MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1985 TO 31ST MARCH, 1986

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [3rd Allotted Day].

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

11.20 am

Head N -

Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead NA-01 Object Group 1100 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, among the many responsibilities of the Ministry of Finance is one to enhance the effectiveness of the Civil Service through the establishment of appropriate terms and conditions of service, as well as proper training, career development and deployment of staff.

Sir, in the last few years, much publicity has been given to the rapid promotion that returned scholars have obtained. These scholars are very bright, well educated, but their careers seem to be mapped out right from the start. These are so-called high flyers among the civil servants. And what they have obtained by way of rapid promotion seems to have attracted the envy of many people, especially among the non-graduates and those graduates who have been bypassed in promotion exercises.

Sir, two days ago, the Minister of State for Defence reassured this House that as far as the Singapore Armed Forces are concerned, Mindef is looking more to the performance of the SAF men rather than their paper qualifications. This is very welcome news to those who do not know about it.

The question that must be raised, Sir, is whether there is a bias in Civil Service promotion criteria. Is the Ministry of Finance concerned also about the career development for ordinary graduates and for non-graduates? In other word's, for officers in middle management and officers in Divisions III and IV. What are the promotional avenues available to civil servants? Is his Ministry looking into their problems of job satisfaction? What are the turnover rates like in the Civil Service in the last few years? What courses are available for self improvement of civil servants?

This leads me, Sir, to another question, and that is, the problem of the quality of service that our civil servants provide to the public. Do Ministers or their officials make surprise and periodic visits to various departments, especially at service counters, to see for themselves and experience for themselves the quality of service that is provided to the general public? Have there been many complaints about discourtesy on the part of civil servants?

Related to this, Sir, is the question of whether the Ministry has provided for the political education of civil servants. They are serving the public. They are implementing the policies set by the Government, so they should have some political sensitivity. I know that some years ago, there were such political education courses provided for civil servants, but I have not heard of such courses in recent years.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have an amendment under this subhead but may I have five minutes?

The Chairman: Yes, you can have five minutes.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Thank you. I wish to ask the Minister about the Social Development Unit again. Will he inform this House whether foreign graduates, who are not Singapore citizens or even permanent residents, are invited to go on cruises and to functions organized by the SDU? And what is the basis or the justification for spending public money on people who are not even permanent residents of this country?

Secondly, may I ask the Minister whether he would make available the audited expenses spent by the SDU on a cruise, showing how much were the contributions made by the members, and how much was spent by the Unit itself?

Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Alexandra): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the point raised by the Member for Whampoa about problems faced by members of the public who deal with civil servants, particularly those who are dealing with matters over the counter. Frequently, I do get complaints from members of the public that those civil servants at the counters are not too helpful, and it often happens that when inquiries are made at counters, passing the buck is a very common thing. I would like to find out from the Minister whether it would be possible to introduce a system of asking our civil servants who deal with members of the public to wear name tags, as is done in Malaysia. I think this might help to some extent to solve all these difficulties.

Mr Leong Horn Kee (Thomson): Sir, I am speaking on a slightly different topic.

The Chairman: It does not matter. The whole Head is thrown open for discussion.

Mr Leong Horn Kee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to raise a few comments on the development of fund management expertise in our banking sector.

Our banking and finance industry is fairly established now. In the Minister for Finance's Budget Statement, he mentioned that the next stage of development of Singapore as a financial centre will be in the promotion of fee-based financial services. This means that we will have to attain a higher level of sophistication in our fund management expertise.

To foster the advancement of fund management expertise in Singapore, it is necessary to have a sufficiently large critical size of participants. At present, one sizable group of corporate treasurers is restrained from full participation in fund management market. These are the corporate treasurers of the statutory boards and the managers of trust funds. Their fund management expertise is constrained because they have to invest in accordance with the Trustees Act. The Act allows them to invest only in certain investments with low risk exposure.

I have two suggestions to make, Sir. The first is that the Minister for Finance could consider, approving on a case-by-case basis, allowing statutory boards with wellestablished treasury departments to invest a certain proportion of their funds in a wider range of investments. Perhaps the Hon. Minister could look into the case of the UK where, from what I could ascertain, there are two schedules in the UK Trustee Investment Act. These two schedules permit companies which have to abide by the Act to invest in two categories of investments involving different scales of risks.

My second suggestion, Sir, is that along the same vein, the Hon. Minister may also consider whether the Trustees Act should be reviewed to allow trust funds and other similar institutions which have to abide by the Trustees Act to invest in a wider range of investments. 11.30 am

As far as I can ascertain, the schedule for permitted investments has not been amended for some years now. The basic objective is to allow more flexibility and opportunities for fund managers to innovate and to think out new investment instruments. If the Minister will consider these proposals, it will lead to a higher rate of return for funds held by statutory boards and trust funds. More importantly, it will lead to a larger pool of funds for investment in Singapore, thereby leading to higher sophistication and expertise in fund management in our banking and finance sector.

Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon): Sir, in the conduct of our daily business activity or all of our activities, most Singaporeans are required to obtain various form of licences or permits issued by the various Government Ministries, departments or statutory boards. Over the years many statutory boards have been set up and a number of new permits and licences have been introduced. Sir, I would like to ask the Hon. Minister for Finance as to the number of licences and permits that are imposed by Government departments and statutory boards in Singapore and, secondly, to ask him whether any steps have been taken or are being taken to review some of these licences and permits so that unnecessary requirements can be eliminated.

The Minister for Finance, Minister for Education and Minister for Health (Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first say that I agree fully with the Member for Whampoa concerning the need for proper training and career development in our Civil Service, not only for the senior officers but also for the staff at all levels.

Members may recall that in a Statement which I made to 'Parliament on the 3rd March, 1982, concerning the Revision of Salaries in the Civil Service, I made the following remarks:

'The Administrative and Professional services constitute, in a way, the brain of the Civil Service. However, no matter how brilliant the brain, no organization, least of all the Civil Service, can hope to function effectively unless it has a healthy heart and strong arms and legs. The heart of the Civil Service is team work, not only team work between officers in the Administrative and Professional services, whether they are scholars or non-scholars, but also team work between the officers in the senior echelons and the support staff in the Executive service, the Clerical service, Nursing service, etc, who collectively make up the arms and legs of the Civil Service.'

Sir, nothing has changed or happened in the last three years to give me any reason to change the Statement.

I would like to inform the House now what steps have been taken by the Government in order to increase training and manpower development so as to improve the competence and the efficiency of staff in the Civil Service.

First, the creation of the Public Service Division on 1st January, 1983. This created a central focal point for the formulation of personnel development and management policies. Functions and responsibilities which were formerly distributed over a number of Government departments were brought together in order to ensure better coordination and direction. Most important, Sir, the formation of the Public Service Division allows for a close nexus between those who formulate personnel and training policies and those who have to implement the policies. The fact, Sir, that the Permanent Secretary of the Public Service Division is also concurrently the Head of the Civil Service is an indication of the importance which Government places on this critical area.

