ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, when the House rose just before lunch, I had come to this imposition of the diesel tax on taxis, coupled with this increase in taxi fares intended, no doubt, as a palliative measure for the taxi drivers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have a situation here where the taxi-drivers are being offered an increase in fares but where the majority of them are indignant about the increase in the taxi fares. Almost to a man, every taxi-driver, that I spoke to has voiced his view that the increase in the taxi fares would only drive those who are using taxis to buses. And there would be a sharp drop in their earnings. They are convinced about it. And the few others that I spoke to, the commuters have also voiced their opinion that they felt that the increase in the taxi fares was much too steep for the ordinary working man and his family. So here, we have an offer being made by the Government which is resisted by the taxi drivers who are intended to benefit by this offer. It is a strange sort of situation -you are giving them something and they are saying, "No, we don't want it. Thank you very much."

The Government seems convinced that with the increase in taxi fares, the taxi drivers are going to make quite a bit more. But as I said, the taxi drivers are far from convinced, I am not going to come out with figures and statistics to show who is right. But I was told - I did not watch this - that the Minister for Communications over TV on Friday was full of advice on how people could save by travelling on taxis. He was suggesting that somebody who is going on a journey of six kilometres or more, should first line up three others so that there will be four persons to share the taxi, and then it would work out to just a little bit more than bus fare. I thought how ingenuous of the Minister. I had not thought of that. Perhaps next time I want to take a taxi, I will ring up the Minister and ask him if he would try to find me three persons to share the taxi with me.

This is completely problematical, Mr Speaker, Sir. We are speculating on the spending habits of the consumers, and that is dependent on how much they have. So no amount of graphs is going to convince anyone at this stage that there is going to be enough for the taxi driver after he pays the increase in the diesel tax. They are very, very indignant about this. They feel bitter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, after the elections, there was so much talk from the Government that there would be more consultation with the people before any measures affecting them were introduced. May I know whether there was any consultation here with the people who would be affected, or should be affected, by this measure - the taxi drivers and the commuters? I hope I am not going to be told that the Second Deputy Prime Minister, in his capacity as the Secretary-General of the NTUC, and he has something to do with Comfort, advised the increase in the taxi fares, because he would appear to be against it. So I want to know what was the consultation. It makes a mockery, Mr Speaker, Sir, of the Government's often stated intention after the elections that there would be more consultations.

The taxi drivers suspect the motives of the Government in this. They see it as being hypocritical, completely, and I do not blame them. We hear, from time to time, from the Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Office about the politics of hypocrisy. And I mentioned last time that if anyone is guilty of that, it is this Government. There was the question of the payroll tax which I mentioned. They opposed it but then they retained it, saying they would give it to the workers (but they do not) and then in the end the workers get nothing out of it. So if that is not politics of hypocrisy, I would like to know what is.

May I suggest to the Government that the only fair thing to do now would be to give an assurance that the diesel tax would not be imposed, would not be brought into effect, if it is shown within the next six months that there is a sharp drop in the number of passengers using taxis. And if that continues, that something would be done to revise the taxi fares again. I say that is the only fairest thing they can do; it has been suggested, and I would commend it to the Government because then you show your sincerity and your determination to take into account the wishes of the people.

Now, this and the other road tax, we were told, were not intended as revenue-raising measures but simply to relieve congestion on the roads. Well, there have been suggestions galore in the papers about how congestion can be relieved without having to resort to these measures. May I again commend to the Government that perhaps they should suspend the imposition of the road tax as well, whilst other measures are looked into? I am sure there will be no lack of suggestions that will be put forward to the Government if the Government is seriously interested. But in all this, you show your sincerity about it. You say this is purely intended as a measure to relieve congestion on the roads and not as a revenue-raising measure. Well, why don't you examine those measures?

Now, if I may move on, Mr Speaker, Sir, about reliefs. The Minister in presenting his Budget said that last year in his Budget Statement he had given substantial personal reliefs. Of course, he had. He had given it to a minority of our population, the wealthy. I complained then, and I have complained every time since I came into this House in December 1981, about the absurd tax reliefs, personal tax reliefs, that are being allowed under our Income Tax laws.

It really is a mockery, Mr Speaker, Sir, these reliefs that are allowed. As I pointed out, the amount is much lower than what was given in 1947 when income tax was first introduced into this country, and is much lower than what is being given in the neighbouring country across the Causeway. And the Minister in reply to that said it did not really matter because the rates were different. I told him the last time, last year, that he was not right when he said that, and there was a substantial difference. The cost of living in Malaysia, I am told, is much lower than it is here. I talked to somebody who came from Penang only the other day, and he I find Singapore far too expensive."

So why are we denying our people adequate reliefs from the incidence of taxation? The whole of our tax structure is discriminatory. I have said this not once, not twice, I have said it a number of times: Your tax structure favours the rich. It is against the poor and the working class, and this is a Government that came to power on the backs of the workers. What a betrayal?

There is. nothing, Mr Speaker, Sir, in this Budget speech of the Minister about what the Government proposes to do towards helping this 15-20% of those in our midst who are not well-off. I am glad that at least now the Government recognizes that there is a substantial proportion in our midst who need to be helped.

I remember in 1982 when I mentioned to a foreign reporter that there were some people in Singapore who were starving, it was suggested that I had committed an act of treason. But now at least I see that the Government recognizes, and I am glad it does, that there is a sector which needs to be helped. There is nothing in this Budget Statement about what the Government proposes to do towards this sector. The Government offered last year $10,000 for the purchase of an HDB flat and the intention, as was announced, was to bring them out of the poverty trap. May I say to the Minister and the Government that it would not do that at all. It would not achieve its object. The best way of bringing them out of the poverty trap is to see that their children are educated. Just burdening them with an HDB flat is not going to help their children's education. I think it is time we thought of introducing a child allowance for families earning below a certain level of income. This is done in a number of countries, and it is commendable because it helps those who are really in need of it. So I would ask the Government to give serious consideration to helping families who, they say, they wish to help - and I say that there is more than 15-20% in our midst of this group - by giving a child allowance. Limit it to two if you like, to families who have children in primary schools or secondary schools. In that way, you see that the children are helped with better textbooks, better nourishing food and other aids to learning.

