PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS Debate on the Address (Fourth Allotted Day)

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [1st March, 1985].

'That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:-

"We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament.".' - [Dr Tan Cheng Bock].

Question again proposed. 11.36 am

Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion moved by the Member for Ayer Rajah thanking the President for his Address.

Sir, the general election in December last year has been described as the watershed of Singapore's political history. The first sentence in the Presidential Address says:

'The political leadership of Singapore has passed on to a new team of younger leaders.'

Therefore, the importance of this general election is very clear to all. I feel that the responsibility of the new Government is also very great. There are double aspects to it. On the one hand, it is to carry on with what achievement that has taken place in the past, and on the other hand, to explore the future and to create a new path. So it involves both the aspects of continuity and exploration. It is not a childish game, nor as simple as a football game.

The First Deputy Prime Minister has described himself as, in soccer parlance, the centre forward - the front line shooter. But governing a country is not like playing a soccer game - no fun. I believe the Government, particularly the young Leaders in the Government are deeply conscious of the onerous burden of governing a country that they have to shoulder.

Sir, after crossing over this water-shed, we have entered a new arena just like what Caesar of the Roman Empire said, "We have crossed the Rubicon, there is now no turning back." There is no turning back for us. We must face the future. Obviously, we cannot return to the 5Os, 60s or even the 70s. We cannot return to the time when there were labour-intensive industries nor to the days of cheap labour. We also cannot return to the days of planting tapioca, vegetable growing or chicken rearing. This is a hard fact of reality we must face. The question is what are we going to do when faced with a new situation or when facing the future? Where are we going to? How are we going to conduct ourselves?

The new Government has announced six main objectives to achieve in order to arrive at a better society. This is an ambitious plan and a grand vision which calls for all our support and are worth striving for. The question is, how are we going to materialize this vision and achieve our goals? Among the six main objectives, I believe the first objective is perhaps the most important one, namely, that people must arrive at an accord on the character of the society people desire. The original quotation is:

'to reach an accord on the character of the society people desire'.

On this point, I feel that rather than regard it as an objective, it would be better to say that it is a pre-condition or a pre-requisite for achieving other objectives or goals. Because I feel that unity of purpose between the people and the Government is of fundamental importance. It is of national importance and the basis in ruling a country for its good order and progress. Whether you are the government or you are the people, we are in the same boat, sharing the same fate. Therefore, we must cooperate. All must abide by certain rules, discipline and order and we all must go towards the same direction. In this way, we could ensure the safety of this boat.

In the next five years, our common direction is to build a better society. This is also the direction formulated by the new generation -leaders. It is also a goal. But, Sir, I personally feel that so far these objectives and these directions and policies have not been accepted by all our people or agreed to or understood by all of them. This is presently the greatest challenge facing the new leadership and the Government. So the problem is how to convince our people, how to mobilize our people to march towards the same common goal and direction. I feel this is a very onerous task. The success or failure of this task will determine whether we will continue to develop and progress or we will enter into a state of decline or degeneration and meeting with certain undesirable consequences.

Sir, after the December general election, we find that the political situation in Singapore as a whole has been quite different. In the past, for a very long time the people and the Government had always shared a mutual trust with each other, and maintained a very close relationship. But after this general election, not a few people began to lose confidence in the Government. This Government, in fact, is the same Government that has led Singapore through many difficulties and hurdles until today. Why is it that some people have certain doubts in the Government and have their confidence shaken? I will give a few examples.

It is just like an old couple, a husband and wife who have gone through difficult times together for many years. Suddenly the husband suspects that his wife has been unfaithful, having committed a certain unfaithful act. After all these many years their children have grown up. It is even more pitiful when the children grumbled about their mother saying that she has been exercising too strict a control over them. That is an even more pitiful situation. Why? It must be due to interference from a third party or a fourth party.

Sir, we have also heard of many rumours circulating in the market place before and after the general election, that the government was not quite clean, was always seeking profit, and was only interested in getting money, or in Hokkien "luimin" (money face). They accuse the Housing and Development Board of selling flats in order to make money. They also said that the Government's sudden proposal to delay the withdrawal of CPF savings was because the Government had no money and therefore had to keep the contributors' money in the savings for use. There was also the talk that the Government wanted to make use of the CPF funds to pay for the MRT. There were also other rumours that Singapore has no freedom. It was too disciplined. It was under too rigid rules and so on.

Yesterday the Member for Queenstown (who is not here now) mentioned a story about "pay and pay", which had also been circulating in the market place. The Member for Queenstown could be likened to " " (Su Wu) who was sent to the Frigid Northern "Bei Hai" territory as an emissary where he tended a flock of sheep. After such a long absence from home, now he has come back. Maybe he has lost touch with reality here. Maybe his information is not quite direct. Perhaps it is an indirect first edition information that he had heard. Now, it is third edition. So with every repetition, there must be some difference. Let me read out. The first edition is, "Pay And Pay"; the second edition is, "Pay And Pay, Why Pay?"; the third edition is, "Pay And Pay, Why Pay? So, Don't Pay." It could perhaps be a practical joke, but it illustrates what I have just said about the change in the whole political scene.

As I said, the whole political situation is quite different now. The mood or sentiment of the people has undergone great changes. Sir, although rumours will stop at one who is knowledgeable, unfortunately there are many people who believe in such rumours spread around by irresponsible politicians. These rumours have caused a kind of damage between the people and the Government, causing mistrust of the people against the government. This is very deplorable and lamentable.

This makes me recall two stories that happened in olden day China, one of which is called "A company of three persons makes a tiger". Of course, it does not mean that the three persons together have actually become a tiger. Normally, you would not find a tiger appearing in town. But, if one day, among three people in the streets one of them suddenly shouted, "In Kreta Ayer there is a tiger." The second person also repeated the same story. Later on, the third person also said that, "there is a tiger in Kreta Ayer". Then it would lead to many people believing that there is a tiger in town, if they did not believe in the first two persons' rumour.

There is another story about "Jen Shen killing somebody". Jen Shen or Jen Tze, a student of Confucius, was well-known for his filial piety. People who have read the Analects would know that he was a very filial son. It was he who said "I examine myself three times a day". He did not marry and he was living with his mother. One day when his mother was knitting, somebody suddenly turned up and reported to her saying, "Old granny, your son has killed somebody! Jen Shen killed somebody!" But his mother was not moved. She continued to knit because she knew that her son was of good character and very filial and would never kill a person. Soon after, a second person also turned up and told her, "It is true that Jen Shen has killed somebody." At that time, his mother was a bit jittery in the heart, thinking that since there were two persons who had told her the same story, it might possibly be true. But still she kept calm and was not very convinced. But soon a third person turned up and said, "Yes, it is true. Your son has killed somebody." Then this old woman became very frightened. She not only threw away her work but scampered over the wall and escaped. So this story goes to show how serious a rumour could be. In fact, it was true that there was one Jen Shen who killed somebody, but that Jen Shen was another person of the same name, not Jen Tze who was the son of this old nanny.

Sir, I quoted these two stories to illustrate one principle, ie, in a democratic society, if we hope to develop a healthy democratic system that would grow strong, then our people must have a higher level of intelligence and with a better sense of judgment, and should not be easily swayed by unfounded rumours and falsehoods. In other words, as people in a democratic country we must be more mature. This also shows that under the present new situation, the government, in winning over the hearts and minds of the people, or in trying to change the bad habits or the bad points of the people, must try to put in more realistic efforts. The Government must try to rebuild the mutual trust and close relationship that existed between the people and the Government in the past.

Sir, there is a saying that when there is harmony in the family, everything will be well. If the husband keeps on suspecting the wife of being unfaithful, then although they may be sleeping in the same bed they will have different dreams. If the children continue to grumble about their mother, then there will be disharmony among the members of the family and the family may not keep on well or prosper. So let us all remember that whatever it is, we are members of the same family. How then, are we going to rebuild this mutual trust between the people and the Government? First, I feel that we must understand that we are now faced with an entirely new social situation where, with popular education the standard or level of education of the people is higher. At the same time, the type of objective factors which compel the people to accept strict social discipline as in the past no longer exists. That is to say, the type of crisis-feeling of the people then is no longer in existence now. In other words, now the people have greater confidence and a greater sense of security, and they also want to have more opportunity of participation and demand more information on Government policies, and they also demand more voice on these matters.

So how are we going to deal with this new situation? I feel that we must deal with this situation in two aspects, (1) on the part of the Government, and (2) on the people. On the part of the Government, the Government must adopt a new style. Some people feel that in the past the style and the method of government has been too patriarchal. It is just like what the Member for Queenstown has said, too paternalistic. This too patriarchal a style is very difficult to be accepted by the people nowadays. For instance, some people regard the priority given to children of graduate mothers is too paternalistic in style. But I do riot mean that the purpose of the priority scheme is wrong. The intention is very good. Perhaps it would take a few decades before Singaporeans realize that the Government's priority scheme as a result of the present procreation trends is good after all. They may then understand the reasons for this policy.

Secondly, the Government must have a new approach in the business of government. In the past, there were certain unpleasant measures taken in governing the country which should not be repeated. For instance, when the Government wanted to reduce the number of vehicles on the road, it raised the road tax immediately; and when it wanted to reduce the number of people from taking taxis, it immediately increased taxi fares. This is not too convincing. The steps taken were too fast.

Thirdly, the Government should give the people more information so that they may understand the situation better. Otherwise they may be prone to rumours. When one person starts talking, the rest will tend to believe, just like the saying that, when a dog barks at a shadow a hundred dogs will join in.

Fourthly, I feel that the idea of town councils for the participation of our citizens, is worth trying. From what I know, in certain central European countries there is a kind of citizens' council. This kind of organization perhaps merits our study.

Fifthly, I feel that Government departments, and statutory boards should pay more attention to the feelings of the people. Civil servants should not throw their weight about. They should not be bureaucratic. There should be a humane civil service. In this respect, the public relations practice of Telecoms work is worthy of emulation by Government departments and statutory boards.