Also, Sir, in 1982, local staff training and development funds were directly allocated to Ministries by the Ministry of Finance. This was done in order to give the Ministries maximum flexibility to respond to their own training needs. And in line with this policy to give Ministries and departments greater autonomy in the training and career development of their staff, common-user grades were converted into Departmental Services with effect from 1st April, 1984. Under this arrangement Ministries were more willing to train their staff because they then need not run the risk of losing them to other Ministries in regular mass staff posting exercises.

Prior to 1982, Divisions I and 11 officers accounted for the bulk of training in the Civil Service, Divisions Ill and IV officers accounted for less than 10% of training. I am glad to inform the House that this has now been changed. In the period 1982 to 1984, a total of 9,013 officers have been trained at the Civil Service Institute in various courses. The breakdown of training by divisional status is as follows: Division I - 42% Division II - 27% Divisions III and IV - 31% Also, over the same period, 1,579 officers at all levels have undergone Work Improvement Teams training as part of the National Productivity Campaign.

Sir, in my Addendum to the President's Address, I have stated that the public sector must be staffed by properly qualified, skilled and motivated men and women to provide the level and the type of service that will be required and expected. Priority will be placed on staff welfare and training in order to enhance morale and productivity. Training programmes will be reviewed so that they are relevant and help officers achieve their full potential. This, Sir, is a statement of the Ministry's intention, and I can assure the Member for Whampoa that we will fulfil this intention.

I come next to the point brought up by the Member for Whampoa and also the Member for Alexandra concerning the need for Civil Service staff to be courteous in their dealings with the public. I think this is a commendable trait which should be exercised not only by all civil servants but also by all Singaporeans. I would convey the Members' concern to the Public Service Division and ask them to urge all civil servants to be civil and helpful when they deal with the public. But, Sir, may I also take this opportunity to ask all members of the public to be considerate when they are dealing with civil servants. On many occasions, Sir, it is not the fault of the civil servant that there are occasions for discourteous behaviour or perhaps friction between a member of the public and a civil servant. There must be some give-and-take on both sides. Then we shall all live happily together.

The Member for Alexandra has suggested that civil servants should wear name tags to identify themselves. I will convey this suggestion to the PSD and ask them to look into it.

The Member for Whampoa has asked whether political education is still being given to civil servants. I can assure him that this is still going on, and it is included in the courses conducted at the Civil Service Institute.

I come now to the points raised by the Member for Thomson regarding his suggestion to review the Trustees Act so as to provide some incentive and encouragement to fund management activities in Singapore. This is possible and I will ask the Ministry of Finance (Revenue Division) to do so.

The Member has also suggested that greater flexibility be given to the treasurers of the statutory boards in order to diversify their investments. Sir, I do not agree with this suggestion. Statutory boards are set up for specific purposes: for example, the Port of Singapore Authority to manage and develop our ports; the Public Utilities Board to generate electricity, gas, water, our public utilities, and TAS for the provision of telephone, postal and international telex services. These statutory boards should stick to what they were set up for. And if they have been efficient and are able to run a surplus in their accounts, they should re-invest these surpluses in order to improve their operations so as to lower the cost of services to the public. If they are not able to use up all the money which they have created, they can always return this money to the Ministry of Finance and we will find very useful ways to use these funds.

Sir, I come now to the remarks of the Member for Chong Boon concerning the licences issued by the Government. Sir, I would like to inform him that Government issues about 6.3 million licences each year comprising 351 different types. Ministries and departments are responsible for 249, or 71%, of the 351 types of licences issued, while the statutory boards account for the other 102 licences, or 29%. The Management Services Department (MSD) of the Ministry of Finance has recently completed a review of all licensing practices and procedures in Government Ministries, departments and statutory boards. Among other things, Sir, they have recommended that a data bank on all Government licences be maintained by the Ministry of Finance (Revenue Division). This data bank will be checked to ensure that there is no duplication, conflict of objectives, etc., before any new licence is supported. They have also recommended the abolition of 44 licences and the extension of the validity period for 137 other licences. Sir, the recommendations on the data bank have been accepted and steps are being taken to implement them. This data bank should be operational by the end of this year. MSD is presently having discussions with the various departments and statutory boards to follow up on their other recommendations.

I think I have covered all the points raised by the PAP Backbenchers.

I come now to the point raised by the Member for Anson regarding the Social Development Unit and his query as to whether foreign graduates have been invited to take pan in the activities of the SDU. Sir, when you are in love and you want to marry, do you ask for citizenship? The aim of the SDU is to encourage and inform our single, unmarried graduate women that marriage should form part of their lives. I think that here in Singapore we have an excellent system. We welcome people who are talented to come, work and live here, and contribute to the well-being of all Singaporeans through their work. And if through the SDU some of these foreign graduates are attracted to sink more roots in Singapore, through marriage to our local women, then I see no reason why we should discourage this. Indeed the Member for Whampoa has suggested, if I remember correctly, that we should import single males from abroad in order to provide enough opportunities for our females. I have conveyed this suggestion to the SDU, and I have not yet received an answer. 11.45am

The Member for Anson has also asked whether I would give an audited account of the expenses spent by SDU on the participants who go on cruises. Sir, there is no need to give an audited account because the SDU has spent nothing on these cruises. They are all paid for by the participants themselves.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, may I ask, by way of clarification, about these foreigners who are graduates and who have been invited to the SDU's functions and cruises. Am I to understand that they may include those who are not even permanent residents and who have just accepted a job in Singapore? My question was: what is the justification for paying out of public funds for their enjoyment? I know what the Minister has said, but may I register my protest against that.

Secondly, I asked about these audited expenses because of a letter in the Straits Times, which would suggest that the participants did not pay the full cost of the cruise.

Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Sir, let me take the second point first concerning the cruises. As the Member has said, his query arises from a letter in the Straits Times. The Member should know by now that not everything he reads in the Straits Times should be believed. The SDU will be replying to that letter in due course.

With regard to the first question, Sir, the SDU has a serious purpose. Government does not subsidize the enjoyment of any particular category of officers. We have been able to make progress in Singapore because we have not taken a parochial attitude. We welcome talents from all shores, from Sri Lanka, for example. Where they can make a contribution to Singapore we have encouraged them, even if they are not permanent residents or citizens, to come and work in Singapore. If they find our surroundings and environment congenial and they can make a contribution, then I see no reason why they should be excluded from the SDU's activities.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Even if they are not permanent residents?

Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Sir, I cannot keep on repeating the same answer. I have already answered it twice.

The Chairman: You have got nine more minutes, Mr Tan.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon: Yes, Sir, I will speak on my amendment No. (8)* now.

Sir, last year, the House passed a series of amendments to the Companies Act. One of the sections, section 149 of the new Act, has stirred up much controversy. This particular section has the effect of restraining directors of companies that have been liquidated due to insolvency. Quite specifically, Sir, section 149 states that a director of two companies which are insolvent and are liquidated within a period of five years is not eligible to be a director of a company again.

What is more irksome is that a director who has resigned less than three years before one of these companies became insolvent would still be liable to the same penalty under this particular section of the Companies Act.