Whilst I am on income tax reliefs, may I also mention briefly, Mr Speaker, Sir, the restriction that is placed before a relief for aged dependants is granted. At the moment, the relief is only $1,000 but there are restrictions imposed on it. One of the restrictions is that the aged parent or grandparent must be living with the person claiming the relief. Why is it necessary? Why do we not trust our people sometimes? Why should two brothers not be allowed to share in this relief if they are helping to maintain the parents and the parents are only living with one of the brothers?

I mentioned about the Government's withdrawal from participation in the private sector, from some companies which they propose to select. I said that that was commendable. May I suggest to the Government that they should seriously consider offering some of the shares to the workers? I have brought this up in my speeches in this House in the last two years. Sir, you have got to give our workers a stake in the companies that they work for. I suggested last year that we should also move towards giving them representation in the boardrooms of companies so that they have a say in the management of the companies. You want increased productivity, you give the workers a stake, and so I would ask that you consider seriously if you are divesting your shares, that a certain proportion, if not the whole lot of it, be given to the workers first. The lead must be taken by the Government. You cannot wait for the private sector to take the lead in this. I hope the Government will set the example here.

I started my speech this morning, Mr Speaker, Sir, talking about the lack of information, and I said that I had some questions for the Minister. The first of these questions concerns our foreign reserves. We are told of the huge amount of foreign reserves but nothing very much else is said. Will the Minister say how much of it is held in gold and how much of it is held in foreign currencies? I remember two years ago, or was it three years ago, the Member for Rochore was talking about the scarcity of information that was coming from the Government. Is there a report from the Government Investment Corporation about its activities together with a balance sheet? The reserves belong to the people. The Prime Minister himself said that sometime ago. So let us have more information on these reserves. They, we are told, guarantee our CPF savings. So they are of vital concern to our people who have savings in the CPF.

Then there is the petrochemical complex. We asked these questions during election time. We never got an answer to them. Will the Minister say what is the future of this petrochemical complex? We have sunk a lot of money into this and we now hear that there is competition from Saudi Arabia and other countries, which would suggest that we are never going to recover from this investment. There is the immense servicing cost of the debt already incurred in this complex.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, about the MRT. We now understand that it is no longer intended to finance the MRT by the sale of Marina South, because they cannot sell Marina South and that it would be financed by revenue. The question is: is this going to be a viable project? The taxi drivers suspect that the increase in the taxi fares is to prepare commuters for very steep fares in MRT. The chairman or director of the Hong Kong MRT Authority was reported as having said in May 1984 that their current debt of HK$14 billion was expected to increase to HK$22 billion and that a policy of annual fare increase could not be avoided. So have we worked out what is going to cost our commuters to travel on the MRT when they are ready to run? I think these questions need to be answered because our people want to know the answers to these questions. It is no good saying, "Well, we know how to manage your monies. Leave it to us. Don't ask any questions." We hear so much talk about an open government. Well, let us see it in action, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Sir, I said I was going to express my disappointment. This Budget is discriminatory as all the previous budgets had been. It does not meet the needs of everyone in our community and I shall vote against it.

Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, you have already spoken for one hour.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Mr Speaker, Sir, May I be permitted to say a few words just to put the record straight?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Sir, earlier we heard the Member for Anson trying to put words in my mouth, and when I challenged him, he said, "Never mind". But this House is not a place where you can just put words in the mouth of other Members. Therefore, I thought it is important that I should put the record straight.

What I did say to the reporters of The Singaporean was that the taxi fare hike seems to be a bit too high, and that it could have been more gradual. But it is very difficult at this stage to predict what the outcome will be when the scheme comes into operation. It is fair that the taxi drivers should be patient and give the scheme a try.

We all know that the taxi fare in Singapore is one of the cheapest in the world, or at least the cheapest in the major cities. And taxi drivers have been urging the Government to allow a taxi fare increase for some time. I do not disagree with the policy of helping taxi drivers to help them to increase their income. And I think the intention of the Minister for Communications, with the measures that he has introduced, is to help the taxi drivers.

What I said was that if the measures introduced failed to achieve that intention, then I would like to urge the Ministry of Communications, with all its expertise and resources, to review these measures. That was what I said.

The Member for Anson obviously has a simplistic view of what democracy is. He asked me to resign because I expressed a view which, to him, is different from the Cabinet's. I agree that Government carries a collective view. Whatever is agreed upon, it is a collective agreement and it is a policy that we all accept. But it would be naive to expect that there is 100% consensus on all the views of the Government. Just as we have Members in this House, even PAP Backbenchers, who disagree with policies of the PAP ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: They are not in the Cabinet.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: --- do we ask them to resign? And we heard earlier the Member for Anson agreeing with some of the economic policies of the Minister for Finance. Do we suggest that he resign from this House as Opposition Member?

An hon. Member: Get him to join the PAP!

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: No, no, I would not suggest that.

An hon. Member: We don't want him!

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: I think that would be too simplistic. We are all working together for the [Interruption) - You are saying that because I am a Minister?

Mr Jeyaretnam: That is right. Your colleagues are not Ministers. Are you asking for clarification or are you making a speech?

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: No, I am putting the record straight. I have said so, and I am putting the record straight because the Member for Anson was trying to put words in my mouth.

Mr Speaker: The Minister is entitled to have one hour if he wants to.

Some hon. Members: Yes.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Give me a few minutes. The Member talks about rights of individuals, freedom of speech, and I think I should be accorded the same courtesy.

I think it is fair that we give the scheme a try. I would like to take this opportunity to urge the taxi drivers to cooperate and be a bit more patient. It is not the intention of the policy or the intention of the Government to penalize them in any way. Whatever it is, it must be tried out. No one can at this stage predict what the taxi drivers income will be, how they will be affected. No one can say that.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Thank you.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: The Minister for Communications is more confident than I am that the taxi drivers' income will not be adversely affected. There is a slight difference of view. So I thought that is all I have to say. But later on when the Member for Anson talked about the MRT saying that we cannot sell the Marina South land to pay for the MRT system, I thought it is necessary for me just to clarify this point because I was involved at that time as the Communications Minister. It was very clear from the very outset that the Marina South land which is a very valuable piece of asset adjoining the Central Area will not be able to develop to its full potential without proper access. As you know, if you look at Marina South, Sir, it is surrounded by water on three sides. The only access to Marina South is through Telok Ayer Basin, where there is only one road going to Marina South. This being the only access to Marina South, we cannot develop that piece of land except to leave it as an open space or perhaps some recreational development, and some residential development and perhaps some low-density commercial development. But with the MRT system providing access into Marina South, we will then open up the land for development, and hence developing the Marina South to its full potential.