As a people, we should realize that we are a small country. We are like in a small sampan, always subjected to the natural elements and other limitations. Our living conditions cannot therefore be compared with the big powers. We cannot behave like the people in such big countries. We should not behave like people in some countries where there are internal squabbles and civil strife, such as the example of the United Kingdom quoted by the Member for Kuo Chuan where the coal miners went on strike for one year causing the country to incur a loss which would take us three years to earn. Perhaps that is the so-called people's expression of freedom but the price to pay is tragic and the consequences are worth taking note of.

As a small country, I feel that we should try our best to arrive at a consensus on important issues, although we may not reach 100% consensus. We must try to seek concord in diversity. This is the way to our survival. What kind of society are we going to reach? On this, we must reach an accord on the character of the society. Here, the Government has formulated a blueprint that what we want is a better society. What kind of better society? How much better? This society must have this kind of attribute where there is peace and harmony, mutual trust, order and discipline, a society where there is tolerance, creativeness and viability and a cultured society.

How can we reach a concord on achieving this kind of society? I feel we could go by these means. For instance, firstly, there must be dialogue between the Government leadership and the public Secondly, there must be consultations. Thirdly, people's participation; and fourthly, which is perhaps the most important, the political will to arrive at and strive for a common objective. These are the four main approaches. I feel that the PAP or the Government is not lacking in political will but let the younger generation of Singaporeans express to their elders that they also are not lacking in this political will and determination to create a better Singapore. I would ask whether the Opposition Members also have the same kind of political will. Let them tell us and let them tell the people of Singapore.

Sir, in order to create a better society, we must also be able to achieve a situation where there is security while in peace. In the book of "Yi" there is a quotation: "A gentleman when in peace does not forget danger; when in existence does not forget death; when in orderly rule does not forget disorder; so that one may be secure and the nation may be preserved". The decline of a nation has many reasons. It is none other than natural disasters or human trouble in internal strife or foreign invasion. At the moment we do not have any of such things, earthquake, floods, fire, foreign aggression, etc. Instead, externally, we have ASEAN with whose members we have a close relationship. We are getting on well with our neighbours. But let us not forget that international relations is something that does not exist without change for long. There was one Thomas Palmerstone, a Prime Minister of England, who said that there is no permanent national friend nor permanent national enemy. There is only permanent national interest. Even when a country is in the best of terms with another country, there could also be unfriendly happenings, just as what has happened between New Zealand and the United States. Their relationship has now gone sour. Even in our neighbourhood, during the Chinese New Year there have been certain events happening. There was the trouble with mandarin oranges which took place just across the Causeway. Then, in a matter of just three hours away by air from us, there is war going on in Vietnamese-occupied Cambodia. And Thailand also has to contend with frequent border infringements by Vietnam. All these are eye openers which should make us sit up and realize that we must constantly be conscious of our security and must always be prepared for internal trouble and internal strife.

What is meant by internal trouble? It is the disunity of the people and non-existence of mutual trust coupled with a diversity of purpose between the people and the Government, just like in a quarrelling family, even worse, where there are prodigal sons who quarrel among themselves and also fight against each other for the inheritance of their forefathers. If such squabbles take place amongst us, it would be most unfortunate.

There is another thing. While we live in peace, we must also be security-conscious. We must be alert against the raising of individualism or egoism which is a problem that calls for our attention. Here, I would quote from the International Herald Tribune of 27th February 1985 which reported on the results of a study by an American sociologist on individualism. This scholar was Robert Bellah. He said:

(In English)

'We are concerned that this individualism may have grown cancerous, that it may be threatening the survival of freedom itself.

The result is that the institutions that safeguard democracy and freedom are being threatened. People marry, for example, not out of loyalty or a sense of commitment or belief in the value of the institution of marriage and family, but out of a sense of "psychological self-fulfilment." They become involved in politics, not out of any civic obligation or with any desire to seek what is best for the community as a whole but in an effort to defend their own "special interests."

That is why politics has become so "morally unsavoury" to many Americans and "the politician" is hold in such low regard. People assume that, if you are in the game of politics, you are not playing fairly. You are not getting involved because you are a good citizen. You are not seeking what is best for the community. You are there for reasons of utility. You are after your own interests.'

(In Mandarin)

Sir, if this kind of selfish behaviour appears in our society, I feel that we should be very concerned about. Even in such an individualistic country like the US, their sociologists are very concerned about this problem of individualism. What are we going to do? I feel that in this respect education and traditional culture play a very important part. Education does not mean only academic education. It includes family education. If the children are not taught, it is the fault of the parents. Therefore, parents have the duty to educate their children. Academic education is to nurture and establish a person for a life-time. It is not just for the imparting of skill or techniques alone. Another important thing is language. It is not just a tool of economy. We learn a language not because it has economic values. Just as what the Prime Minister has said, a language is in fact a key to a system of culture and value concept, particularly when one is at the stage of receiving university education. I feel that at such a stage it is not the time for one to talk about whether there should be a second language. When a student has reached university level, he has come to the stage when he is able to make use of this key to open up the treasures of traditional culture and value concepts.

Sir, allow me to quote a few lines from the "Great Learning" where it says from the outset, "the way of great learning of a gentleman is to understand illustrious virtues, to be kind to the people, and to achieve the utmost perfection". According to Mencius, a scholar in olden China, "Great Learning meant learning for the adult." According to James Legge's translation, "Great Learning is to illustrate illustrious virtues, to renovate or love the people; and to rest in the highest excellence".

I think if we want to achieve a better society and to have a more cultured society, then it is a prerequisite. It is very important for the university students to be mentally prepared so that they can strive onward until they can achieve highest excellence.

Sir, university students are the cream and the elite of our nation and they are the pillars and beams of our future nation. In future, if they are not pillars, they will be beams, like what the name "Chok Tong ( )" implies. They should be able to glorify their forefathers just like the name "Kuan Yew ( )" expresses this action. They must be able to let their nation be prosperous and strong and well. So, if such elite of our nation do not have cultural roots, then it will be most unfortunate and very lamentable. However, I agree that rigid stipulation that all students must learn a second language, compelling them to learn it, may be a passive method. Perhaps other than rigid stipulation, we may think of some methods of encouragement, not only to encourage the students to be interested, to arouse their interest in learning their mother tongue, and also to help them to understand the importance of learning one's mother tongue.

Sir, just now I said that the last general election was a watershed of our political history. The new Government will have heavy responsibility to shoulder. As a new Member of this Parliament, I also feel that I have an onerous responsibility. I feel that my fellow Members, particularly new Members, have the same feeling as I, just like the Government also will have onerous duties and responsibilities. The Member for Ayer Rajah has described new MPs as donated "kidneys", that is, for the good of our body, the whole entity. He has described them as kidney transplants. I feel the description of new Members as "kidney" in kidney transplants is not quite apt. I think we are donors of kidneys. As such, we must have the kind of feeling, the kind of compassion and courage before we can be kidney donors. This is very important. I hope there will be more kidney donors in our society.

Last night when I was at the Meet-the-People Session, a middle-aged voter, who was an ordinary labourer, came to see me. He appeared very sad and worried. "Why?", I asked him. He said that in June last year his wife went to the General Hospital to donate her kidney for a kidney transplant for their son. After the operation, the son recovered. But unfortunately after the operation his wife lapsed into a coma and has been unconscious since then. And the doctor told him recently, that there was no hope of a recovery. Perhaps it would be only a matter of days before she would die. But what he could not understand was why his wife had this kind of love for her son -to donate her kidney that put her in a coma for almost eight to nine months. Why should such a thing happen to her? Perhaps I will have to write a letter to enquire about it. This story tells us that to donate a kidney, it involves not only a great amount of courage and love but it also involves great risk of life to the donor.

Sir, you are a surgeon yourself. So I believe you must know or perhaps realize that when an operation fails, how one would feel. On the other hand, if the transplant has been successful and the patient is given a new lease of life and lives a beautiful life thereafter, then it would be of the greatest merit and virtue. Thank you. 12.26pm

Mr Tan Soo Khoon: Mr Speaker, Sir, after listening to three days of debate, quite a number of the points one intended to cover have been covered by the previous speakers and, may I add, rather eloquently in this debate. So what- I had originally intended as a long discourse lasting 45 minutes, you might be pleased to hear, Sir, has now been reduced to a very short speech, and I shall confine myself to specifics.

Mr Speaker: A very good example.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon: Sir, being your Deputy, I suppose I have to read your thinking. Sir, I have listened to the speeches in this House for the last few days and I must say that there certainly has been no lack of feedback. In fact, there never has been any lack of feedback in this House. MPs have always spoken up. What I suspect has gone wrong is that the Government has not been listening or refuses to listen. This time, Sir, the voices have been very clear, very loud. I know because I heard lots of it from my corner, and I hope the Government will listen and take appropriate action because this time if it still refuses to listen, then I suppose it must be pretty deaf.

Sir, the President has stated quite clearly that the Government can only create the pre-conditions for fruitful efforts by our people. In fact, by and large, Government policy has been to create such conditions. Otherwise, it would not have been possible for us to make such rapid economic progress in the last 25 years which is a feat unparalleled anywhere else in the world. But what I suspect is that some of these conditions or some of these policies which have been introduced years ago, and which were good or which served their objectives at the time they were introduced, have outlived their usefulness. And what Government has to do now is to take steps to modify some of these policies or even to remove some of these policies so that they are more fitting with the times. In fact, I might add that some of the policies today, some of the conditions which are set by Government, are not conducive to a healthy economy.

Sir, I was quite taken aback the other day when I read in the newspapers of the new Minister for Trade and Industry saying that retrenchment and levelling off of economic activity is not unusual and that failures are part of the economic scene. Then, yesterday, his Minister of State said in the Straits Times that our economy is not that gloomy after all. Sir, I do not know if they are just trying to put a bit of bright spots into a very dark picture. They are trying to cheer us up. But I see the danger in making this kind of statement because, if they continue like this, we might tend to gloss over the real situation. I can assure both of them and the Government that today the real situation in Singapore is really very bad, worse than ever before.