Sir, when the Amendment Bill went through its Third Reading last year, the Second Minister for Law mentioned that this particular section was to safeguard the public and, in particular, creditors, against persons who are unfit to manage the affairs of companies which are companies with limited liabilities and who have the habit of running away and leaving behind a trail of creditors. This particular section was, in fact, aimed at the unscrupulous and irresponsible director but it did not distinguish between such persons and those honest and fit ones, whose companies fail as a result of, what I would call, normal business failures or through no fault of their own

When the Bill went through its Third Reading in June last year, the Member for Rochore gave illustrations of how this could arise. For instance, a director of a subsidiary company and its holding company. If the subsidiary company became insolvent, and this affected the fortunes of the holding company, at one stroke the director would not be able to do a new business. And it also has the effect of making professional people reluctant to mount rescue operations of companies which are in bad shape, because these people would be running very high risks and they would not like to have their future affected.

Sir, what was not apparent at that time and which has now come about is that professional people, like lawyers, company secretaries and accountants, who set up companies for their clients as a matter of expediency, are now also affected and they are very reluctant to form companies. What you get nowadays is a lot of office boys and secretaries all becoming directors as well.

Sir, some of the problems were not too apparent at the time when we passed these laws or the magnitude of the problems was not foreseen. I feel that it is not too early to suggest to the Minister to review this particular section of the Act.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Geylang Serai): Sir, may I speak on my amendment (6)* now?

The Chairman: Yes.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe: Sir, let me first say that Government, as the largest employer, should always lead the way and set a good example by showing that it cares for its employees. This is not to say that the Government does not look after the welfare of the civil servants. By and large, the Government does take care of staff welfare. But there are lapses now and then which may give the impression that Government, as an employer, is uncaring.

As we all know, good things that are done are often so quickly forgotten or conveniently overlooked and that the bad examples are always remembered and highlighted. It is important that the Government carefully monitors the relationships between senior officers, the middle management officers and their subordinates to ensure that there is effective communication and mutual trust and respect between them. In this way, Government shows that it puts a great deal of importance on good human relationships in its Ministries and departments.

Sir, I would like now to take up two issues. First, the retirement age of civil servants. In the Government service, officers who joined the service before 1st July 1956 retire at the age of 55 while those who joined after 1st July 1956 retire at the age of 60. As we are all aware, our citizens on the average enjoy a longer life span and we should therefore try to ensure that all our Government officers, who are healthy and who have performed satisfactorily, be given every opportunity to work as long as possible. I hope that the Minister will agree to have the retirement age extended to 60 years for all public servants and to assist them thereafter to have the opportunity to be re-employed up to the age of 65. I think that senior staff usually have no problem in obtaining reemployment but the junior staff usually have some difficulty getting re-employment or extension of service.

Furthermore, in some statutory boards, for example, the Public Utilities Board, officers who joined the service before May 1982 have to retire at 55 years while those who joined in or after May 1982 retire at 60 years. The Boards should follow the Ministry of Finance's policy of retirement at 60 years for all their staff, and I hope that the Minister could either persuade or direct the Boards to extend the retirement age of their staff to 60 years. This will be a good example for the private sector to follow.

The next issue is a small one concerning transport allowances paid to officers in the public service who use their cars or motorcycles in connection with their work. Currently, the transport allowances are based on rates which were computed sometime ago and a revision is long overdue. In view of recent increases in petrol prices, road tax and so on, may I know whether the Ministry of Finance will now revise the transport allowances for civil servants and, if so, when.

Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Sir, I would like to reply to the comments from the Member for Alexandra and the Member for Geylang Serai now.

First, Sir, with regard to the comments from the Member for Alexandra, I would like to tell him that the Ministry of Finance is reviewing this particular section 149.

Next, Sir, on the remarks from the Member for Geylang Serai regarding the retirement age, I would like to inform him that officers who joined the service before 1st July 1956 can have their services extended from 55 to 60 years of age. Cases for extension of service are considered on the following basis:

(i) the experience and the expertise of the officer;

(ii) the staffing position in the Ministry or department and difficulties in the recruitment or retention of officers in their grade of appointment;

(iii) the officer's work and conduct; and

(iv) the officer's health. Approval is subject to medical fitness.

On the question of retirement age for statutory board employees, the Ministry of Finance informed all statutory boards in February 1982 that the compulsory retirement age of their new employees should be raised to 60 years. In the case of serving employees whose retirement age could not be changed under their terms of employment, the Boards should liberally re-employ such officers beyond their current retirement age.

Finally, Sir, with regard to transport allowances, these are being reviewed by my Ministry.

Mr Bernard Chen (Clementi): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to speak on my amendment* now?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr Bernard Chen: Sir, when the Government launched the economic strategy programme in 1980, there was considerable emphasis placed on promoting Singapore as a premier brain, services and information centre. Following that, a very intensive programme to train the manpower required was launched in the field of computerization. So far, events in the last few years indicate that perhaps demand has been outstripping supply because the demand comes not only from the industry itself but also from industries that make use of such manpower, in particular, in the finance, banking, manufacturing and even in the retail and trade sectors. As a result, the wages of computer personnel have risen substantially because of the lack of supply.

The National Computer Board was formed three years ago to promote the training of this manpower. What I would like to find out from the Minister is what is the progress in meeting this demand. The events of the last few years have also shown that what we need in Singapore is not so much manpower on computer alone but, more important, skilled manpower to meet the more sophisticated needs of the various users. The problem here is, of course, that it takes time to bring the expertise of the newly trained graduates to the level that the industry will accept. I understand that in the recent past there has arisen a situation where the new and inexperienced graduates find it difficult to get jobs in the industry because employers insist that they must have certain requisite experience. The question is how to impart this experience to these new graduates in the shortest possible time. 12.00pm

I am wondering whether something like on-the-job training for these computer students could be applied, similar to what we are doing in the Nanyang Technological Institute where engineering students are given exposure to actual working conditions during the course of the study. In this way, it may be possible to cut down the lead time to ensure that these graduates, by the time they enter the job market, possess at least some relevant experience for the employers to use them. In order for the brain services and information centre to be successful, we just cannot allow ourselves to be confined to the normal requirements but we have to go one step higher to make sure that the services that we provide will be of an order that people feel comfortable using them and that they cannot get it anywhere else.

Mr S. Vasoo (Bo Wen): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to speak on my amendment on Subhead NE-01 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, I observe that the estimated revenue from sweep-stakes and private lotteries in 1984 was about $115 million. Correct me, Sir, if I am wrong, that one of the unexpressed intentions was that part of the takings from Singapore Big Sweep and Toto would be used to help in some way for the promotion of community services, sports, and culture. I am wondering if there has been a variation in this intention of the use of the funds which have been painlessly extracted from many enthusiastic punters.

In the light of the Government's intention to promote more community participation in sports, culture, and various other community service activities, I am wondering if the Government would make a dollar-for-dollar contribution from the takings of sweep-stakes and Toto to the various national organizations that are enthusiastically promoting various sports and cultural activities. Mr Speaker, Sir, as the saying goes, "Let a thousand flowers bloom", I am sure some of the funds which could be appropriated to cultural activity, sports, and all that, would help some flowers to bloom in the various aspects.

Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Sir, I will deal first with the comments from the Member for Clementi concerning the supply and demand position for computer manpower in Singapore.

