. Singapore is in an envious position of being able to contact London and New York in the same business day. Our bankers should make better use of this geographical advantage by prolonging their banking hours. In Hong Kong the banking hours are longer than ours.

On the question of cheaper services, it occurs to me that there exists in Singapore a curious service charge known as Commission in Lieu of Exchange. It is levied by local ACU managers on foreign currency remittance passing through them. This levy is usually a flat 1/8% of the amount of remittance. For example, Mr A remits US$800,000 from Hong Kong to Mr B's ACU account in Singapore. If Mr A's banker does not remit to Mr B's Account direct, Mr B is unable to get the full amount of US$800,000. He has to pay US$1,000 as Commission in Lieu of Exchange plus another US$15 cable charge to the intermediary banker. The service charge is said to be laid down by the Bankers Association. I cannot see the rationale for this arbitrary levy. It is unreasonable as it has no bearing on either the risks involved or the amount of work put in by the intermediary banker. I hope the Minister will do something to have it removed. As a matter of fact, I am against all percentage charges that have no bearing on the quantum of work done or the extent of risks involved. If our aim of making Singapore as a brain-service centre is to be more successful, all professional services should be charged proportionate to amount of work undertaken or risks shouldered, and not as an arbitrary percentage.

On that note, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker: I propose to take the Suspension now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 5.35 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.03 p.m. until 5.35 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.35 p.m.