It is easy for Ministers to give an armchair view of the situation and say, "Well, don't worry, everything is all right." But try telling the couple of thousand workers who have just lost their jobs during the Chinese New Year holidays. Tell them that it is all part of the economic scene and let us see what they say. We used to tell ourselves that if people were retrenched there was nothing to worry about because they would find jobs easily the next day. So, nothing to worry about. But today, Sir, I am not so sure whether this is true or not. If you have read this morning's newspapers, you will find that there were 4,700 people queuing up for 400 jobs at a new hotel to be opened. Does this not tell us something? Are we not taking the situation seriously enough? Try telling the owners of the 400-odd companies that went bust last year that it is not that gloomy and see what they say.

Sir, what I am trying to say is that the Government must not be too defensive about the situation. What people want to see now is for the Government to take action. I can even give you further examples of why I think that sometimes the Government is not doing anything or being too defensive.

Sir, a few countries around us impose exit taxes on their citizens travelling abroad. In spite of what we say, there is no doubt that these measures were, in fact, directed against their citizens coming to Singapore because they knew that their people were spending a lot of money here.

There was the instance recently of two million-odd oranges stuck at the Johore customs. And again recently, there was this plucky businessman from Japan who decided to import oil from us. He could get it cheaper and he could sell it cheaper in Japan and he could buck the whole system, but he was stopped by his government. Sir, all these are protectionistic measures by the countries involved.

But there was not even a whimper of protest from our Government. In fact, if I remember correctly, one or two Ministers even sounded apologetic, saying, "Well, these countries have their own internal problems and let's leave it at that." But what about our people's problems - their fortunes and their livelihood are being threatened by actions which go against the very principles of free trade which our Government so fondly expounds time and again? I do not expect the Government to make a big hue and cry over such matters. I understand the need for good government-to-government relationship. But I would think that at least a symbolic gesture on the part of our Government could have indicated to our people where our Government stood at times like this. 12.34 pm

The Minister of State for Defence and Trade and Industry (BG Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may raise a point of clarification since the Member has pointed out that the economy is extremely gloomy, and that the Ministry of Trade and Industry, in particular the Minister and myself, have been whistling in the dark. Perhaps I should put things in perspective, lest tomorrow's headlines cause further doom and gloom, not only to those who read it, but to the entire economy.

There is no question that we are not doing as well now as we were doing a year ago, In the first quarter of last year, we grew at about 10% per annum. This last quarter we were down to about 5%. So things are slow.

Sir, if you are in the business of building ships, if you are in the hotel business, if you are in the retail business, you will also feel that this is not a good time to start on new ventures. But perhaps a certain amount of balance, a certain amount of stability and a certain reluctance to panic is called for in a situation like this.

I was very heartened to see this morning that lots of people are eager to take up jobs in a new hotel, quite contrary to the view expressed by the hon. Member for Alexandra. Because there will be many more new hotels, there will be many more new jobs being created, and there will be many more new opportunities for people to find jobs after they have lost jobs. We are turning companies away because they cannot find workers in Singapore. We are looking for new investments, and investors say, "We would like to come. But who will work? Will you give me work permit holders? Or will I have to go and steal workers from other companies?"

There is no unemployment. Anybody who wants a job today can find a job by tomorrow. These are the basic facts of life. This is the reality which it is our duty at the Ministry of Trade and Industry to represent fairly, not unreasonably rosily, but fairly, and which it is necessary for all Members of this House to understand, lest we speak ourselves into a depression from which we will be ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. I do not want to stop the Minister of State from continuing. But it is against Standing Orders. He said he wanted to clarify something but it would appear that he is making a long speech in reply to the Member. What is the clarification that he wanted to make?

Mr Speaker: I think he is coming to it now.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have made it clear, at least to those of us to whom such things are clear, ie, that the economy is not in a bad state, that it behoves all of us to realize that this is the position, and that the line taken that we are sliding rapidly into an abyss from which the Government is doing nothing to rescue us is wrong.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong (Queenstown): A point of elucidation, Sir. The Member for Alexandra said that over 4,000 workers were queuing for 400 jobs in a hotel. "Does this not tell us something?" Does this not tell us that our young people are now going only for the soft jobs in hotels? On the other hand, we were told this morning that over 150,000 work permits have been issued to guest workers. Should the Government not do something about this, to tell and educate our people that there is pride in jobs in any particular profession, whether it is in hotels, in the construction industry or anything?

Mr Tan Soo Khoon: Sir, I am grateful for the clarification given, even though I do not agree with it. I seem to have started something again.

Sir, as I was saying, Government must not seem to be too defensive in a situation like this and it must be seen to take positive steps. The Prime Minister has said in his New Year Message that one of the ways in which we could stay trim and fit and continue in business and be competitive would be to reduce our overheads. Sir, I agree with this statement. But I am just wondering whether the Government could not follow what the Prime Minister has advocated by taking steps to reduce overheads for the businessmen. Because many of today's high overheads have come about because of Government action.

Let me elaborate. CPF contributions by employers and by employees. We all know that contributions have been rising very fast over the years until today it is 25% of salaries from the employer and 25% deduction from employee's salary. So for the employee, it means a severe deduction in the take-home pay, and for the employer it means a very heavy burden.

Skills Development Fund. This has been already elaborated many times by pre- vious speakers. I do not intend to go into detail. But we all know that around $500 million has been collected by the SDF since 1979 but less than $100 million has been given out. And we heard yesterday that most of the money which has been given out has gone to all the big companies, all the multi-nationals. And guess who are the first to fire our workers and pack up and go when times turn bad?

Payroll tax. Again, Sir, this is something which has been raised many times. It was implemented when we were part of Malaysia. The Malaysian government has already scrapped this. I can see no rationale for continuing with this except that it is a very convenient tax, a very convenient revenue-raising measure for the Ministry of Finance.

Another example is the levy on foreign construction workers. Now it stands at $200 per worker. It is going to be an additional $50 per worker every six months. This leads to increasing costs for our developers, and ultimately it means higher rents for our shopkeepers and our businessmen.

I am glad the Minister for National Development is here today to listen. I said this before in this House and I intend to say it again. I believe that much of the evil which is happening today has its roots in his Ministry. Till this day, I can never understand the exorbitant development charges. Just two days ago I read in the newspapers that somebody wanted to put up a building and the development charge was as much as 50% of the building cost. So he says it is better not to put it up. Sir, it is no secret that the very high development charges on building development in the past has led to very high building costs and this has translated to very high rentals for businessmen.

Sir, I really cannot understand what is the policy of the Ministry of National Development. Now we hear that the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) has decided to stop selling land because property prices are not as high as what the properties could fetch in the days of the boom. What is the rationale? If prices have dropped, why can we not sell some of these properties so that we could all and up with cheaper housing, cheaper buildings, cheaper shops?

Increase in HDB shop rentals. Sir, this was a big issue before us a few years ago. The PAP MPs made representation to the Minister. We debated this matter but still the increases were implemented. Now that times are so bad, all of us who have HDB shops in our constituencies know that the shopkeepers in our constituencies have been grumbling day in and day out how tough times are for them. The first thing they tell us is high rental. Can I ask whether the Government would seriously look into this matter and consider whether it is possible to alleviate the hardship of our shopkeepers by reviewing the rental policy?

Sir, the result of all this has been that we have set into motion a situation of high cost and high overheads. Singapore has become a very expensive place. The tourists know how expensive we are. Of course, we had three million tourists last year, but figures can be deceiving at times. There were three million tourists but we know that the top spenders, the Japanese and the Indonesians, are not coming in in as great numbers as they used to be. These are the people who spend a lot of money. They now realize that Singapore is no more a shopping haven. When we publicize ourselves as a duty4ree place where you can buy goods very cheaply, a shopping paradise, I think we are only deceiving ourselves. In fact, we in Singapore today pay some of the highest forms of taxes in the world, duty-free status notwithstanding.

The Member for Chong Boon was right when he said yesterday that too often we use the price mechanism, meaning taxes, to solve problems. The policy of taxation on cars, for instance, again, is something which has been talked about many times inside and outside this House, We use the price mechanism to ease traffic congestion when there could have been other means. Again, these have been expounded many times. Today we face the prospect of further increases, if newspaper reports are anything to go by. Even the alternatives such as the MRT is not yet ready. Of course, I do not agree with the suggestion by the Member for Potong Pasir that one of the ways to ease traffic congestion would be to raise speed limits so that everybody can drive faster and then the roads would not be so congested. I read the other day, Sir, that there is some thinking about bringing back the Singapore Grand Prix. Perhaps we could find a circuit in Potong Pasir and let the Member for Potong Pasir find out how thrilling and frightening fast driving can be.

Coming back, Sir, to this matter of excessive taxation, again there is something which I find rather confusing and, again I read it in the newspapers - the proposed increase in taxi fares. Of course, I know some Members might say, "Do not depend too much on the newspaper report." But nowadays it seems that what appears in the newspapers has a funny way of becoming official policy in a matter of days.

Sir, taxi licences are issued free of charge to those who want to drive. Taxi drivers who own NTUC Comfort taxis know that they receive subsidized loans to own their taxis. In both these instances we have made very good moves, and I think our taxi drivers should appreciate this fact. In Hong Kong the taxi licence has to be paid for in sums of as much as $200,000, and yet in Singapore when you want to drive a taxi you can have a licence to drive a taxi without having to pay the Government a single cent. That is a very commendable move. Not only can you drive a taxi, you own the taxi yourself, and you have very cheap loans to pay towards the ownership of such taxis. With this talk of increasing taxi fares and putting up the diesel tax, I am wondering what is really happening.

Sir, these proposed increases can become a very explosive situation. What are we trying to achieve by increasing the fares? Is it to discourage people from taking taxis? I read that the Government is making the assumption that each private car carries 1.7 persons and each taxi can carry 1.9 persons. I do not know how you can carry 1.7 or 1.9 persons. But I think it would be a very dangerous thing to treat both of these matters the same way, in terms of taxes. The taxi is a public con- venience. I know of people in the lower income group who have to use taxis, not because they love to travel in taxis but out of necessity. Hawkers, for instance, have to carry heavy things in taxis when they go to their stalls every morning. Because they cannot afford to own a car, they have to use taxis. Poor people, again, Sir, have to use taxis in emergencies. If they want to go to hospital, if they want to go and see the doctor when they are ill, they have to take a taxi. They cannot wait for the bus to come around.