We all know, Sir, that Singapore is a very small island, 600 sq km, and we must not forget to keep reminding ourselves that it is a very small place. The purpose of reclaiming land is to give ourselves as much land in reserve as possible for our future generation. We do not have to develop the whole of Singapore in our generation. We must look after the future.

With MRT, we will open up Marina South. And, when we said Marina South Land would be sold to pay for the MRT construction cost, it was only a notional suggestion. We do not have to sell now to raise the money to build the MRT. We have reserves. We use the reserves. We will sell the land when the price is right, when there is a demand, so that when the buildings are completed they would be occupied and not left as empty, concrete spaces. We have got to be realistic. Those who have been talking about Marina South have not understood this. If we were to sell the land now, where are the buyers? Right? So we do not have to sell the land now.

With the MRT going to Marina South, we can turn Marina South into a new City of Tomorrow, as has been explained and visualized by the First Deputy Prime Minister a few months ago.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification. I believe the Second Deputy Prime Minister is not making a clarification. He is making a speech.

Mr Speaker: He is entitled to make a speech for an hour. What do you mean by a clarification?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes. He is making a clarification of a speech. Now, he says that it is a notional suggestion. Is it not true that at one time the Prime Minister himself chastised a correspondent in the Forum Page of the Straits Times who suggested that the sale of Marina South was the proper way to finance the MRT and not to dig into the national reserves? In fact, he chastised that person. He said that that person did not understand economics. Please say if I am wrong.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Obviously the Member for Potong Pasir is wrong. Now, how many acres of land do we have in Marina South? It is very simple. It is a question of whether you want to sell it now, or you sell it later on at an appropriate time. As I said, without MRT going to Marina South, Marina South will not be able to develop to its full potential, to a maximum density that we envisage. And without being able to develop to its maximum density, the land value will be very low, for it fetched $20 per sq foot or $200 a sq metre. With MRT going to Marina South and if you are able to develop to a high density, or plot ratio of five or six, or whatever it is, then your land value will go up, maybe to $2,000 per sq metre or more. So that is one way of justifying the construction of the MRT and extending it to Marina South. If we do not build the MRT, then Marina South will never be able to develop. It is incapable of full development as it is. That is the question. I am saying -

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am quoting the Prime Minister.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: I would like the Member for Potong Pasir to quote the Prime Minister's statement. Will you please quote it? What did he say?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I can tell you after I collect it from the press tomorrow.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: You collect it first, then we will see. All right?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes, I will do that.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Thank you.

3.05 pm

Dr Toh Chin Chye (Rochore): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Budget Session will be most memorable for the popularity of the Minister for Communications in this House and his unpopularity outside the House. So I do not propose to go over ground which has been covered by the Member for Leng Kee and the Member for Anson, excepting that I am trying to use this occasion to see whether there is a connecting thread for the downturn in the different sectors of our economy.

In 1983 I warned the former Minister for Finance of the dangers of allowing statutory bodies, Government companies, wholly or partially-owned, their associates and subsidiaries, to encroach into private sector economy.

I am glad that the Minister for Finance today has now resolved to solve the problem of burgeoning Government intervention in the economy and to keep a surveillance over the operations of the statutory boards, and government companies in addition.

Public sector finance is not truly represented in our annual budget discussions, as the Budget excludes reporting of revenue and expenditure of the statutory boards and government companies which have been financed by Government loans that in turn are raised from taxes. Government enterprises, with the knowledge that they are government-backed, are tempted to flex their corporate muscles. Besides the statutory boards, there are 89 companies and an unknown number of subsidiaries and associate companies. They, if unchecked, can so dominate the private sector until Singapore's economy will resemble a centralized economy.

None of us in this House, not even the Minister for Finance or the Cabinet, can guarantee the future performance and behaviour of statutory boards and Government companies. There was the sorry affair of Keppel Shipyard, the Monetary Authority of Singapore and Jardine Fleming. It is hard to believe that Keppel took over Straits Steamship without seeking the approval of the Government when the acquisition involved several hundred million dollars.

There is now worry over the Singapore Petrochemical Corporation in which the Government has a 47.5% shareholding. Government loans to the company have been converted into equity. It means that interest earnings have been forgone and the payback period is uncertain.

There is the case of Multi-pak, another Government company, that has closed down after being in business for only six months. Then there was the attempt by two Government companies, Keppel and Intraco, to buy into a private commercial bank, although Keppel had already bought over a finance company. This time, fortunately, the MAS aborted the aggressive expansionist scheme of Keppel.

I raise this point not to be critical of the Government for the sake of being critical but to hope that the Government will learn from the experience of other countries. The crisis of the Philippine economy today, as admitted by Prime Minister Virata of the Philippines, has been due in no small measure to the expanded role of the public sector in various sectors of the Philippine economy. And, worse still, there was a lack of accountability of government corporations. In the end the Philippines had to go cap in hand to the IMF and be chastised.

The Economic Survey of 1984 is the most readable of the Surveys that have been presented to Parliament. Its authors are to be commended, but I hope it can be written with less jargon if it is intended for a wider readership. I would suggest that the Survey in future should incorporate a consolidated report on statutory boards and Government corporations, together with an economic classification of their revenue and current expenditure. It will help us in this House, as Members of Parliament and as representatives of the people, to understand how budgetary policy oils the many wheels of the Government economic machine. And also what it means to taxpayers.

May I go to the area of operating costs. I think it was in Washington last year, if I recollect clearly, that the Minister for Finance woke up to the realization that we had overpriced ourselves out of the market. Price is related not only to supply and demand but also to operating costs. The Government as the single largest employer sets the benchmark on wages, not the private sector. The Government imposes statutory payments, ie, indirect taxes, tariffs and fees, and the public buys utilities and services through statutory boards that are run by the Government.

The cost of government is being supported by the private sector. And in the last five years this cost has ballooned.

Recurrent expenditure per capita was $1,796 in 1979. This increased to $4,097 in 1984, representing an increase of 128% although the consumer price index rose only by 26.6%. Defence rose from $376 to $831 for every man, woman and child. Education rose from $194 per capita to $507, and Repayment of Public Debt from $543 per capita to $948.