Sir, in 1980 there were only some 800 computer professionals working in Singapore. Since then, the number has increased five-fold to about 4,000. A recent manpower survey by the National Computer Board indicates that each year, over the next three years, an additional 680 computer programmers, systems analysts, and software engineers will be required. The training institutions, namely, the Japan-Singapore Institute of Software Technology, the Centre for Computer Studies at Ngee Ann, the Department of Information Systems and Computer Science of the NUS, as well as the Institute of Systems Science will, in all, produce about 450 new computer professionals this year. This number will stabilize at 600 as from next year, slightly lower than the projected demand for 680 professionals. Taking into account those returning from overseas universities and training institutes, as well as experienced expatriate professionals brought in by companies, it is likely that the demand and supply for computer manpower will soon be in balance.

Sir, it must be admitted that the number of experienced computer professionals is still relatively small. For example, only about 15% or 600 out of the existing pool of 4,000 computer professionals have more than eight years' experience. The situation is, however, improving steadily. More than 60% now have more than three years' working experience. Two years ago, the corresponding proportion was only 50%. The shortfalls in experienced personnel will, to a large extent, be alleviated through the introduction of specialized post-graduate level training programmes, the importation of overseas talent for major computer projects and on-the-job training as suggested by the Member for Clementi.

The Member has also touched on the unemployment of new graduates in computer science and related disciplines. Sir, the National Computer Board is closely monitoring the computer manpower situation. There is little evidence at present that there is any serious unemployment problem. The employment prospects of fresh graduates in computer-related subjects would be no different and would, in fact, be better than those in other disciplines. Sir, this is because the training provided in computer study courses is sufficiently broad-based to enable these graduates to take on a variety of administrative and technical jobs and not merely the more traditional systems analyst or computer programmer jobs.

Now, Sir, I come to the suggestion from the Member for Bo Wen as to whether there is a possibility of some of the funds derived by the Government from tax on sweepstakes and Toto draws to be channelled for cultural and sporting activities. Sir, this is not a new subject. I have a large file here, and I believe that the Member for Delta has made it a point to raise this at almost every Budget session.

Mr Yeo Choo Kok (Delta): I have already given up.

Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Sir, the Member for Delta has given up, and the Member for Bo Wen will soon give up. Funds for cultural and sporting activities will be provided by the Government through our normal budgetary programmes. I see no need for any special direction to the Ministry of Finance to direct any particular source of revenue towards any particular expenditure item. And there is no use trying to change my mind.

Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not ready to give up yet. On a point of clarification. I do not know if the Singapore Monitor is more credible than the Straits Times. But a few days ago, there was a front page report which said that the Singapore Turf Club is considering setting up more betting centres in Housing Board estates. If this report is true, and if the Ministry of Finance is giving the authorization, then I am quite alarmed at the prospect because that would encourage more gambling by Singaporeans.

Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Sir, my colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs, has informed me that he will be dealing with this subject, and if the Member for Whampoa will raise it under that Head, as it should be, then he will give the right reply.

Dr Aline K. Wong: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to speak for five minutes, even if I did not submit an amendment. I hope the Minister will forgive me for bringing his attention back to the SDU. I did not want to speak right after the Member for Anson, because the PAP Backbenchers might then be accused of jumping onto the Opposition's bandwagon, whereas we are capable of independent thinking.

I know that the Minister, in reply to a question put by this House as to the total amount of money spent in connection with the SDU activities last year, gave a figure of $294,000. Maybe the Minister could enlighten me as to how to read these figures from this Budget, because I do not really find this kind of money represented in the Budget.

Now, please be assured that I do not mean to imply at all that anything is hidden in this method of accounting. Because the SDU is open to public scrutiny and its activities are known, I am not implying that there is any sort of attempt at covering up these activities. But the point I want to raise is that in giving the figure of $294,000, is the Minister aware that, in fact, the cost to the society might be larger than this, in the sense that officers who have been joining these courses, going on holidays, etc, might have been given paid unrecorded leave to join these courses. This is the point I want to raise.

Secondly, since the activities connected with this Unit are long-term and in the interest of the society, and I agree with the Minister completely that love should be given time to bloom, even so, is there any plan by the Ministry of Finance or the SDU to review its activities with a view to evaluating its effectiveness in the long-term future, and how long the term, please?

Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Sir, the Member for Changkat has raised three points. Regarding the Budget, I suggest that she gets in touch with my Budget officials who will explain the mysteries of the Budget to her.

Regarding the cost, Sir, I am well aware of all the costs which are incurred by the SDU and those who take part in the SDU activities. It is not that the Ministry of Finance is trying to under-estimate these costs, but the figure which I have given was the figure that was asked for by the Member for Anson.

Finally, Sir, with regard to whether the Ministry of Finance will review the activities of the SDU, I would like to inform the Member for Changkat that the Ministry of Finance constantly reviews all items of expenditure of Government. When we decide that an item is not profitable, then we shall terminate that programme. If we decide that the item has made progress, we shall increase the funds. If we are not sure, we shall maintain the status quo.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say a few words as regards the SDU. It has been pointed out that probably the amount spent by Government could be greater than that allotted, ie, $294,000. How much of this amount is from non-graduate taxpayers?

Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Sir, can I just clarify to the Member for Potong Pasir that the amount of $294,000, if the Member for Anson will remember, was an amount that had already been spent rather than an amount that was provided.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am much obliged for that. But that is not the real point I am trying to bring up. Non-graduate taxpayers are paying for graduates to go on a cruise, hopefully that they will get married. If they do get married, then they probably would have children. And ironically, the children of these graduates will have priority over the children of non-graduates who have, in the first place, paid tax for them to go on this cruise. Perhaps the Minister can comment on that. Now, of course, they say this is for the national good. But how many successful matches are made? So the increase to the talent pool would not really be significant. But I think the social implication of favouring graduates is not good for the nation.

Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Sir, if the Member for Potong Pasir would like to talk about the priority scheme for graduate mothers, I suggest that he raises this in the debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Education next week.

Sir, with regard to the activities of the SDU, I have already mentioned in my reply to the Member for Anson that, thus far, the activities of the SDU have been limited to graduates because that is where the problem is. But later on, if there is a need, then the SDU will extend its ambit to include other categories of personnel, including the non-graduates. Marriage should not be the prerogative of graduates because I think it is not a harmful activity for people of all categories. 12.15 pm

Dr Augustine Tan: On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir, in regard to the question raised by the Member for Changkat. Will the Minister enlighten this House whether part or the whole of the expenditure of the SDU would have come out from items like conferences, work shops, seminars, staff recreation and welfare expenses, items which seem to be available for every Ministry, not to mention productivity schemes?

Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Sir, I understand the desire of the Member for Whampoa for instant information. We are all geared towards instant food today. I will look through the particular items which are mentioned by the Member for Whampoa, of conferences, seminars and so on. Let me say that these also include other training courses conducted by various Ministries. With regard to how each item is documented in the Budget document, perhaps this is not the right occasion to go through the intricacies of each item in the Budget and how it is reflected in the Budget document. Otherwise, we shall be here until next year.

Mr Lau Ping Sum (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, both the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Trade and Industry have recently pointed to the need for Singapore to diversify its financial activities and to emphasize more on the fee-based financial services. In line with this development and to assist Singapore to further develop its fund management expertise, there is a need for more clear-cut tax laws. For example, there is a long standing issue on the lack of a clear definition or guidelines on investment holding companies whose profits from the sale of shares in the local market may or may not be taxed.