An hon. Member: Or if they are late.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon: Or as my friend has said, if they are late. If all of us are late, we will have to find a taxi somehow.

Thirdly, Sir, if we allow taxi fares just to rise like that, are we not giving rise to another source of complaint from tourists that Singapore is indeed an expensive place? Is it to allow our taxi drivers to earn more? The taxi drivers have, in fact, been complaining of rising costs in the past years. And any gradual increase to allow them to earn more, I think, nobody would quarrel with. But what is happening? You intend to put up the diesel tax, which means to say, what you are giving with one hand, you are trying to take back with the other hand. Or is it to encourage our taxi drivers to drive for longer hours because there have been so many complaints of the so-called shortage of taxis. If that is the case, puffing up the tax on diesel is not going to help the situation very much. So when I read this, I find it is a very confusing picture. But one thing is certainly very clear - I smell the hand of the Ministry of Finance in this matter.

Sir, I seem to have used more time than I have planned to at the beginning. Before I sit down, Sir, may I just take this opportunity to thank the Members of the House for having elected me as your Deputy. I shall endeavour to make myself worthy as your Deputy and I look forward to your advice and your guidance so that I may carry out my duties properly.

Sir, you remarked, in this House at its sitting last Friday, that you had a problem recognizing the newcomers, and you pointed out quite correctly that 21 of them, like you, are wearing spectacles. Sir, you might like to know that I have also found something striking about the new-comers, and that is, about half a dozen of them, like me, are thinning on the top. So I would like to let you know not to worry too much because, if we both put our heads together, I think we should have no problem recognizing all of them.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Teh Cheang Wan): Mr Speaker, Sir, while the questions are fresh in my mind, I would like to reply to what the Member for Alexandra had said on development charge.

Let me explain that in Singapore the price of land is based on two factors, ie, the zoning and the density. In the Singapore Master Plan every piece of land is zoned for a specific use. For example, if a piece of land is zoned "residential", it means that residential development is allowed. If the land is zoned "commercial", it means commercial development will be allowed. If the land is zoned "hotels", it means that hotels will be allowed to develop on the land. If the land is zoned "open spaces", it means that it will remain as open spaces and no development will be allowed other than recreational facilities. The price of the land is based on the zoning.

Another factor, as I will explain, is density. If a piece of land is zoned "residential" with a density of 100 persons per hectare, the developer may build flats for say, four persons per flat (that is around 1,000 sq ft per flat, or around 100 sq metres.) So on one hectare of land he will be allowed to build 25 flats. If the density is 200 persons per hectare, 50 flats can be built. The same goes for "commercial" zoned land. If a piece of commercial land has a plot ratio of one, it means that, for every sq metre of land, the developer is allowed to build one sq metre of commercial space. If the plot ratio is three, it means that for every sq metre of the land, he is allowed to build three sq metres of commercial space. These are the two factors which determine the value of land: the zoning and the density or plot ratio.

Assuming a developer has submitted his plan to the authorities for the development of, say, a piece of commercial land with a plot ratio of one, and he would like to increase this plot ratio by another two, which means that he would like to develop this commercial land with a plot ratio of three. If the authority approves his application, it means the value of the piece of land will be increased by about 200%.

In granting approval, the authority will put a development charge, because the landowners are not doing anything to the land and the very substantial increase in the value of the land is the result of the Government granting approval to allow the land to be developed by three times the area allowed in the Master Plan. For this, the Government imposes a development charge. I think this is fair. At present 70% of the increase in value as a result of granting approval goes to the Government and 30% goes to the landowner as an incentive for him to develop. I think that without a development charge, the landowner will get a windfall. In other words, he will be earning a big income without any effort being put to it.

Mr Speaker: Order. It is 1.00 pm. This Sitting is suspended until 2.30 pm this afternoon.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 1.00 pm until 2.30 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.30 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would just like to add one sentence to my answer to the Member for Alexandra on development charge. The Government will review the development charge.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to answer two points raised by the Member for Potong Pasir, who is not in the House at present, about the Anthony Road flats. The Member for Potong Pasir is insinuating that the Government has changed its policy by not offering the Anthony Road flats to HUDC applicants. Prior to the transfer of HUDC flats from the HUDC to HDB, all HUDC flats were built in isolated estates, no different from any private development. Government considers this undesirable and it would like to see that HUDC residents are integrated with the majority of Singaporeans, ie, in HDB estates. Therefore, after HDB took over the development of HUDC estates, Government made the announcement that all future HUDC flats would be built as part of HDB estates. Pine Grove and Gillman Barracks were the last two estates for HUDC residents which were built as isolated estates. In future all HUDC estates will form part of HDB estates.

The rationale is that HUDC residents are better educated and we believe that some of the public-spirited people living in HUDC flats are prepared to give time to community work, such as serving in the CCC, RC and MC. Thus, if they are living in HDB new towns or estates, they would be able to serve in these community organizations. Therefore, when the Anthony Road flats were completed recently, HDB offered these flats for rental instead of allocating them to HUDC applicants.

However, I would like to assure the House that HDB will build enough HUDC flats in HDB estates to meet the demand of HUDC applicants. The flats in Anthony Road which have been offered for rental will in no way affect HUDC applicants. In fact, HDB has built more HUDC flats than the number of HUDC applicants at present on the waiting list. Every applicant will have a chance of an offer of a flat.

Another point the Member for Potong Pasir has repeatedly claimed is that HDB flats are not subsidized by Government. I am not sure how he arrived at that conclusion. However, in the last election, in almost every rally, the Member for Potong Pasir repeated the same allegation that HDB flats were not only not subsidized but, in fact, the HDB was making huge profits from the sale of flats. I would like to quote what the Member for Potong Pasir said on 15th December 1984 during an SDP rally at a car park in Ang Mo Kio:

'HDB is making $22,000 for every 3-room flat sold to the residents and $40,000 for every 4-room flat.'

The Member for Potong Pasir, in his Party publication, The Demokrat, has on two or three occasions published figures and calculations on how the HDB accounts for the sale of flats. I have asked the HDB Contract Officer to look into those accounts but we are unable to comprehend how he has arrived at his accounts.

From our accounts on the sale of HDB flats in the last two years, HDB has sold a total of more than 100,000 flats in 1983 and 1984, out of which 81.52% are 3- and 4-room flats. That means the -3- and 4-room flats form the overwhelming majority of flats sold by HDB. Most of these flats sold by HDB were built in new towns, such as Tampines New Town, Nee Soon New Town, Jurong East, Jurong West, Bukit Batok, and the HDB's classification of all these new towns is either in the new town zone or in the outer suburban zone. In both new town and outer suburban zones, where most of these flats were sold by HDB, the HDB was unable to recover the construction cost. In other words, most of the flats sold in the last two years by HDB - the 3- and 4-room flats - have to be subsidized on the cost of land. HDB has also to subsidize the overheads. HDB has to subsidize the interest. Yet the Member for Potong Pasir claims that HDB is making huge profits out of the sale of flats. I am not very sure whether this is due to the ignorance of the Member for Potong Pasir or his Party, or to the Member subscribing to the Nazi idea that if a lie is told repeatedly and often enough, it will be accepted as the truth. So the SDP has been continuously making the statement that the HDB is making money out of the sale of flats.

Today I would like to throw a challenge to him that HDB will offer a piece of land in a new town for his Party or for him to develop. Of course, since all the lands are squattered, HDB will arrange for these squatters to be cleared, otherwise the Member will claim again that Government is not sincere because Government offered him a piece of squattered land and some of the squatters are asking for compensation of $1 million, $2 million or $3 million and so he will never be able to develop this piece of land. HDB will help him to clear the squatters. We offer him this piece of land free of charge - for nothing - in a new town, maybe in Nee Soon or in ---

An hon. Member: Potong Pasir.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: No. There is no more land left in Potong Pasir. Then we will allow the Member for Potong Pasir to build four types of flats. In the last two years he has been claiming that HDB is making money. As I have said, the largest number of flats sold by HDB is the 3- and 4-room flats, and an overwhelming majority of these flats are the new generation and Model A flats. HDB will provide the Member for Potong Pasir the plans, free of charge, again, for one block of 3-room new generation flats, one block of 4-room new generation flats, one block of Model A 3-room flats and one block of Model A 4-room flats. These are the largest number of flats sold by HDB in 1983 and 1984.

The Member for Potong Pasir can make arrangements either with his Party people or his contractor, or with his adviser. Someone must advise him how to calculate the cost of HDB flats for sale. He must have some expert advice. He can get an expert or several experts to advise him on how to build these flats. These four blocks of flats will be built according to HDB plans. HDB will not draw up new plans, so that HDB cannot be accused of trying to fix him by drawing very difficult or new plans which he is unable to build. These will be the old plans which are exactly the same for other HDB flats. So he will build those four blocks, and he will sell these four blocks to HDB at the same price as HDB sells to its applicants on the waiting list.

According to his claim, for each unit of 3-room flat he can make $22,000 and for each unit of 4-room flat he can make $40,000. I think the Singapore Democratic Party would become the richest political party in Singapore if such a huge profit is made.