If you look into the Economic Survey, you will find that Government's salaries and wages, including CPF contributions, increased by 95% in the last five years. If this can be said of the Government, worse can be said of the private sector because the private sector, in addition to basic wage, has to pay Central Provident Fund, Payroll Tax and contribute to the Skills Development Fund, plus other perks for workers. In the private sector, I would not be wrong if I were to say that payroll has doubled in five years.

At full employment, the Government was stimulating the economy through successive URA projects and its own building programme - construction of the Airport, Expressways and the MRT. This was inflationary, leading to abnormally high wages. Neither in the Government nor in any sector of the economy had productivity increased at a rate to justify a doubling of payroll in five years.

It should come as no surprise that investment commitment by new foreign investors has fallen from 50% in 1980 to 30% in 1984, as the Minister for Finance said.

CPF contributions at 50% have become a burden to both employer and employee. The problem of the CPF has been raised by the NTUC when it discovered that employers have defaulted on payments. With 25% less in take-home pay, employees feel the pinch, and unions negotiate not on gross wages but on take-home pay. What is it I get now? As CPF contribution rates have gone up, the growth of savings in the POSB went down from 49.3% in 1982 to 18.8% in 1984. There is now less money to save and to spend. The burden of CPF contributions is reflected in the increasing number of late-payments. In 1980, when the contribution rate was 38 1/2%, the number of cases of late-payment into the Fund was 20,000, in round numbers. This number rose to 35,000 in 1983 when the rate of contribution was 46% . In 1984, last year, when the contribution rate rose to 50%, employers defaulted on the payments when their companies went into bankruptcy. I think it is an exercise in futility to blame companies for defaulting on their employees' CPF payments when we do not try to seek the reason why. In the last five years, CPF contributions have increased by 207%. In 1979, it was 15.9% of GDP and in 1984, it rose to 39% of GDP.

At this time when our economy is in recession, property taxes have doubled. The costs of buying utilities from the PUB have increased by 70% in five years. The Minister for Finance in his Budget speech promised that there would be no increase in income tax but property taxes will help to finance the budget. I hope the Minister will clarify in his reply whether it is his intention to raise property tax. It is quite right that the property tax is being placed at 23% of the annual value but the annual value keeps on changing and in the end, in absolute terms, you are paying more property tax, not less.

There are certain sectors of the industry, particularly the hotel industry, that are hurt by finding themselves paying a 100% increase in property tax when tourism is down. There seems to be no relationship between taxation and the state of the economy. Successive budget surpluses of over $2,000 million add up to the operating cost of the private sector. The cost advantage that attracted foreign investors and tourists to our shores in the 1970s has fast disappeared. In the retail trade and the tourist industry, sales have dropped markedly down. The high costs of operating a business are very much felt.

The gains that the Minister for Finance has given from the abolition of payroll tax and the reduction of the Skills Development Fund by 2% really amount to about 1.6% of savings on payroll. But this will be cancelled by increased transportation costs due to the increase in the price of petrol. If sales do not improve in the next six months - I give six months - you will find that more businesses will face cash flow problems.

The problems of the recession did not begin on 1st January 1985. The downturn began in 1983 with the shipping industry, with the oil-rig building industry, with ship-repairing, ship-building, drop in property prices, drop in tourism and the retail trade. We are now into 1985 and the Government has not woken up to the fact that that is a massive problem to tackle. I would suggest to the NTUC, however unpleasant it be, that the abolition of the payroll tax should not be used as an excuse or as a leverage to increase NWC payments for this year. Otherwise it will be a zero sum game for business and the choice is very stark for workers. If his company goes into liquidation, the worker is going to face retrenchment. I know for sure there are partnerships that have told the staff, "If you want an NWC increase, bonuses, then please resign. If you want to stay on to your job, then please remain as you are."

For the Government, what does it mean? If companies face a loss and close down, the Government loses sources of tax collection, and indeed income tax collection for 1985 is expected to be no more than for 1984. With the economic down-turn growing deeper, I cannot understand how the Government can budget another surplus of $2,261 million for 1985, particularly when the allocation for Development for 1984 will be under-spent by $1,127 million. A surplus in the budget means a diminution of total demand. It adds to the recession.

Recurrent expenditure relentlessly climbs upwards. This year it will increase by $875 million. 56% of this is due to operating expenditure. What the Minister gives away in payroll tax and entertainment duty, on the one hand, it is neatly taken back by increased road taxes and duties on petrol on the other. Now you see it, now you don't. So really nothing is lost. He is no Santa Claus. The catch -and that many of us have missed - is that the extra burden of the budget will have to be financed somehow. Will the Minister assure this House that there will be no surprise customs or excise duties on consumer goods after the budget session?

I must praise the Minister for Finance in that he has been bold this year in bringing up the problem of an increase in petrol price as well as an increase in taxi fares at the budget meeting. I dislike intensely inter-budgetary taxation because I cannot budget for myself. I do not want to go over old ground which the Member for Leng Kee has very expertly covered this morning.

I am no taxi driver. I do not think the Minister for Communications is a taxi driver either, or has been one. I do not understand the economics of the increases in taxi fares and the cost of road tax for diesel-powered taxis. But we all listen to taxi drivers. All you have got to do is to go to the back seat and chit-chat with the taxi driver. You get feedback, boy! I know for sure that the next time I travel by taxi to the airport, it will cost me 21/2 times what I paid only two months ago in January. It defeats the purpose and the efforts of the STPB to woo tourists who, already aware that Singapore is expensive, will discover on arrival in Singapore that Singapore has become more expensive. There must be communication between the Minister for Communications and the Minister in charge of STPB. Obviously there has been a break in the communication link.

As a car owner driver, I sympathize with all car owners Who drive to work because of the increase in the price of petrol from $1.20 per litre to $1.50. I commiserate with travelling salesmen, tour operators, service men and the like. I know what it will cost me next time I ask a service man to come to my house to repair my television set, or to ask a doctor to pay a call on me at the house.