The operation of fund managers is always subject to the uncertainty of whether gains from investment in the stock market will be taxed or not. This uncertainty has hindered the development of Singapore as a fund management centre.

The second point I would like to raise is in regard to the 10% concessionary tax on ACU offshore income. The extension of this concession to cover additional categories of income would further encourage such activities. However, with regard to one of these items, namely, the custodian and other fees earned in respect of transactions on behalf of non-residents in foreign stocks and shares, the concession tax rate is unlikely to benefit Singapore fund managers or banks. Take, for example, the investors in Malaysia wanting to buy Hong Kong stocks. There is really no good reason for these investors to want to keep the stock certificates in Singapore. The logical place to keep the stock certificates will be Hong Kong. The concession will be of benefit to Singapore fund managers if it is for foreign investors buying Singapore stocks, for they would then need local fund managers to act as custodians for stock certificates in Singapore.

The last point I would like to bring up is the tax credit to be given to income from professional services rendered abroad. The proposed tax credit to be given to such cases, namely, the income to be remitted from non-DTA countries has been designed to encourage the remittance of such income back to Singapore and to help to contribute to our effort to promote the export of professional expertise and services. But it has been observed that as long as some additional tax is still payable, it is rather unlikely that the professionals will be encouraged to remit their income back to Singapore. There are ample opportunities for business, travels and investment with higher returns outside Singapore, and the income would probably continue to be kept outside Singapore if they have to pay additional tax in Singapore, which is the case where the overseas rate of income tax is less than the effective rate of income tax in Singapore.

Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Sir, the Member for Yio Chu Kang has raised a number of tax points. With regard to the vagueness, I believe he is referring to the taxation treatment for capital gains and dividend income in respect of fund management companies. This has been the subject of lengthy debate between the Comptroller of Income Tax and the various fund management companies. I do not believe Sir, that we will ever be able to have rigid rules which will lay down clearly, once and for all, the divisions between what is a capital gain and what is a recurrent revenue. But the Comptroller of Income Tax has managed to reach agreement with a number of fund management companies as to an acceptable working procedure. And if there are any problems, I would suggest to him that he should advise the particular company concerned to bring up his problems to the Comptroller of Income Tax.

Sir, with regard to the last point on the repatriation of profits from abroad, this is a very complicated subject. We have discussed this matter at great length in the Ministry of Finance, not only during the last year but over several years. If we liberalize and make it too easy for foreign source profits to be remitted back into Singapore without suffering Singapore income tax, then we run the risk, Sir, of losing a very large amount of revenue through the implementation of tax avoidance schemes. We have also to take into consideration the numerous tax treaties which Singapore has signed with a number of countries. These tax treaties are extremely beneficial for the economic, business and investment climate in Singapore and I would hesitate very much to take any drastic steps in this direction until we have considered all relevant factors.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to comment on the National Computer Board?

The Chairman: Yes.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: One of the major tasks of the National Computer Board is to promote Singapore as a software centre. But I believe its efforts are hampered by the lack of power to grant economic incentives. Such powers are still vested with the Economic Development Board, not with the National Computer Board. I had the opportunity to observe a mission headed by the General Manager of the National Computer Board to promote Singapore as a software centre, and I must say that its effectiveness is very much hampered by such lack of power. Will the Minister consider granting similar powers of the Economic Development Board to the National Computer Board?

Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Sir, the Economic Development Board and the National Computer Board work very closely with regard to the promotion of computer investment in Singapore. I believe the Member for Bukit Timah knows that there is a member of the EDB on the board of the NCB and vice-versa.

Sir, I have not yet had any requests from the National Computer Board, or any complaint, that they do not have the necessary power of flexibility to attract investments in this field in Singapore. The Economic Development Board has always indicated to the NCB that it is prepared to grant maximum flexibility to facilitate the operations of the National Computer Board. And if there is such a need, then I am sure we will consider it.

Dr Augustine Tan: Sir, I am sure hon. Members are quite happy as I am with the courteous replies from the Minister for Finance. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $2,722,448,860 for Head N ordered to stand pan of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $2,089,075,600 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head W -

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head W be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead WA-01 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, in moving this amendment, I merely wish to bring to the attention of the Hon. Minister for Finance the plight of some pensioners, I say some pensioners, not all, particularly those who retired in 1975 or earlier, ie, the period before the introduction of the high wage policy of the Government. From time to time, Sir, we read in the papers about genuine grouses made by some of these pensioners drawing very paltry sums which they could not live on. And from time to time in this House, the PAP Backbenchers do try their best to get the Minister for Finance, and his predecessors as well, to increase these pensions, and sometimes we are fortunate to hear that our plea has been well received.

Today, I am making the same plea because I note under this Head, there is an increase of 13.9% of the expenditure over the period of 1979-83. I was looking at the various items and what caught my atten- tion were items such as Object Group 331o item (3). For that item, there is an increase of $25 million. In other words, Sir, according to the Memorandum, the explanation is that:

'This reflects the increase in the number of officers retiring from or leaving the service on completion of their contracts as well as a revision in the rates of gratuity payable.'

Sir, I am aware of the fact that these officers have given yeoman service and who may be on the top of their salary scale - I say "may be" because I happened to hear the plight of one very senior civil servant who retired about 10 years ago and he said that with his pension today he was not able to live because he is well over 60 and beset with health problems, and we have been talking about looking after the aged. 12.30 pm

But now I come down the line to those who used to earn $300-$500 before they retired with a gratuity of $3,000-$5,000 and a monthly pension of about $100-$150. With a rising cost of living and inflation, surely, Sir, these people who happen to enjoy good health and are able to live beyond the age of 67,3 years get full pension. But, still, Sir, this is not enough. The former Minister for Finance was kind enough to take note of this plea and he introduced some form of financial help ($75-$100) known as the Singapore Allowance to help alleviate - I say "alleviate", not entirely helping them to overcome - their plight. But for the record, this lot of people have helped to make Singapore what it is today. I think rightly, Sir, given that kind of situation, Government should be more than generous to come forth and lend a helping hand, which they deserve from time to time.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, I do not have an amendment on this Head, but may I speak for five minutes or less than that?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I really rise to give my support to what has been said by the Member for Punggol. Pensioners, it would appear, like the prisoners that we put away behind bars, are a forgotten lot in Singapore. No one seems to be really concerned about their welfare, once they have given their contribution to the country. And may I reiterate what he said, is there no way o expressing our gratitude to these people who have served us well.

May I ask the Minister whether there has been any thought of pegging pensions to the cost of living index?

Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Mr Speaker, Sir, just as the allegation from the Member for Anson that our tax system is discriminatory is an annual feature of our Budget, the comment from the Member for Punggol regarding our pensioners is also a regular feature, and in my view a very much more deserving feature of our annual Budget debates.

Sir, I am aware of the contributions made by pensioners, civil servants who have retired, to our country, and I would like to assure the Members that we have not forgotten them. But, Sir, I would like first to clarify that the Singapore Allowance is payable to pensioners, whether they have retired before or after the consolidation and the general salaries revision. However, the allowance is payable only if the pensioner is residing in Singapore and his gross pension does not exceed $850 per month. Pension in itself, Sir, is not subject to periodic reviews, and I would not agree with the Member for Anson that we should link this to inflation or perhaps to some other index. However, Sir, the Singapore Allowance is reviewed as and when there is an abnormally high rate of inflation. The present quantum of the allowance was fixed in April 1982. Since then the inflation rate has not been significantly high as to warrant a revision of the Singapore Allowance.