An hon. Member: Will it collapse?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: No, we will arrange for a suitable engineer to supervise the project, so it will not collapse. Definitely we must make sure that the flats are safe because we are going. to offer these flats to Singaporeans on the HDB waiting list. We cannot offer them dangerous flats that may collapse. If the Member for Potong Pasir is always questioning the sincerity of the Government, if he is really sincere and believing that HDB is making huge profits, we are now offering this good opportunity for his Party to make huge profits. And we are giving the land free to him, charging him nothing, and helping him with the clearance of the squatters so that he can get on with the building. And if he is making huge profits, he wants to build some more flats, I can assure him I will offer him some more land o build flats. If he is able to build flats much cheaper than HDB, why not? All the people will benefit, his party will benefit, HDB will benefit, Singaporeans will benefit by these cheap flats which the Member for Potong Pasir knows how to build while HDB does not know how to build. Thank you, Sir. [Applause] 2.46 pm

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion of thanks moved by the Member for Ayer Rajah. Yesterday, the Member for Queenstown gave an excellent delivery and he sets a new standard that I as a new Member of this House will try to strive for. With respect to content, I would agree with most of what he said. The Member also mentioned about Calcutta and said that the common man in Singapore is not interested in Calcutta, that he is only interested in what is happening to his own well-being in Singapore. On that point, I beg to differ. Perhaps as the Member for Braddell Heights has implied, he has been away from Singapore for a bit too long and by the way ---

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: On a point of clarification, Sir. I did not say what the Member for Bukit Timah says that the man is only interested in seeing what is happening here. I did not say that they are interested only in seeing things here. I said that the small man can only see things around himself.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Thank you for the clarification. Mr Speaker, Sir, surely the common man of Singapore does not have the mentality of frog at the bottom of the well - in Mandarin ( ) I too have spoken to the common man and have come to a different perspective. I found him to be fairly well read, well travelled, pragmatic and quite logical. He has the ability to deduce a logical conclusion if he is given the proper scenario - in Mandarin " ".

Now the contrast of Calcutta and Singapore would only have one logical conclusion. I would like to spend some time dwelling on it. In a city the land can no longer feed the people, chicken-rearing and corn planting notwithstanding. As the population of a city increases, the people continue to live under a political system inherited from the time when their forefathers are farmers, frontiersmen, or a system copied from the colonial masters without taking into consideration local parameters like racial characteristics, standards of living, etc. You would have Calcutta, Mexico City, and many others,

On the other hand, Singapore has avoided the pitfalls and in the transition from an under-developed country to a cosmopolitan city, we have evolved our own model of government, given our people and their cultural heritage. Singapore has found the correct formula incorporating ideology and government, striking a balance between the liberty of the individuals and the need of society. Our guiding principle of meritocracy, I quote: "From each his best to each his worth." And our clean, honest and dedicated Government are elements of a political ideology (which I will call PAP or Pap-ism).

When the other cities in the world grapple with their problems and look around for solutions, they will find a model in Singapore. Perhaps in the not too distant future, one of Singapore's export services would be how to run cities. In fact, some of that might already have been taking place. An Arabian Gulf country has consulted the HDB on their housing programmes. It was reported in the papers that China made an offer to a respected former Member of this House for his services in running their free-trade zones. If that were true, his task will not be easy without the injection of a large dose of PAP-ism or Papism. Yes, it has been useful, I think, to mention Calcutta.

Given that I am so optimistic about our system, how would I interpret the 12.6% swing in the last General Election; our people rejecting the system that others have found attractive. The answer must be a resounding no.

The Member for Ayer Rajah has got the right answer. The voters are giving us signals that perhaps we are going too fast for comfort. Since analogy using different modes of transportation seems to be fashionable in this House, I cannot resist the temptation to jump on the bandwagon. Between the national bicycle and the national bus, let me expand on the analogy of the Minister of State (the Member for Teck Ghee) where he equates the process of nation-building to that of riding together in a bus. I say, "Look inside the bus and you will find that the seats are made of stainless steel - adequate, easy to maintain, but not too comfortable." The passengers are sitting on bare metal. In our headlong rush to join the First Division football tournament, we occasionally run into a stretch of bumpy road, For those who are sitting on metal, the ride is uncomfortable at times and probably painful at times as well. Either the driver should go over the bumps at a slower speed or he should look into puffing in softer spring and probably new shock absorbers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to talk about one of these shock absorbers that the Government should provide - that of the training of retrenched workers to acquire new skills.

The Member for Alexandra has mentioned earlier this morning about the problem of retrenchment. Our past economic success owe much to the fact that our people are highly flexible and adaptable. This has not been necessarily so elsewhere in the world. The Member for Kuo Chuan has talked about the extent British miners are willing to go through to avoid changing jobs. Our workers, on the other hand, have been willing to switch jobs bearing the losses of seniority and income when their jobs disappeared literally overnight. With this willingness our country has been able to embark on an ambitious programme of economic restructuring. Other than those who are professionals and have tertiary education, most of those retrenched would have suffered financial losses and hardship, and a small number of these workers will have to start from the bottom of the pile.

Do not get me wrong, Mr Speaker, Sir. I believe such retrenchment to be the natural order of things, especially for Singapore where national survival is always on our consciousness. We have no choice but to go about phasing out older industries, very much like what the Japanese did after the energy crisis. What I am concerned about, Sir, is that some of these people can do with some help. As we move into higher technology, our workers are going to be more specialized. Skills learned in one field are not easily transferable or even useful in a separate field. For these workers to break into new fields, it will be quite difficult especially when they have to compete with new entrants into the labour market who are trained by the Government for these new jobs.

Let me give an example. One of my constituents is an experienced TV technician. He had learned his skills as an apprentice. He was retrenched recently and could not find a job with the pay that he was accustomed to. I suggest how about the computer industry where the ubiquitous visual display terminals are just nothing else but modified TV sets. Surely, he can find a job there. It turns out that although he has all the necessary skills, he cannot adapt because of his poor command of English. He is, in fact, a prime candidate for worker training programme. And it is he who came to me asking for help in obtaining a taxi licence.

In our current set-up the training of workers to face new challenges falls on the shoulders of the employers through programmes such as BEST. However, most companies that participated are big companies which are doing well.

The Member for Jalan Besar has so eloquently argued for the use of SDF in the training of workers in small companies. I say he does not go far enough. How about those workers in companies that are facing problems and are being phased out? Certainly, the development of the workers in these companies is the last thing on the management of those companies. A worker training programme should be implemented using SDF to help these workers - workers with obsolete skills, to move into new employment. Perhaps this is a minor problem now and could be overcome easily. The recent retrenchments of two manufacturing enterprises give some indications of the things to come.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to bring your attention next to a matter of importance, especially with respect to our economic restructuring programme, that of computer literacy of our people, When the information industry has been identified as vital, some of the promotion programmes we have embarked on are the envies of others. For example, we have the National Computer Board to promote computerization in our country. A prestigious Taiwanese business magazine ( ) devoted an entire issue last year on our national computerization programme. In it they were asking some soulsearching questions such as, "Why Taiwan does not have something similar, like the NCB, even though both Taiwan and Singapore have identified the information industry as vital to our national well-being in the future?"

Despite the accolade, I feel that we have the penchant for doing things the quick, and therefore the expensive way. When we launched the massive national computerization programme in the 1980s, there was not enough trained manpower to man the industry. The resultant shortage had driven up wages significantly and job-hopping was rampant. A high starting salary has drawn anyone with a computer background into the field. Suddenly, everybody wants to be a computer analyst and they flock to our training programmes in the University, polytechnics and other computer institutes, both private and public. As a result, there would be probably a surplus of such people in the near future.

The First Deputy Prime Minister in his Addendum to the President's Speech assured us that Singapore is moving into the stage of instant information. In the information age, just introducing computer education in the final phase of one's education, be it VITB, polytechnic, or the universities, thereby producing specialists, is just not good enough. Computer knowledge and computer education should be introduced early in the education system.

Sir, let me review our effort in the schools. The figure for June 1984 shows that we have a total of 509 micro-computers in our 134 secondary schools, an average of 3.8 micro-computers per school. Maybe the Member for Alexandra will have difficulty visualizing 3.8 micro-computers per school. There are no official statistics for our primary schools where everybody is preoccupied with streaming. Only 16,000 of our students, or 10% of the secondary school enrolment, have access to these computers as part of their ECA programmes. Most likely these are also the top 10%. In other words, most of our students who leave secondary school will have no access to computer at all. On the other hand, the governments of South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong, the other dragons of Asia, understand the importance of introducing computer early in the schools. Thus, their approach is quite different from ours.

In addition to tertiary education, they are putting emphasis in the primary as well as the secondary schools. Let me give some figures of the Korean efforts. These are 1983 figures. By 1985, Sir, you expect certain increases. There were 6,517 elementary schools in Korea and there were a total of 2,814 personal computers in those schools. In other words, about one computer to two or three schools. They are putting computers in primary schools without waiting for the development of a proper computer curriculum. They know the urgency of such matters and have decided not to wait for the development of a curriculum.

Of the 2,174 junior middle schools in Korea, there were 1,294 micro-computers, about one computer to two schools. Of the 1,081 senior middle schools, there were 8,000 micro-computers, an average of eight computers per school.

How about Hong Kong where the government initiative is minimal? They have a programme to equip 105 of their secondary schools with 11 micro-computers each. By the middle of this year, they expect that at least 20,000 Hong Kong secondary school students will be using micro-computers in their studies, So compare these figures, 3.8 in Singapore, 8 in Korea, 11 in Hong Kong (of course, for the selected schools in Hong Kong).

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe we shall introduce personal computers in our schools in a massive way, starting with the secondary schools. As we change from a half-day school to a full-day school, let every school provide computer access to all students who want an access to one. I believe this is the only way to train our future generation to become computer literate, to make use of the greatest productivity machines men have invented so far. In this way, our future workers and professionals will have computer in their blood and we shall continue to attract foreign investors with our skilled manpower and be sure of our continued economic growth. 3.04 pm

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, just now I made an offer to the Member for Potong Pasir while he was not in this House. Since he is here now, I would like to repeat my offer.

On the 15th December, 1984, before the last general elections, the Member for Potong Pasir claimed, in an SDP rally in Ang Mo Kio, that the HDB not only did not subsidize the sale of flats to the people but also made substantial profits. He stated that the HDB was making $22,000 for each unit of 3-room flat and $40,000 per unit of 4-room flat sold to Singaporeans. In the sale of flats in 1983 and 1984, from HDB's accounts and from our own calculations, the HDB not only made no profit but had to heavily subsidize the sale of these flats. So in order to resolve this dispute and in order to clear this doubt whether the Member is right or the HDB is right, I now would like to make an offer to him.