As a consumer of goods and services, I share the anger of housewives and wage-earners who will find that prices in the market have gone up because the costs of delivering goods and services have increased. The last time in 1983 when the price of petrol was increased by 20 cents, although the cost of oil was going down, the Consumer Price Index for transportation went up by 5.2%. The Minister for Communications, or is it the Minister for Finance, never learns from experience. The obsession with zero growth population for motor vehicles more than matches the obsession over family planning. Imagine what Singapore would be like if the Registry of Births and Deaths imposes an ARF on every new-born child, a consumption tax on mother's milk and infant food, and a burden tax on the cost of education! But we do not do all these things because there are alternatives. There is the choice of the con dom, the pill, sterilization or abortion. 3.27 pm

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Dr Toh Chin Chye (Rochore): Has the Minister for Communications thought of abortion? What I mean is: has he thought of giving incentives for car owners to get rid of their cars? Can the Minister tell us how many motor vehicles belong to Government ministries, the MID, statutory boards and Government companies? How many new cars have been registered because of cheap car loans to civil servants, employees of statutory boards and educational institutions? Tackle the problem at the roots.

Motor vehicles already on the road must use petrol to carry on daily business. I do not see how increasing pump prices can take them off the road. It will not, and I do not see how the car population can be checked by punishing existing motor vehicle owners. Indeed, operating expenditure of business will instead go up and this will be passed down to all consumers. It is inflationary, as the Member for Leng Kee has explained to us. He is a professional economist, so we take his words seriously.

The pity of it all is that the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Trade and Industry have been unable to convince the Minister for Communications of the dangers of a one-track mind. I was reminded of that this morning. In reality, he will ask me to put it up in one sentence - short, brief. I would say this. The policies of the Government are more suited to an inflationary environment but the rest of the world is charted on a course of disinflation. World-wide, inflation is low - 4% in the United States, 5% in Britain, 4% in Germany, 4% in Japan, 4% in Singapore - and therefore there is a downward pressure on prices. The prices of commodities, gold and crude oil have been deflated. Who ever thought that gold which was selling at $850 per ounce in 1980 could fall to $295 today? But Singapore prices are forced upwards because of Government policies on income, statutory payments and other levies.

On the one hand, the Government advises the private sector to reduce over-heads. The other its actions are designed to inflate overheads. The pity of the Budget statement is that it disregards the fact that on the average three companies are being liquidated every two days. It does not address itself to the reasons why, how, Our economy has encountered air pockets and has fallen into recession. The Minister has chosen to remain silent on this burning issue of the day.

The deficits that the private sector are facing are caused by structural and not cyclical factors. These deficits have taken some time to show up because of the euphoria over the building and construction boom. The Minister for National Development recited to us this morning a number of URA projects that were being thrown out in the last seven years. We appeared to prosper but not understanding that in reality we were living on expectations of future earnings. We have been living on credit, as it were.

With a fall in consumer spending and demand, these earnings have not materialized. Capital has been locked into fixed assets but they are not generating enough income even to pay interest. And as the Second Deputy Prime Minister too just now reminded us, empty concrete buildings are a loss. In fact, the Member for Leng Kee perhaps could confirm whether that means it is inflationary - having empty buildings in Singapore. The deficits in the private sector have been paying for successive surpluses of several billion dollars in the Government budget. And it is only a matter of time before the accumulated weaknesses in Government policies of the last five years would show up as it has done now.

Or to put it in another way, if you like, what would have been Government deficits if they had been transferred to the private sector? Today, the G7 countries, the seven top industrialized countries, have governments that are in budget deficit. We are not one of the G7 countries, but we are enjoying surpluses. How do we manage to go against the trend when these G7 countries are supposed to lead the Third World countries out of their recession? I suggest that only a sweeping reform of Government expenditure and revenue structures can prevent private sector companies from going deeper and deeper into the red.

In fact, I have several supplementary questions for the Minister for National Development, except that I was interrupted by the Member for Whampoa and I lost the trend of my thought. However, I would not use this occasion to bring up these supplementary questions, but may I make two proposals which the Minister can examine, tear them apart, and maybe consider them ridiculous. But I would like to make these two proposals very seriously in order to ease the difficulties, particularly of the small businesses and the consumer.

Proposal No. 1: Housewives normally feel that their first duty is to home and family and they are not going to be coaxed to work on a part-time basis. The Economic Survey shows a large proportion of housewives who are not in the work force. Housewives are not going to sacrifice the welfare of the family if, in going out to work part-time, their take-home pay will be slashed because of CPF contributions. On the other side, employers are reluctant to employ part-time workers on the same terms as full-time workers because part-time workers do not guarantee stability in the workforce. They are here with you today, they are away tomorrow. And for these reasons, I would suggest that wages and benefits for part-time work be a matter of negotiation between worker and employer, and not subject to compulsory CPF contributions. In fact, this is already happening in the case of teachers who give private tuition. Students do not contribute to the CPF!

An hon. Member: No income tax.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: I would not want to agitate the Collector of Inland Revenue.

Proposal No. 2: There is a paradox to thrift and savings. We originate from an immigrant population which practises thrift and savings, but this generation is probably the most spendthrift - abolishing cars that are still service-worthy and running on the roads, We are really asking for more cars to come on to the roads. So what is one person's spending becomes another person's profit or income, call it what you like. This, in turn, is spent on a third person's income. As more income is generated, there is some left for saving. This is what the Member for Leng Kee or the Member for Whampoa would call "the Multiplier Effect". I took a tutorial from them.

Dr Augustine Tan: On a point of clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker. I never gave him a tutorial. If I did, he would speak better than this.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: I got a tutorial from the Member for Leng Kee! I thank him very much for enlightening me.

On the other hand, let us suppose all households try to increase their rate of saving, as is the case in Singapore under the CPF scheme. It would mean that there is less money for consumption. It results in a reduction of income for the next person and the third person, all the way down the line. And because there is less wealth generated, there is also a decrease in saving.

Buyers are sellers; sellers are also buyers. Am I not right? But if there are no buyers, there will be no sellers. That is what we are seeing. In the shopping complexes, consumer spending has been contracted both by a significant drop in tourists and by excessive savings in the CPF.

I have earlier indicated that 25% less in take-home pay has reduced what the economists call "propensity to consumerism" - it is a very long word, I prefer to use what the layman understands "disposable income" which I understand is incorrect, either for spending or for saving in the POSB.

How can we increase consumer expenditure without further raising salaries and wages and contributing to increased operating costs?

I suggest a solution is to reduce CPF contributions. As a first step, it should be reduced from the present level of 50% to 40%. I know that those who are on high salaries and working in institutions of higher learning and statutory bodies would not like it. This will mean that their take-home pay will be increased by 6.7% and payroll costs will be decreased by 4%. 6% of CPF locked into Medisave is too high. The Minister for Health would want to check whether it is true that in Australia an employee pays only 1% of his income to Medicare. In this way, hopefully, consumer spending will increase and sales will improve. This will buy time for business to fight off liquidators, solve their cash flow problems and they can live another day.