The hon. Member has suggested that we should take a more kindly attitude towards the quantum of pensions. Sir, I would once again like to state that the pensions payable to pensioners are quite distinct from the salaries which are payable to officers in the service. Salaries of serving officers are determined on the basis of various factors, including the market rate for their jobs. These are quite different from the basis on which pensions are payable. Pensions are payable for past services rendered and are based on the length of the service and the salaries earned during such service.

Sir, the Minister for Finance, if he is to be a good Minister for Finance, has to suppress his natural kindly instincts and present a stern face to the Cabinet and to Members of this House. But, Sir, now and then I think there is nothing wrong in allowing an occasional chink of generosity to penetrate his armour, and therefore I shall ask my Ministry to review the allowance at the suggestion of the Member for Punggol.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Community Development (Mr S. Dhanabalan): Mr Speaker, Sir, can you please give me a few minutes, because the Member for Anson, in passing, made a reference which, I think, was not just a term or phrase or a metaphor. He said that pensioners are like prisoners, put in prison and forgotten. This is an extremely serious allegation. He is implying that we in Singapore are some sort of medieval society or perhaps, like one of the Communist societies, running a gulag, which people are not aware of, that people are sent to prison without any due process of law or procedure of review, and that they are just forgotten. I do not know which society he is talking of.

This is a serious allegation. It shows a turn of mind, an approach to seeing things in Singapore, which is completely distorted. Unless he can substantiate, I do not think a Member should make such passing references as though it is a statement of fact. If he cannot substantiate, I think he should withdraw that remark.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, may I say I am amazed at the intelligence of the Leader of the House. Sir, I said the pensioners were a forgotten lot. And we have heard it said -

Mr Dhanabalan rose -

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am not giving way. Is it a point of order or a point of clarification?

Mr Dhanabalan: Point of clarification. Please repeat exactly what you have said.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Didn't you hear me? Are you deaf? What I said was, "Pensioners, like the prisoners that we put away behind bars, would appear to be a forgotten lot."

Mr Dhanabalan: Yes.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes. Have you heard it now?

Mr Dhanabalan: Is that what you said just now?

Mr Jeyaretnam: What I am trying to imply is that the needs of the pensioners are forgotten. No one seems to be concerned very much about their needs, and about their sufferings. What is wrong with that?

The Leader of the House wants to know whether I am saying that people are put in prison without due process of law. Really, I am amazed. Does he not know of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act? Does he not know of the Misuse of Drugs Act? Where is the due process of law? Perhaps he does not understand what "due process of law" means. He'd better go back -

Mr Dhanabalan: Sir, the Member for Anson tried to slip out of what he has said. When he repeated what he was supposed to have said, he did not say what he subsequently said, when I challenged him.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What did I say?

Mr Dhanabalan: You said that "pensioners are like prisoners put behind bars and are a forgotten lot." That is a serious allegation. That implies something about our system of justice, and I did say that everybody who is put in prison is either by due process of law or by some other procedure of review.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What is due process of law?

Mr Dhanabalan: Or some other procedure which -

Mr Jeyaretnam: I suggest you go back to the University.

Mr Dhanabalan: - which allows a proper procedure of review. I know, Sir, the Member for Anson has got his pet subject about the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act. I am aware of it. I knew what he was referring to. But is he implying that these are laws that are being exercised arbitrarily in that people are being put behind bars and forgotten? Because he has made a passing reference as though it is a statement of fact, I think he owes this House and Singapore an apology if he does not mean what he said.

Mr Jeyaretnam: This will go on ad nauseam. Does the Leader of the House want an education on what is meant by "due process of law"? Perhaps his colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs, will put him right on what is due process of law.

Mr Dhanabalan rose -

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am not giving way, unless it is on a point of order.

Mr Dhanabalan: Point of Order, because he is misquoting me.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Misquoting you?

Mr Dhanabalan: Yes, I said "due process of law or some other procedure."

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems to be a case of the Leader of the House wishing to provide entertainment in this House. Perhaps he got a bit bored with the proceedings, and decided that he would throw in this entertainment. Due process of law, for his information -

Mr Dhanabalan: What is wrong with the law?

Mr Jeyaretnam: - is where you are produced before a tribunal, a court of law, and you are found guilty on evidence admissible in a court of law. Detentions under the Misuse of Drugs Act, detentions under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act are a gross violation of the due process of law. I hope I have made that clear to you, Leader and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Community Development. I have said, again and again, that these provisions in these two Acts are a negation of the rule of law, and I stand by that. You try and disprove it.

The Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was minding my own business until the Member for Anson specifically referred to me and asked me to put my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Community Development and Leader of the House, right. But since he has asked me to join the fray, let me say that it is clear that the person who has to be put right is the Member for Anson.

We can, of course, come to this House with our own preconceived notions of various phrases and slogans and then construct an argument on one's preconceived notion.

Mr Jeyaretnam: It is a term of art "due process of law".

Prof. Jayakumar: The term "due process of law" has different meanings in different countries. In the United States, its meaning is different from what it means in other countries. Sir, "due process of law" means that a person's liberty is subject to restrictions which are permissible under the Constitution and laws of each country.

Mr Jeyaretnam: That is your interpretation.

Prof. Jayakumar: The Constitution of Singapore is set out in a written Constitution as interpreted from time to time by our courts. All of us, when we took our Oath of Allegiance, have undertaken to respect and observe the Constitution. This Constitution has provisions governing the fundamental liberties of the individual, among which is the provision that specifically states that, "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law."

So when the Member for Anson, a few moments ago, referred to the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act and the provisions in the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, what he has forgotten to mention is that these are provisions which provide for a particular solution of serious problems in our country, solutions which are to be found in provisions of the law which have been authorized by this Parliament and, furthermore, laws which are consistent with the provisions of this Con- stitution. Let me say further, there is provided in the Constitution that if anyone alleges or seriously believes that any provisions of the law enacted by this Chamber are inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution - the Constitution specifically provides that provisions of laws inconsistent with this Constitution are invalid - then, and the Member for Anson knows this, that person can go to the court to seek a declaration that such laws are invalid. I do not recall that the Member for Anson has ever challenged the unlawfulness of either of the laws that today he claims to be a violation of the due process of law. 12.45 pm

Mr Dhanabalan: I thank my colleague for the legal elucidation but still, Sir, even if I am -

Mr Jeyaretnam: That is not enough.

Mr Dhanabalan: - charitable and I accept the Member for Anson's interpretation or objection to the two laws that he referred to, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act, the fact still remains, Sir, that he said that people are being put away behind bars and forgotten, which means that there is no proper system of review of such prisoners' detention. If that is so, the Member should state so, because it is not the truth and it has been explained to him what the procedures are, I think he should withdraw his remarks.

Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Sir, all this discussion about law is no doubt extremely fascinating, particularly to lawyers. But, Sir, I do hope that during all this debate, we have not forgotten the plight of pensioners which is where it all started from.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You may want the Leader of the House to be reminded.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, I do not accept the word of thanks from the Member for Anson because it is obvious that in trying to thank me he deflected from the main theme of my speech. I tried to appeal to the Minister for Finance about the plight of those pensioners, but he very cleverly made good use of the time and your indulgence, Sir, by going on to something else. I do not thank him for that. But I would like to draw the attention of this House that if this is the kind of debate that we are going to have, then the real issues of the people, those whom we stand up to fight for, will be forgotten and this House will be treated as what is known as parliamentary theatrics. The TV is there. It is brought into the homes of all Singaporeans.

Here, I am discussing and pleading with the Hon. Minister for Finance to look at the plight of the pensioners. Here, I have a Member of the Opposition, supposedly to be known as a learned Member, I am no lawyer, but I understand the innuendoes, the nuances that come from it, and therefore this issue has been sidetracked. But I will bring it back and put it in proper perspective so that all Singaporeans will know and, more particularly, those pensioners, especially the Pensioners Association of Singapore. They have written to me.

Mr Jeyaretnam: They know my views.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: They know your views but you are making political capital out of their views. I am only more interested in their well-being, the dollars and cents. [Applause]. I am not interested in playing to the gallery to get the applause. I am not. I know what I am doing. The Member for Potong Pasir also tries to join in. Come and try over my dead body!

I am glad, Sir, that the Minister for Finance has been kind because he said that we are able to penetrate a chink in his armour. In other words, he is a kind-hearted man. He has got great feelings for these people and, I think the pensioners owe him, I would not say a dinner, but a thank you.

On that note, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $11,515,620 for Head W ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The Chairman: I think it will be a good idea to suspend the Sitting now.

Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Speaker: Order. This Sitting is suspended until 2.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.50 pm until 2.30 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.30 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head U -

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head U be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead UA-01, Object Group 1100 of the Main Estimates.*

Sir, I would like to speak on the subject of Ministers' salaries. I have also filed an amendment to Head F Subhead FA-02 Object Group 1410, under which I intend to speak on the subject of Allowances for Members of Parliament. Since the allowance for MPs and the salaries of Ministers and political appointees are inter-related, can I also seek your permission, Sir, to speak on this Subhead at this time and not move under Head F?

The Chairman: Yes. I am sure the Prime Minister will be willing. Therefore, you are entitled to 20 minutes.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Thank you, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, this subject of Ministers' salaries and that of political appointment holders has been much discussed in this House and outside this House. During the last General Election, the hon. Member for Potong Pasir said in Fullerton Square:

'While a Minister earns approximately $18,000 per month, 70% of workers has gross income of less than $600 per month.'

This was reported in the Singapore Monitor on 21 December 1984. It is obvious that he was not making fair com- parisons. On 19 March 1985, he again mentioned an increased expenditure on political appointments in this House. The hon. Member for Queenstown and our First Deputy Prime Minister have also touched on this subject in the House during the debate on the Presidential Address. The First Deputy Prime Minister called for an open debate on this matter.

Sir, the monetary worth of a person or employee can be judged by many criteria. His paper qualifications, his integrity, his job demands, job security, and market forces are some aspects. How does one judge whether a person is fairly paid, overpaid or underpaid?

In Singapore, Sir, we have a unique political system. The PAP, under the able leadership of our Prime Minister and his colleagues, has been pursuing a relentless search for new talents to ensure an orderly succession in the political arena. Unlike the situation in the early days, in our modern day context, many of our politicians and political leaders in the PAP today are admittedly technocrats turned politicians. The leadership has "talent-scouted" for men and women with ability and integrity to enter politics to serve our nation. Ours is not a politics of fame, wealth and power, but a politics of sacrifice and service. Examples of such persons are not difficult to find in the PAP. Men such as the hon. Member for Telok Ayer, in the early days, our late and beloved Minister for Finance, Mr Hon Sui Sen, and our latest example, the hon. Member for Kreta Ayer.

To debate the question of salaries, I would like to make three comparisons:

(1) that of the Minister to that of the Civil Service (Permanent Secretary Grade);

(2) that of the Minister to the Group Chief Executive in the private sector; and

(3) that of the Minister to the Professionals in the private sector.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to distribute some tables. (Cols. 1237 - 1238). tables - Comparison of salaries with Civil Service Permanent Secretary Grade, Comparison with Group Chief Executive based on SNEF Survey 1984 Group Executive, Chief Executives of Companies with more than 2,000 employees, Comparison with Professionals Top 10% in Private Sector based on Sunday Times Survey 21.2.85 (Cols. 1237 - 1238)

[Copies of Tables distributed to hon. Members.]

(1) Comparison of salaries with the Civil Service Permanent Secretary Grade. As you can see from Table 1, the Minister earns a gross salary of $21,600 per month and not that of $18,000, as stated by the hon. Member for Potong Pasir. The Permanent Secretary (Staff Grade 1) earns $20,600. Thus the Minister for Finance is today earning $1,000 more than his Permanent Secretary in Staff Grade 1. Should his Permanent Secretary be promoted, as speculated in the Straits Times of 16 March 1985, his salary will be more than that of the Minister.

Some hon. Members: Promoted.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Already promoted. Likewise, the Minister for Trade and Industry who also has a Permanent Secretary in Staff Grade 1. A Permanent Secretary in Staff Grade 11 earns the same salary as that of our Second Deputy Prime Minister, ie $24,400 per month.

There are many who question the validity of keeping politician's salary in tandem with that of the Civil Service. There is the suspicion that the Government can easily raise political salaries by raising Civil Service salaries. There is the worry that the recent promotion of civil servants is a preamble to further rise of political salaries. There is also the argument that the civil servant has spent many years (15-20 years) in service to reach the Superscale and Staff Grade. The politician may reach the grade of a Minister in a fraction of this time.

(2) Comparison with the Group Chief Executive. The figures that I quote here are from the 1984 Survey of the Singapore National Employers' Federation. I will be comparing the gross salary of the overall non-manufacturing sector with that of the gross salary of the Minister. Would you please refer to Table IIA. If you will note, in the Upper Quartile, that is, the average of those in the top 25%, the earning is $19,784. The Minister is that of $21,600 per month. The Minister's salary is thus $1,816 higher than that of the Group Chief Executive in the Upper Quartile. May I at this time point out that the Survey refers to salary received during the reference period July to September 1984. 239 companies participated in this Survey. Of this, 79% employed less than 200 persons, and only 8% employed more than 500 persons. To satisfy myself, I made confidential enquiries regarding companies with a staff size of above 2,000. The gross salary was (could you please refer to Table IIB): minimum $19,600 per month; average $24,500 per month; maximum $29,400 per month. That is, the Minister's salary is less than the average for that of a big company. These figures are released on the understanding that the source will not be revealed. Thus, the Chief Executive of a large company employing more than 2,000 persons will earn more than a Minister. So the Minister earns more than the Chief Executives of smaller companies, but less than that of the Chief Executives of large companies. Now, what about the question of perks and fringe benefits, eg car allowance, travel allowance, bonuses, etc?