I will offer the Member a piece of land in a new town, free of charge. I will also help in the clearance of the squatters. Because if we offer the Member a piece of land for development and there are squatters on the site and those squatters demand a lot of compensation, the Member will say that the Government is not sincere. He will say, "You offered me a piece of land full of squatters, and I am unable to clear the squatters."The HDB will help him clear the squatters but he will have to pay for the cost of clearance of the squatters, which is a small sum, the average cost.

Then on this piece of land, the Member will arrange to build four different types of flats. In 1983 and 1984, ie, the last two years, 80% of the flats sold by the HDB were the 3- and 4-room types of flats. And the most popular type of flats sold by HDB in the last two years were the new generation type of flats and Model A type of flats. So I would suggest that on this piece of land, the Member build a block of 3-room new generation flats, a block of 4-room new generation flats, a block of 3-room Model A flats, and a block of 4-room Model A flats. The HDB will supply him with the plans so that there will not be any claim that the HDB purposely prepares a set of very difficult plans so that he would not be able to build. It will be a standard plan for the types of flats built by the HDB in the 13st two years, in 1983 and 1984.

After the Member has completed these four blocks of flats, the HDB will buy these flats from him at prices which the HDB offers to people on the waiting list tb buy HDB flats. In other words, the HDB will make no profit and, in fact, the HDB would have subsidized the land. The land will be offered to the Member or his Party for free to build these four blocks of flats. These flats will be sold to the people at the standard HDB prices. After he has completed these flats, he will sell these flats to the HDB and the HDB will allocate these flats to those applicants on the waiting list. So the Member will make this huge profit, not the HDB. If what he claims is true, that is, for every unit of 3-room flat, he can make $22,000, and for every unit of 4-room flat, he can make $40,000, then by building these four blocks of flats, his Party will make several million dollars. And his Party will become the richest political party in Singapore.

An hon. Member: Accept the offer.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Sir, I hope that the Member will accept the offer. He is a lawyer and I will be quite happy to arrange for an agreement to be signed as soon as possible.

I would say that this is the simplest way to prove whether or not what the Member claims is true, and whether or not he is sincere in his claim.

The Minister of State for Home Affairs and Community Development (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Sir, may I ask the Minister a point of clarification? If the Member for Potong Pasir is required to build the four blocks of flats, is he also required to build the infrastructure, ie, the other facilities that are part and parcel of the estate?

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to reply to the Minister?

Mr Speaker: A short reply, please. It is either you accept or you do not accept.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I do not know whether this is an offer to me or to my Party. This is the most gigantic offer in the history of Singapore. And even a very experienced developer, when given this kind of an offer, cannot on the spot say yes or no. There is no time limit to the offer. Usually there is a time limit to an offer. There is no question of a time limit being given to this offer. Therefore, it is only right that we should be given time to look into this offer. I am very happy indeed that the Minister for National Development, in fact, has made this offer and I will have to look into it very seriously. And I hope that the Minister will not withdraw it when I sit down.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications and Information and Minister for the Environment (Dr Lee Boon Yang): Mr Speaker, Sir, a point of clarification.

Mr Speaker: Are you giving way, Mr Chiam?

Mr Chiam See Tong resumed his seat

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Sir, does this imply that the Member for Potong Pasir did not make proper calculations when he alleged in public that the HDB made $20,000 and $40,000 for a 3- and 4-room flat respectively?

Mr Chiam See Tong: May I continue, Mr Speaker, Sir? Of course, there are different definitions given for the word "subsidy". The Minister for National Development has given one definition. The First Deputy Prime Minister has given another definition, and I believe the Member for Whampoa has come out with a further definition. So we have to look into all these. There are still many things which the Government themselves are unsure. If the Government, with all its machinery and its manpower, is unable to come out with one definition of subsidy, how can I as a layman, on the spot, given this most stupendous offer, give an immediate answer? But certainly I will look into it. I will certainly come out with some kind of an answer to the Minister.

Sir, I am holding this offer since there is no time limit. I am holding this offer, and I hope that when I sit down it will not be withdrawn.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may seek some clarification from the Member for Potong Pasir. He was doing some arithmetic a couple of days ago. So I thought I'd try to do some arithmetic too. According to the Member's definition of subsidy, and I hope I have not gotten him wrong, he made the statement that the Government is making a profit of about $20,000 per flat, conservatively speaking, sometimes even more. I wonder if he could confirm that that is what he really meant when he last made the statement on subsidies.

Mr Chiam See Tong: May I be allowed to reply to that?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Mr Chiam See Tong: These figures that we have published were made long before the last General Election. The Government, as I have said, has all the means to study those figures and to come out with a substantial answer during the last General Election to rebut us. That would have been the most appropriate time, because that was the time we brought up and drove home this point. Why the delay? Up till today the Government has not rebuffed us with its own facts and figures, but to come out only with this offer at the moment. Perhaps the Government could work out some kind of facts and figures to rebut us and say, "Look, you chaps don't even know what you are talking about."

An hon. Member: That is right.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes, but you have no facts and figures at the moment to prove us wrong.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, may we, for the purposes of this argument, assume that the Member for Potong Pasir is correct so that we can get on with the business? Let us assume the Government is making $20,000 per flat, conservatively. He may claim it is more, but we will not quibble with another $10,000. The offer has been made and placed on the table to let the Member or his Party build four blocks of flats at a profit of $20,000 each. Each block, those of you who walk around HDB estates will know, has anything up to 200 units. So we give him the benefit of building a big block of 200 units each, 200 units in each of the four blocks, ie, 800 units. At $20,000 per flat, that's $16 million. Mr Speaker, Sir, that is the bottom line. Anybody who sees $16 million offered to him, either takes it straightaway or he must admit that it is not there. Well, it is there. Anytime, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Dr Augustine H.H. Tan (Whampoa): Point of clarification, since my name was invoked, in vain. Sir, the point is, here is the Secretary-General of a supposedly major party in Singapore, pretending to be an alternative government before the election and during the election, publishing what are supposed to be facts and figures, showing that the HDB is making huge profits. In other words, Sir, he believes those figures, his party believes those figures, and they would have the voters of Singapore believe those figures. And yet when the proposition is made to him, he says, "I cannot accept the proposition." Either he is a liar or he is a sham!

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I await clarification of my query.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope the Member for Whampoa will not raise his voice, This is the Parliament of Singapore. We must have decorum. We do not want to be a Parliament of some other countries which I would not like to name.

But Mr Speaker, Sir, just a point of clarification. Our party has never, not one single point, pretended to be the alternative government. We have always said we want to be the Opposition at this particular time of history of Singapore. We have never said that we wanted to be the alternative government. And I hope the Member will, in future, get his facts right before he stands up to speak, otherwise his own credibility will go down the drain.

As regards the Member for Teck Ghee and this figure of 200 units and $16 million. As I say, even if you put this offer before an experienced developer, he can never give you an answer because there are so many imponderables to answer in building even one block. As the Member for Teck Ghee will probably know, even in applying for planning permission you cannot get it just overnight. There are so many things to be studied before an answer can be given.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not in a position to clarify the numbers any further, because I think they are as clear as any reasonable person could expect them to be. However, I would wish to offer a clarification that all this presumes that instant planning permission, on which I have no doubt, shall be forthcoming.

Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir tried to deflect my question by refusing to answer it at all. I made my point very clear that if he could believe those figures himself and he wanted the voters of Singapore to believe his lie, why can he not accept the proposition straightaway? Planning approval is presumed to be given, everything is ready to start building. And perhaps if he wants a loan, would you, Mr Minister, be prepared to give him a subsidized loan?

Mr Speaker: Anyway, Mr Chiam, you are considering the offer, are you not? Because we can then go on to the next speaker.

Mr Chiam See Tong: As I say, there is no time limit, Mr Speaker, Sir, and therefore it is not necessary for me to accept the offer now, as any of the Members who have been buying and selling houses and property would know that.

Mr Speaker: So you will consider the offer?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes, I will certainly consider it. I would not reject it outright. It is a very, very attractive proposition and it has to be studied. I shall be writing to the Minister for National Development for more particulars. May I just, in reply to the Member for Whampoa, say our figures are not lies. They have been there for months, over two months now, and we have got no written reply up to date, if they were lies. Thank you, Sir.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think this offer ---

An hon. Member: Are you going to withdraw it?

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: No, I am not going to withdraw it. I just want to find out from the Member for Potong Pasir how long does he require to consider this offer, since he has made the calculation and come out with the definite figure that HDB is making $22,000 for every unit of 3-room flats, $40,000 for every unit of 4-room flats. The calculation must have been made, and I presume the Member for Potong Pasir must have a technical adviser since he himself is not an architect, not a developer. He is a lawyer. He has come out with a figure and speaking in the SDP party rally, I presume he must have got some expert advice in arriving at those figures. So may I know when he can definitely give me an answer.

Mr Dhanabalan: One month.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Is one month enough? Two months?

The Senior Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Next elections.

Mr Teh Cheang Won: Three months?

Mr Chiam See Tong indicated assent.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Three months. So the Member will give me an answer in three months. Okay?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Okay.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan: All right. I will wait. [Applause]

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I had originally not intended to participate in this debate because I wanted to leave it to the newer MPs, but after having listened to some of the collected and uncollected thoughts of the Member for Queenstown, I felt I should not allow him to get away with blue murder. I do so because the Member is, like me, of the old guard, and so the new guards, out of respect for the older generation, might consider themselves lacking in piety by contradicting an elder. 3.25 pm

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Rajaratnam: The other reason for my intervention is that the Member for Queenstown has given me an opportunity to give a fatherly lecture to the newer MPs on the uses and abuses of criticism, the difference between constructive criticism and, what I call, "fun and games" criticism. It is not, let me repeat, not an attempt on my part, to teach an old political dog like my colleague from Queenstown new tricks. The problem with old dogs, alas, is not how to teach them new tricks, but to get them to remember old tricks, which they learnt at great cost and pain, and sacrifice.