I suggest that there is need for a physical reform, and the idea of local governments to handle the problems of HDB estates is a good one from the political point of view. But I would strongly caution, in the light of the experience of this recession, against this move as the bureaucracy will swell and HDB residents will have to pay for the costs of local government. I do not live in an HDB estate. I see no reason why I should pay to an HDB local government. But if there is going to be a transfer of funds from the central government to local governments, then all taxpayers are inviting for more taxation one way or another. Take heed.

In 1984, the Ministry of Social Affairs had a staff establishment of 738, with a budget of $40 million. In 1985, this year, that Ministry has grown into the Ministry of Community Development with an establishment of 1,319 staff, and a budget of $84 million. In 1983, I questioned the Minister for Social Affairs then, why it cost $4 to give out $1. I have not worked out at today's 1985 prices. I should take some time to do that.

In 1979, the expenditure for the Ministry of Defence was $1,000 million. In 1985, the costs of defence of Singapore will escalate to $2,411 million, making us one of the most expensive in per capita spending and, unfortunately, giving rise to wrong perceptions of the role of the military,

In 1979, the cost of education was $581 million. In 1985, it will be $1,942 million, although the numbers to be educated are already tapering off. The baby boomers have gone through the SDU and have got married. They do not need to be educated any more.

The exercise of decimating the Ministry of Culture has made no savings on expenditure. Only the bureaucracy has been reshuffled, and it is a mystery to me how information or propaganda has been thrown in with the operations of the Telecoms Authority, the Airport, the PSA, the ROV, and the MRT.

In 1979, Government expenditure including transfer from the Consolidated Fund to the Development Fund was $6,803 million. This will balloon to $10,621 million in 1985, an increase of 7.7% compounded annually in spite of the fact that the average rate of inflation was only 4.9% in the last five years.

Another way of looking at the problem of Government expenditure is to see their bearing on direct and indirect taxation. In 1979, direct and indirect taxes amounted to $3,401 million but this is estimated to grow to $7,058 million in 1985, or at a rate of 12.9% compounded annually. Can we keep on going at this rate?

In 1983, I urged the then Minister for Finance to set up a committee on tax reform. Now, once more I urge the new Minister for Finance to set up a Committee on Administration Reform with the objective of cutting down expenditure and revenue.

The Government hopes that the private sector will be the engine of growth in future years. But the private sector is running out of gas. This hope will remain a pious hope if the Government does not first set its house in order. By raising operating costs, overheads, taxes and levies, they are killing innovation and entrepreneurship, discouraging foreign investment and crippling our ability to compete in world markets.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I take consolation that I ventured into a foreign area from this story that I have plagiarized from Dr Albert Winsemius. Perhaps Members would like to share this story with me. Three applicants for the job of general manager were being interviewed. One was an engineer, the other accountant and the third an economist. At the interview, the company chairman put forward a question to them."How many is one plus one?"The engineer replied, "Two". The accountant answered, "11". When it came to the turn of the economist, he turned to the chairman and asked, "Sir, what figure do you want?" The economist got the job. [Applause] 3.46pm

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi (Siglap): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, at about this time last year, I was in the Gallery hearing the debates on the Budget statement. The mood then was more euphoric than what it is today; the gloom and doom that lie in this House is so thick that we can almost cut it with a knife.

Sir, on the whole, I view the Budget as slightly rejuvenating. The attempt to keep business and industry above water is indeed a necessary step, if not a commendable one. The bias towards the corporate sector therefore is necessary.

Sir, the Member for Leng Kee and the Member for Rochore have very eloquently spoken about the woes of the common man on the rises in taxes and the rises in petrol prices. I applaud especially the intention of the Government to allow tax deductibility on tuition and exam fees on courses, especially on those which cover correspondence courses. This, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is timely if not already over-due. One rider, however, I would like to add is that the definition of "courses related to employment and courses related to a job" should not be too restrictive as to disallow a lot of people these tax deductions.

Sir, I would also urge the Government to extend the spirit of incentive and the spirit of encouragement to parents who have children studying 'A' levels or those pursuing higher education. I am not suggesting that tax incentives, for example, should be across the board because it is very clear that there are families who could afford to send their children to study 'A' levels and above. But rather I would urge the Government to give these incentives to those with relatively lower incomes, say, for families earning up to $2,000 and those with children studying 'A' levels and maybe even in university. A formula for this could be worked out and the amount of relief allowed to the parent could be pegged to the level of education of the children.

Now, to the more controversial issues of increased taxi fares and increase in the ad valorem tax on petrol, road and diesel taxes. As I said before, these arguments have been raised very eloquently by the Members for Leng Kee, Anson and Rochore.

Fiscal disincentives, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, can only be temporary in the sense that we can only bring about temporary solutions. As incomes rise, the threshold of unaffordability will definitely also rise. There will be a time when this threshold will be crossed and this again will serve to push up the cost of living index. Fiscal disincentives too, Sir, are always misconstrued by the public as a measure to raise revenue rather than to solve the problem at source. Taking the measure as a whole, it affects a very wide spectrum of the Singapore public by threatening to raise the cost of living and production cost in an already flat economic climate. This is especially painful to smaller entrepreneurs who are struggling hard to survive. And these measures may even jeopardize the chances of their ever making it. The timing, Sir, is not right. As it is, there is no alternative form of an efficient public transport in Singapore. Although the intention is for the people to steer away from taxis and to take buses, but the efficiency of the buses in Singapore is hardly to our liking. And the MRT is still a far way off. I suggest therefore a comprehensive look into the whole transportation system in Singapore and to look into whether we can adopt non-fiscal measures which are indeed in the longer term. What we need to do, Sir, is to change travel attitudes. In this exercise, feedback from the public is therefore necessary.

Quite apart from the dollars and cents of these rises in taxes, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is the social cost that they bear to the society. Car ownership has been increasingly perceived as the privileged domain of increasingly fewer citizens. Car ownership has become a status symbol for someone to strive for. On the other hand, car ownership also will be increasingly perceived as an object of envy, something that is to be scratched, something that is to be vandalized. I therefore urge the Government to seriously review the matter of increased taxes and to ensure that there is strict monitoring of the whole situation before the whole issue runs out of hand.

As for taxis, volumes can be written on this. In fact, before the debate started this afternoon, I was talking to the Member for Bo Wen who is actually an avid taxi commuter. And he has in fact been given an earful from taxi drivers on their woes and on their problems. Now, the basis of all the assumption that they will increase their earnings is that the demand for taxis will fall by a certain percentage. And the whole premise that they will indeed increase their incomes will be based on this percentage of demand that will drop. The suspicion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is that demand will drop so much that earnings will in fact be chipped away.

The Member for Leng Kee and the Member for Rochore have said that we need to ensure that the taxi drivers' earnings will not be chipped away. We realize that we have to look into the whole matter very seriously, that we have to give the whole system a chance, as the Second Deputy Prime Minister has said, before we adopt or scrap the whole issue.

The problem of taxi drivers has indeed been raised many times before. Now, the Minister for Communications has said that incomes will in fact not decrease, if only taxi drivers will work longer hours or if they will also work on multiple shifts. As you know, Sir, most of the taxi drivers are 40 years old and above. An ergonomist will tell you that driving longer hours at that age may lead to very fatal consequences. And the ease with which drivers can have multiple shifts depends very much on the kind of people they can have as relief drivers. As you know, Sir, it is not easy to find people who are good enough to take care of their taxis, and it is also not easy to find good drivers who ensure that the taxis loaned out to them are returned in good condition.

Sir, in this period of economic uncertainty, things are in a flux and we must be sure that the citizen is not overly taxed beyond his threshold of pain. Many Members in this House have said on the debate on the Presidential Address that we need feedback from the people, we need consultation, so that policies which ultimately issue from this consultation will be accepted by everyone and are in the best interests of all. I can only hope that the Ministry of Communications and the Ministry of Finance will take heed of all the comments and suggestions of this House in carrying out very close reviews and monitor the whole situation before taxes remain as a permanent feature of our life. What we want, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is a long-term and viable solution to our problems.

Sir, I support the motion. 4.00 pm

Mr Tang Guan Seng (Khe Bong) (in Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, today we are debating on the financial policy of the Minister for Finance.

The Member for Leng Kee and others have talked about the increase in diesel tax and road tax. I think tomorrow more of my colleagues will be touching on the same topic. Therefore, I will not touch upon this aspect of the financial policy to avoid repetition and will talk on something else.

The Member for Anson has just raised a few points in his speech. I would like to comment on them, but he is not here. He talked about our promotion of tourism. He implied that since we have driven our hawkers away from the streets and resite them in hawker centres, life along the side streets has disappeared. I was wondering whether he was blaming the Government for not being able to attract more tourists to Singapore because of the policy of resettling street hawkers. It is not practical to bring back the street hawkers as can be evinced from history.

The Member for Anson also suggested that the Government should give unemployment benefits to the unemployed. This is also not practical. Just look at some countries where welfare system is practised. They are faced with great economic difficulties!

Another point he mentioned was that if we wanted to encourage our womenfolk to join the labour force, then we should reduce the levy on foreign maids. I do not want to say whether the levy on our domestic help is reasonable or not, but his argument is that if we want to emancipate our womenfolk from the kitchen, then we must engage foreign domestic help. I do not agree to this point. Just as the Addendum on Community Development in the Presidential Address has pointed out, the introduction of the domestic servant into the family has alienated the children from the parents. Of course, we would like both parents to come out to work, but it is not possible now for the mother to play the role of taking care of the children. This is one of the changes in our society that I would like to address this House today. In the past, our parents came from China, India or Indonesia to this place. Although they were generally not well educated, they grew up in a traditional society. Therefore, they had brought with them the good traditions to this place.

In olden times the parents used to spend a lot of their time with the children. Therefore, in the family they could easily impart the good traditions from their forefathers to the children. Now, this condition is hardly available. These are the changes in family conditions.

The Minister for Finance in his Budget Statement said that education and training is the cornerstone of our economic upgrading strategy. Our children who are brought up under different family environment go to school to receive the education that they are provided with. There will be changes in our education system. From 1987, because of the need of future economic development there will be a unified stream of education where English will be the medium of instruction and mother tongue will become the second language. Briefly speaking, the next generation will be English educated.

After leaving school, they will join the society. What kind of society will it be then? We all know that we have economic relations with the West. Therefore, in order to learn advance technology and science from the West, we have to use English as our medium of instruction and administration. It is only natural that English will be more widely used in the future.

From the changes in education to changes in our society, we realize that there will be more and more opportunities to contact with the West. And the Western sub-culture and other less desirable influences will create more inroads into our society. So, what kind of resultant problems will there be?

The first will be the problem of value concept. Not long ago, the Prime Minister also talked about it in this House. If the objective of nation building is to inculcate in our children the knowledge of the advance Western technology and science and at the same time preserving in them traditional Eastern cultures, then we must ensure that our future generation will preserve the good traditional value concept of our forefathers which would have a very great bearing on the fabric and structure of our society.

We have an Institute of East-Asia Philosophical Studies which is currently studying the thoughts of Confucianism. I understand it will also study the philosophies of various East Asian countries. Apart from a comprehensive study of all these philosophies and related value concepts, we should also come to the question of how to inculcate in our younger generation the correct value concepts which are worth developing and preserving, and who should be responsible for the task. As to the question of which department should be responsible for the implementation of the promotion of such cultures and value concepts, I would suggest that the Institute of East-Asia Philosophical Studies could play a leading role. The Government may consider augmenting its scope in addition to its studies by giving it certain responsibilities in devising ways and means to carry out the recommended policies in the promotion or inculcation of good traditional cultures and correct value concepts in our younger generation, covering and matching their development through family, school and social environment. In this respect, we would certainly meet with various difficulties. I know for sure the Government is paying much attention to it.

The Ministry of Education has implemented from this year as an experiment the teaching of Confucianism in English and, at the same time, English has also been used to teach Hinduism and Buddhism in the schools. I think this is something that no other country has done before. We have invited specialists, professionals and scholars to come here to work out our curricula for this purpose. From the record of what we have achieved in the past, I have the confidence that the Ministry of Education will succeed in its endeavours again.