Like me, the Member for Queenstown is a battle-scarred veteran of many dangerous and sometimes dicey campaigns over the past two decades. I have not forgotten the lessons I learnt. You, many of you, never had the opportunity to learn the lessons. But in my humble opinion, after having listened to his undoubtedly boisterous performance yesterday, I feel that there are incipient signs of neuron depletion, and it is occurring possibly at a faster rate than I suspected. So perhaps my unsolicited lecture might, even if it cannot reverse the process, at least arrest it. Because I am certain that an old guard dog, like him, with his vast wisdom acquired over two decades, can, if he sets his mind to it, use his remaining years, as I like to think I am doing, help guide the new leaders through the jungle of politics instead of as he unwittingly did yesterday, laying false scent in a desperate attempt, I suspect, to be amusing.

But before I get down to my "Wednesday sermon", this being Wednesday, on the uses and abuses of criticism, I should perhaps demonstrate my impartiality in this matter by first taking a few swipes, a few ritualistic swipes, at the two Opposition Members, though I had originally intended to leave this pleasure to my colleagues. But since I bothered to stand up at my age, I thought I might take this opportunity which might not occur again. On some future occasion, the two Members for Anson and Potong Pasir can, if they work at it properly, provoke me into delivering a much needed lecture on how to be a useful, constructive and happy Opposition MP. Today, alas, I must withhold this generous bounty.

I listened to the two Opposition Members and, on the basis of what I heard, I feel, partly as a public duty and partly on humanitarian grounds, that they should get hold of a very fascinating book written by a Polish-born Professor of Psychology at Michigan University. His name is Dr Milton Rokeach. It is called "The Three Christs". I cannot adequately convey the spirit and fascination of this remarkable book but this brief summary should, I hope, arouse the curiosity of the two Opposition Members whose welfare, strange as it may seem, I have at heart. I will tell you why.

So long as these two gentlemen remain in this Chamber, I am quite confident that they will keep out better men from the Opposition Bench. So I have a vested interest. Far from getting them out of this Chamber, I will quietly make quite sure that they get returned the next time because so long as they are here nobody will think of an alternative to the PAP Government. That is why I recommend this book. It is part of this process of ensuring the permanent occupancy of the two distinguished Opposition Members.

Professor Rokeach brought together to his clinic three patients for extensive study. The only thing wrong with these three otherwise sane, intelligent and healthy men was that each entertained the unassailable conviction that he was Jesus Christ. What the Professor wanted to find out was how these three Christs would react to one another if they were kept together for extended periods of time in his clinic. Get them to meet one another often. How would they treat their respective claims that they were Christ? Sir, it is a very fascinating book.

At first, the three men simply and politely ignored one another's claims. Then after a passage of time, they tried to convince one another that each was harbouring an obvious delusion, simply because the persuader believed that he was undeniably Christ. When they failed to convince one another then each tried to convince the Professor that the other claimants, in his view, were completely mad and that the Professor should do all he could to restore them to sanity.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I must, at this stage, assure the Member for Potong Pasir that this book has no direct relevance to the predicament the two Members are in, as revealed in their speeches. As I recall, the Member for Potong Pasir and the Member for Anson separately claimed with great sincerity and utter conviction that they each individually represented the people of Singapore, that they spoke for the people of Singapore, that each was the only true voice of the oppressed majority of Singapore and, if I heard them correctly, that unless the PAP heeded their call to repent and amend its ways, then both of them separately saw themselves as the chosen redeemers of the people of Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not suggesting that both these Members entertained delusions that they are Christ. At least there is no evidence so far. All I am suggesting is that they entertain delusions that mercifully fall far short of this. The question that concerns me and must concern them is: which of them speaks for the people, the majority of the people of Singapore? Therein lies the delusion. It is a minor delusion, but one never knows because all delusions have a start.

Had the Member for Anson asserted here that he speaks for 9,909 Singa- poreans in Anson and had the Member for Potong Pasir insisted that he spoke for 10,128 Singaporeans, I would have accepted these as plausible and rational claims. I would also have accepted as a triumph for rationality had they claimed that each represented the majority of the people in Anson or at Potong Pasir. That is reasonable, obvious. I would have even accepted as a reasonable claim by the Member for Anson had he stated that his Party as a whole spoke for 110,939 Singaporeans, just short of one to make a round figure. I would have accepted that. Similarly, I could have been persuaded by the Member for Potong Pasir, who is the unacknowledged Leader of the Opposition, that he represented 32,102 Singaporeans throughout Singapore. That is accurate, factual, and there is no delusion.

As against this, the PAP can, on the basis of General Election figures, claim to speak for 568,310 Singaporeans. If to this, we add the voters from the 30 uncontested constituencies and they were uncontested because the opposition parties felt they had no chance in these constituencies, if I add the two together, then the PAP can claim to speak for 1,118,989 Singaporeans as against 143,041 for the two constituencies combined. Yet both of them were claiming during the last one week that they represent Singapore. They are speaking-for the people of Singapore - not for 143,000 against 1,118,000?

This, Mr Deputy Speaker, I submit, requires a delusion of considerable magnitude. It is not in the Christ-class but quite close. So these two Members with just 143,000-odd voters claim that they are the true voice of the people, possibly even of God, and to talk as though the PAP with its 1,118,000-odd votes has fallen out of favour with the people and it is tottering on the brink of political bankruptcy. The Member for Potong Pasir has got a new word - credibility. I heard him just now. He talked at great length, waxed eloquent, on the credibility of the Government was in question. I ask him: whose credibility is in question when, with 32,000-odd votes, he claims to speak for Singapore?

In view of the figures I have just quoted, I am willing to go before any mind-doctor with the Member for Potong Pasir. The Member for Anson is not here - so could you please pass this offer to him? I could ask the mind-doctor to study objectively the facts that I have given to determine whose credibility is in doubt. I am talking of a scientifically trained mind-doctor, a psychologist, clinician.

Apart from this, there is also the other equally intriguing question of whether it is the Member for Potong Pasir or the Member for Anson, even if you go along with their delusion, who can claim to speak for the people, since both claimed that they are the true people's loudspeaker. So that is why I think "The Three Christs", should be of particular interest to both. It may even save them. Now, I do not propose to reveal how"The Three Christs" resolved their difficulties. I think I should not deprive the two distinguished Opposition Members the pleasure of discovering what exactly happened. All I can hint is to tell them that it was earth-shaking,

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the time has now come for me to turn my fraternal attention to the Member for Queenstown and launch my lecture on Useful Criticism and Fun Criticism. Let me, before I indulge in verbal karate, say that there were things in his speech which I found agreeable; others disagreeable, but legitimate and forgivable. But there was a great deal which should have properly come from either the Member for Anson or the Member for Potong Pasir. In fact, I was watching the Member for Potong Pasir closely yesterday while my colleague from Queenstown was striking out for waters which were clearly out of his depth. And I thought I saw a look of profound envy on the face of the Member for Potong Pasir, who obviously wished he had the imprudence to have gone as far as the Member for Queenstown did. Maybe next time he will not be so timid. Strike out. Do not hesitate, even if you cannot swim, deep waters are good.

An hon. Member: He is a good swimmer!

Mr Rajaratnam: That is good. Now, I would like to make clear to my colleague that my criticism of him in respect of some of the things he said is motivated by nothing more than a desire to instruct the new MPs on the difference between sound criticism and unsound criticism.

Yesterday, my colleague from Queenstown made two errors of debate. The first of these I will call, the Archbishop fallacy. It is very theological. You will not unfortunately find any reference to this fallacy, the Archbishop fallacy, in many admirable books on logic like the famous one by Professor Robert Thoules called "Straight and Crooked Thinking". The Archbishop fallacy has to do with crooked thinking and I hope that, after my discourse this afternoon, the Archbishop fallacy will get a modest mention in the next edition of the Professor's book.

Now, what is the Archbishop fallacy? This can best be illustrated by the case of a reporter who was determined to make it to the top by one day writing a story which would capture the headlines in the press of the world. And one day he did come up with such an earth-shattering scoop. It was that an eminent Archbishop had been caught red-handed in bed with a woman in one of the less eminent hotels, in the least eminent of side-streets. Now, you will agree an Archbishop found in the company of a strange woman in a hotel is not a peanut story. And the editor was so excited that he nearly swallowed his pipe by this scoop, this beautiful story. But it eventually turned out to be an Archbishop fallacy. This is where the fallacy comes in.

The Archbishop fallacy has to do with the kind of oath which witnesses are required to take in our courts of law. It goes something like this, "i swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Now, note carefully the wording of the oath, not just the truth, you are required to tell the whole truth. So I believe there are two kinds of truth. There are sound reasons for this. The British courts, based on hundreds of years of experience, and experiences with thousands of crooked witnesses, know that it is possible to tell a lie truthfully.

Let me illustrate this in the case of the story about the Archbishop. Now, it was true that he was an Archbishop. It was also true that he had a woman in the hotel. It was also true that the woman was found in bed with him. It was also true that it was not altogether a better class of hotel. But where the Archbishop fallacy occurred was in the reporter failing to tell the whole truth which was that the woman in question was his lawful wife, and that he had chosen this particular hotel because it was cheap. This then is the Archbishop fallacy and is one which occurs, alas, with great frequency in political debates.

So the Member for Queenstown yesterday contrived a classic Archbishop fallacy. As you will recollect, Mr Deputy Speaker, he said that after his departure from Singapore and from his ministerial duties six years ago, he returned to find that during his absence things had gone to pot in Singapore.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: I didn't say that. On a point of clarification. I think the Minister is putting a lot of words into my mouth.

Mr Rajaratnam: I am just repeating what I thought I heard. But he can -

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: He could be senile really.

Mr Rajaratnam: Perhaps if the Minister will listen to me and he can deny that these are the things that he said.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: I am not a Minister now.

Mr Rajaratnam: I am glad he said it because I shall quote it -

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: So who is senile, then?