The experiment of teaching Confucianism in English now appears just a subject in the curricula of the school. In fact, it is not just that. With the changes in our education system and the progress of our society, with the attendant rising standards of education and the more popular use of English, I can see that in future English will be more resorted to in social and educational and cultural activities. For example, the SBC is dubbing the film "The Silk Road" into English, or introducing Chinese music in English. We should therefore not just study the question of whether the use of English, as a medium for the teaching of Confucianism is feasible or not. We should extend the scope of the work. We should augment this experiment and use English more extensively and at a higher level in the promotion of the spiritual civilization of the whole nation. In other words, we can try to use English as a means of communication for the promotion of spiritual and cultural values of our society and see what the result will be. This is the first point.

The second point is, if the experiment proves to be successful in our unique society, a multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-religious society, then the Government should try to take immediate measures to increase the pool of our translators and try to increase the resources of specialists for this task. This is a pressing need peculiar to our social conditions where because of, firstly, our limited land space with small population and, secondly, of the nature of our open society, we could not have segregated an independent cultural system and live on our own cultural source of ingredients. Just look at the books in the book-shops and the programmes broadcast by TV and radio. Many of them contain imported cultures. If we want to improve our spiritual and cultural standards and promote our civilization, we should try to imbibe in our younger generation with good traditional Eastern culture and value concepts so that they may inherit the good points of our forefathers.

If, after our study and experiment, it does not prove to be successful, then the Government should find better methods to meet the needs and to find out the means to cope with the pressing demand for our long-term aim.

We have quite a number of disadvantageous conditions as mentioned earlier. If we want to succeed in our aim of building a city of excellence, we must have a society where there is a high standard of Western science and technology, while preserving the good traditional Eastern virtues. Before we can get clear-cut solutions or a better proven method to the above questions, we should preserve our bilingual education policy. Even if we have got the key to achieve what we aim for, we should still preserve and promote our bilingual education. In the Minister for Education's speeches and the Addendum to the Presidential Address, it was pointed out why we should promote bilingual education policy and pursue mother tongue as a second language.

I will now touch on another matter that has something to do with the whole social development. In our society, there is still a large group of people who do not understand English. At the present moment, the popular use of English in our society will give rise to a false impression that the whole society is using English. In fact, the picture is not so. We still have a group of people who do not understand English and who need special care and attention. In fact, the Government has also paid attention to this particular factor in its policy formulation.

Let me give some examples. Our Speak Mandarin Campaign is a means to find a common language for those people who speak different dialects, and to enable them to speak a common language. The Ministry of Communications had officially translated MRT as "land rail" ( ) in Chinese, thus clearing the confusion brought about by various translation terms, such as "underground rail" ( ) or "fast rail" ( ).

Another example, SBC is presently producing a broadcast of our Parliamentary proceedings in Chinese. I understand there are many difficulties, and yet SBC has overcome these difficulties and succeeded in broadcasting our proceedings here, This programme has a wide audience. If SBC did not broadcast our proceedings in Chinese, many people would miss the opportunity of knowing what is going on here.

I think the Government should mobilize everyone to participate in our nation building. In the Presidential Address it is also stated that both the old and the young are to be encouraged to participate in our nation building. But in the present circumstances, this group of people who know only Chinese sometimes feel that their needs are not being taken care of and they may feel that they are being dislocated from the present current of social progress.

Let me give an example. Just now the Member for Rochore talked about "POSB". I do not know whether the older generation understand the meaning of this term when they hear about POSB. I have asked a few older people who do not know English. I asked them. "Do you know what is meant by POSB?" They could not answer. Then I found my answer in the press. There was a small news item which says that the POSB was called by the old women folk in Hokkien as "key label bank". This is interesting. POSB has a full Chinese translation of "Post Office Savings Bank" ( ). But if I were to ask somebody to recite the name "Post Office Savings Bank" in Mandarin or dialect quickly, I think he will find it difficult to read out. If POSB accepts the concept of the "Key Brand Bank", then it becomes easier for people to call it. Otherwise some other proper name should be found so that these people will find it easier to name it.

Another example, HUDC flats. If we were to translate it into Chinese, it will be a very long term, such as Housing and Urban Development Corporation flats. It is a very long term. Any person educated only in Chinese will not be able to call out this name. But maybe he could call it as middle-income group flats. It is not a precise name nor an official name. Therefore, the people concerned should try to figure out how to give it a proper name.

There is another example. Under the Ministry of Education there are so many terms. As a press-man, I am also confused sometimes. For instance, 'A' level education. When the Member for Siglap mentioned it, I listened very carefully to the simultaneous interpretation, and I heard it as 'A' standard ( ). It means that for such term as 'A' level, 'O' level, or 'N' level, there is practically no proper Chinese term for it. It is not so much a matter of translation but a matter which needs the attention of the relevant authorities, which should take into consideration the need of those people who know only Mandarin or dialects.

I will give another example. We have spent a lot of energy and money in setting up the 25 Years of Nation Building Exhibition which depicted the historical events and the efforts and hardship that have taken place through various phases leading to our present stage. Many organizations and individuals were involved in this effort, Community organizations, like residents' committees, mobilized many people, young and old, to turn up at the Exhibition. But, older people and those who did not understand English found it difficult to understand the theme of this Exhibition. Therefore, it was difficult for them to respond in consonance, because the medium of communication was mainly English, Other than two poems in Chinese and the few audio-visual programmes being dubbed into Chinese, the main language used was English. So the object of the Exhibition was hardly achieved. As I said, we should mobilize all people in Singapore to participate in our nation building, including those people who could not speak or understand English.

Recently, I heard that in Kreta Ayer area, there was a Chinese New Year festival going on, with decorations and lightings in that part of Chinatown, and huge crowds were milling around. I turned up to have a look. After one round, I found only two streets full of people. If we had been to Shanghai or Calcutta, you could really find waves of people crowding the streets. Here, we only have 2.5 million people. So we must treasure all our human resources. We must mobilize everybody to take part in our nation building. Whether Indians, Malays or Chinese, whether they are educated in English or Chinese, or without any education, we must mobilize each and everyone to take part in our nation building.

For the past 25 years, we have achieved great progress in economic, social, cultural and various other fields. Our second generation leaders have also charted a vision and a course for us to achieve. That is, before the end of this century, we want to achieve the target of a distinguished city and an excellent society. So we should mobilize every Singaporean in this task of nation-building.

Dr Koh Lip Lin (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is only one minute left and I would certainly need more than one minute to make my speech. Would you rather adjourn the sitting now?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Moment of interruption. Dr Tan, debate to be resumed on what day?

Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Tomorrow, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.