Mr Rajaratnam: Any way he gave the impression (I am sorry I have not got the speech here) that he felt that things have gone from bad to worse. And I will quote the instance where he said so, that he felt like a man clinging to the wreckage of Singapore. He told us, I hope he is not going to deny this, how he took a nostalgic stroll in Chinatown, though for the life of me why he should take the air in Chinatown beats me. But he said that what shattered him and convinced him that Singapore was really down the chute was that he had to pay, to quote him, "50 cents to set foot in Chinatown." "Can you believe it?", he asked. Now, being the author of the Archbishop fallacy, I did not believe him, and accordingly made investigations on this matter. My colleague told the truth in so far as he was in Chinatown. It is also possible that he paid 50 cents unless, of course, he effected an illegal entry. But what he did not tell us, the whole truth, was that the 50 cents which he may or may not have paid was charged for entry into the fair organized by the CCC of Kreta Ayer in an empty URA lot between Sago Street and Bandar Street. Fair enough?

The fair was organized to sell Chinese New Year goods. Now, unless the hon. Member is in the habit of wandering about in empty URA lots, I would have thought that he could have more usefully and enjoyably spent his time walking in the rest of Chinatown, seeing the beautiful lights and decorations, all for free. So I cannot understand his indignation that he could not get in for free into Chinatown. Yes, there was a fair. He could complain, "I couldn't get a free entry into the trade fair." Fair enough.

So I investigated further. He forgot to tell us that similar fairs had been organized in Queenstown. And on the basis of what he said yesterday about Pay-and-Pay, money was extorted from those who visited Queenstown fairs. So what was the fuss all about? Because on this basis he built up his predictions - I will quote him afterwards - of impending doom for Singapore.

There were one or two other flagrant instances of what I call Archbishop fallacy. Why he inflicted them on us, I do not know. It may have been with a view to getting a few laughs and God knows, Mr Deputy Speaker, we could do with a bit more fun in this Chamber too. But I did not find funny his genuine or simulated belief that Singapore had gone to the dogs the moment he left it, however briefly six years ago. In fact, the Straits Times commentator today was also politely puzzled by this. This is what he wrote in this morning's Straits Times:

'Mr Jek, remembered as a sober speaker when he was in Cabinet, seemed to have acquired a new, refreshing style as a backbencher.' Mr Deputy Speaker, I never realized until now that one's basic beliefs about the conduct of one's Party is determined by the location of the Bench one occupies in this Chamber at a given moment. I think this is what the Straits Times commentator was politely trying to say.

His other error was his flirtation with what I call the politics of envy. I am not referring to his pleas that we should pay more attention to improving the lot of the 15-20% in the lower income group. I agree with it because I also believe that for a Government and the country to flourish, politics of hope is preferable to politics of despair. I believe in the politics of hope. That is why we are here. If I and my colleagues in the dark days had believed in the politics of despair, we would not be here.

This concern for the 15-20% was taken up in the President's Address by the new Cabinet. Many of the new and older MPs who preceded the Member for Queenstown have spoken eloquently and constructively on this subject. Quite a few had come forward with suggestions on how this goal could be achieved and it is constructive criticism. For a moment, I had high hopes that the Member for Queenstown was going to come forward with some helpful suggestions on how we could overcome this extremely difficult and by no means inevitable objective of raising the living standards of the 15-20%. 1 hoped that he would throw a revealing light, a dazzling light if possible. But something fused somewhere, and soon he was groping his way around the labyrinth of, what I call, the politics of envy. After mentioning the sorry plight of the poor, quite correctly, he went on to contrast this with the six-fold increase in the pay of MPs and what he incorrectly claimed was a 10-fold increase in the pay of Ministers. In fact, it is only 6.7% but it does not matter. What is a few per cent?

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: How much is a Minister paid now?

Mr Rajaratnam: This is very interesting. Yesterday, he simulated he did not know how much he was getting. He turned around and asked, "How much is an MP's pay?" You are an MP. You were a Minister.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: But that was years ago.

Mr Rajaratnam: Not many years, six years ago.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: There is a vast difference.

Mr Rajaratnam: Six years ago it was increased. Please do not try to prevent me speaking. Let me finish this thing first.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Is it so difficult to tell how much is the pay of a Minister now?

Mr Rajaratnam: $17,000.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Well, I rest my case.

Mr Chiam See Tong: $17,897.

Mr Rajaratnam: He is coming into this too.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: A few tricks!

Mr Rajaratnam: I can understand the Member for Potong Pasir indulging as he did in politics of envy in the recent elections. He too made the point about Ministers wallowing in luxury - together presumably with lawyers because I do not think that lawyers are poor people - while the masses wallowed in poverty. I can understand the Member for Potong Pasir doing it because he had to get into this Chamber. He needed the politics of envy to help him win his election and I like to think that Ministers' pay helped him to get into this Parliament. But what need was there for the Member for Queenstown who rode into this Chamber on the PAP horse to play the same game? What need was there? This is inferior politics.

Now, it may be fun to shoot your faithful horse. But I think it is not a nice thing to do either to the horse or to the cause.

The Member for Queenstown mentioned that an MP's salary started with $500 which was the proper pay in his view for an MP. So obviously the Member thinks that the increase in the pay of MPs and of Ministers is an improper thing so long as we have poor people around. So it occurs to me whether all these years he has possibly not availed himself of the increases in the pay of MPs and Ministers. If so, on principle, (I do not know) he may have been denying himself these increases? I am not asking this because I want to be personal but he has said this about pay in this Chamber with a view to discrediting his Ministerial colleagues. Why bring it up? The intention was there.

I have no objection to the Member for Potong Pasir doing it because I know the reason. He, the Member for Queenstown, obviously thought that this was not a nice thing. It had to be mentioned in this Parliament. In fact, as a matter of principle, has the Member for Queenstown then been denying himself of these increases? Because if so, there must be a small fortune lying unclaimed in the Ministry of Finance, to the profit of the Treasury and to the glory of the Member for Queenstown, But if he has been quietly pocketing the fruits of injustice and disregard for the sufferings of the poor, then we are entering the dark realms of yet another kind of politics, the politics of hypocrisy. In my view (at some future time I will elaborate on this) the reason why both in developed and developing countries politics and economics are in a mess is because in these countries politics of envy and politics of hypocrisy have been allowed to run riot. We are not ashamed for having increased the salaries of MPs and Ministers. We make no secret about it. In fact, if Ministers who are in charge of billions of dollars - he says he rests his case on $17,000 - are paid $17,000 when they are responsible for ensuring that millions of billions of dollars worth of prosperity is created in Singapore, is that wrong? I think the Member for Queenstown knows that there are Ministers here who earn far more before they came in here.

Mr Chiam See Tong: That is public service.

Mr Rajaratnam: I hope you will be giving up your MP's salary.

Mr Chiam See Tong: May I be allowed to answer to that?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I have made that offer once before. I am willing to give my MP's allowance if any of them would want to do so. I cannot make that offer at an election because it would be construed as bribery. By all means, let us have good, friendly competition between the Opposition and the Government. Now that the offer has been made, I am willing to give up my MP's allowance and make sure that one of them at least do so likewise. Thank you.

Mr Rajaratnam: It is incredible. He wants us to set the example that he wants to follow, to prove that he is a man who is prepared to render service. He can put us to shame (i do not think he will) by just voluntarily, one-sidedly, unilaterally, as a man of principle, sacrificing $3,000. That is nothing. it's peanuts to him. You earn about $1/4 million a year. If you give up your $1/4 million, I will give up my Minister's pay. [Applause]

Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---

Mr Rajaratnam: You will have time. You will be here for four years, five years. Do not worry. If you are serious about alleviating the lot of the less fortunate, then the politics of envy and hypocrisy is the surest way of ensuring that this goal is not reached. Where politics of envy and hypocrisy have prevailed and are rampant, they have been the ruin of many Third World countries. This is the kind of politics which has enabled politicians in developed and developing countries to boast that they live on small pay. But they have fleets of cars, palaces, harems, wives, and vast fortunes locked away in foreign banks. We can have that kind of politics of hypocrisy. I could come in rags, probably no shoes. I could do that.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Rajaratnam, you have three minutes left.

Mr Rajaratnam: Just two minutes. So the Member for Queenstown ended his vision of the future in what I thought was an apocalyptic note, and I would like to quote, I hope he does not deny this:

'Water [he said] can carry a boat but it can also sink a boat. Respect the people and attend to their needs at all times and the people will carry you far. Otherwise you all will be sunk by them.'

I suppose he gave this warning because he believes that we have so neglected the needs of the people that there is a danger of being sunk by the people. Since we are talking about a boat and water, I would like to put for consideration by the Member for Queenstown a cartoon which appeared recently in the New York Times. It shows Noah sitting on the top of an ark and anxiously watching a few clouds drifting by as the animals enter the ark, two by two. Noah is even more worried. He turns to his son and says, "Son, I am going to look like a damn fool if all we get is a passing shower." Thank you. [Applause]

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: Are you rising on a point of clarification?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am rising on a point of clarification. I seek permission, at the next meeting of Parliament, to get a clarification from the Senior Minister regarding the representation of the Member for Anson and myself for all Singaporeans. My point of clarification is: does it not mean that any Member here represents the whole of Singapore? I want a clarification. Is it a strict requirement that a Member could only represent the voters who voted him? Should any of my constituent come to me, should I ask him the first question, "Did you vote for me? If you didn't vote for me, I don't help you." Or should Singaporeans from other constituencies come to me for assistance, I say, "No, you are not from Potong Pasir. You did not vote for me, I don't assist you." I want to know all these points.

And the one million-odd votes that he was talking about, was it calculated on the basis of the complete number of voters in the 30 constituencies? Or is it that he takes only the voters who returned the PAP as a whole, 63.4%? What was his calculation based on? These are the points I wish to clarify. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: Since the Member for Potong Pasir is seeking his clarification, may I have mine too? I never said that it was wrong for Ministers to be paid and to have high pay. I never said that. What I did was to show a comparison.

Mr Rajaratnam: "With good intentions."

Mr Jek Yeun Thong: You have again put words into my mouth. It is a good one though. 4.25 pm

Encik Yatiman Yusof (Kampong Kembangan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to dwell quite at length on this topic in the Malay language, but since it is only five minutes more, I would like to seek your permission for the House to be adjourned, with the agreement of the Leader of the House.