Here again, some question the validity of these comparisons. It has been argued that although the Chief Executives have their own perks and benefits, so do Ministers. The high social standing of Ministers is often mentioned as more than offsetting the other benefits of the Group Chief Executive. It has also been pointed out that Ministers also have other benefits, such as car allowance, free telephone, medical benefits, and even bonuses in the form of 13th month pay and half-month incentive allowance, that is, a total of l months' bonus. So is the Minister overpaid, or underpaid, or receiving fair wages? Debatable, isn't it?

(3) Comparison with Professionals in the private sector. The figures I quote here are from a Survey reported in the Sunday Times on 21 February 1985. I will be quoting figures relating to the top 10% of each profession, and I have chosen to compare with lawyers, engineers, and doctors. The Minister's salary in February 1982, please note, was $16,700. I am making these comparisons because it has often been stated that Ministers earn excessive amounts in comparison with professionals. Is this true? The lawyer, the engineer, and the doctor, 15 years after graduation, the lawyer earns (as you can see in Table 111) $25,000 per month; engineer earns $7,900 per month; and the doctor $13,500 per month.

Here, we can see that, except for the lawyer after 15 years in practice who earns on the average $25,000 per month ($8,300 more than a Minister), it is true that the Minister earns more than engineers by $8,700 and doctors by $3,200. So there is some validity in the belief that Ministers do earn more than professionals, except for lawyers. Furthermore, the argument is put forward that the professionals in the private sector have to live with the problem of risks and business failure.

We have compared the salary of the Minister to that of the Civil Servant, Group Chief Executive and the Professional in the private sector. What then is the answer? Are our Ministers overpaid? I have had discussions with many people on this issue. The answer, I feel, is best summarized in these words:

'There is no equivalent of a Cabinet Minister in the private sector - the responsibilities and the nature of work are totally different.'

These words are quoted, with his reluctant permission, from a man who has sat on all three sides of the triangle: as the Head of the Civil Service, as a Cabinet Minister, and now as the Chief Executive of DBS. That man is Mr Howe Yoon Chong. Some of us may not be fond of him because of the CPF recommendations of his Committee, but few will dispute his commitment and tremendous contribution to Singapore.

Some may agree with Mr Howe's views, others may not. Many expect politicians to sacrifice. Some feel that all this so-called "sacrifice" has today been totally cancelled off by their high salaries. Perhaps the Prime Minister can enlighten us on this. Perhaps also the Member for Clementi, who has also sat on all three sides of the triangle, may comment on this.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in concluding this Head, I would like to compare the Minister to a pilot. When the plane has taken off in mid-air, the plane is often put on auto-pilot. So the pilot sits back and one may feel that he is not earning his salary, and pilots are very highly paid. Yet in a crisis, as has recently happened in engine failure, we depend on the wit, the skill, and the response time of the pilot to save the day. Yes, maybe our Minister-pilot, when there is no crisis, is overpaid; but this is a point for discussion and this is something for which a fair comparison is very difficult to make. 2.45 pm

Sir, may I next refer to the issue of Member of Parliament's allowance. I emphasize allowance, not salary. This is an allowance meant for the MP to meet part of his expenses in the course of his duties. This includes the employment of secretarial and office help, transport and other miscellaneous expenditure. The allowance is $3,900 per month. And for many MPs, especially the self-employed MPs and including our hon. Opposition MPs, the acceptance of office almost invariably results in loss of earnings, especially as Parliament now sits from 11 am to 4.30 pm. I hope I have dispelled the myth that MPs are earning something like $10,000 per month. Further, may I state that the Opposition MPs and the PAP MPs are paid exactly the same allowance. In the final analysis, whether MPs and Ministers are fairly paid lies in the result of their work, individually, and the Government collectively. If our Ministers and political appointees are highly paid and yet our nation is in a state of chaos, then it is not justified. The reverse also holds true. The fact that in Singapore today we have an efficient and honest Government which has resulted in political stability, economic and social progress, speaks much for itself.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two amendments* myself under a different Subhead. I understand I will be allowed to speak on this amendment and can take my other two amendments later. My two amendments do not relate to Ministers' salaries but to specific points.

The Chairman: You are entitled to five minutes, unless you wish to dwell on your two amendments.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I would like to take them separately. But I would like to speak on this amendment. I understood that I would be given adequate time for this.

The Chairman: All right, carry on.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I share my observations and views on Ministers' salaries. This is not the first time I have spoken on this subject. I spoke on this subject on the 31st August 1982 when the Parliamentary Pensions (Amendment) Bill was debated. I then said that our Ministers were being paid higher salaries than ministers in a number of other countries. After that, we, in the Hammer, published a table showing comparative salaries. So this is not the first time. We have always taken the view that our Ministers are paid adequately, perhaps a little bit over-adequately.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we start from this premise, as I said then, that you cannot equate public service with the private sector. It is no good saying that because somebody in the private sector is drawing more than the Minister, the Minister must be made to jump over him. Public service is an honour and it is a duty and a service to one's country.

Sir, I remember, when we were debating the allowances paid to our national servicemen, more than one Member said it must not be looked upon as a payment of salary or allowance. The soldiers must look upon it as their duty and their service to the country, Well, we seem to be mocking at them if we say that they must give service to the country and when it comes to Ministers, they must be paid adequately and not expected to give service to the country. And it will be misleading in my view, Sir, to compare the salaries with the top sector in the private service.

Salaries of Ministers have gone up. I do not know how many times since we first introduced ministerial government in this country. I would like to look at the salaries of our junior officers in the Civil Service, not the top but the junior officers. And I would like to know the comparison made between the salaries paid to Ministers and the number of times by which it has gone up and the number of times by which the junior officers' salaries have gone up. I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, we seem to be mocking at them and I think that is wrong. We do not want to give them that impression.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have prepared a Table (Cols. 1239 - 1240) comparing our Ministers' salaries with the salaries paid to ministers in countries outside. And with your permission, may I ask the Clerk to distribute them? Table - COMPARISON OF MONTHLY SALARIES (Cols. 1239 - 1240)

[Copies of Table distributed to Members.)

May I say, Sir, that these figures have been obtained from the respective High Commissions and the United States Embassy. And what do you find there, Sir? You find that except for the President of the United States who is the Chief Executive, our Prime Minister earns far more in excess of the salaries paid to the Prime Ministers of Malaysia, Australia, the United Kingdom and New Zealand. I may mention here, as I say in the note, that in Malaysia, the Prime Minister does not take home that pay. He has forgone $1,000 of his pay temporarily because of the economic recession.

I think, Mr Speaker, Sir, a more useful comparison will be the comparison between the salaries we pay and the salaries paid in other countries. I would commend to the Prime Minister and to the Cabinet that we should have a sense of proportion about ourselves. We should not think that our duties and our offices are so important, far more important than the corresponding offices in other countries that our holders of the office should be paid far more. May I respectfully and humbly submit that they should not allow themselves to be inflated with a sense of their own importance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not for a minute questioning the capabilities of the Ministers in the discharge of their duties. But I would ask them that they should consider whether they are setting an example to the citizens of this country in the salaries they draw. We are already, it would appear, paying very heavily for the cost of administration of our population of 21/2 million. In fact, if one makes a comparison, we would find probably that we are paying far more than anybody else. So it is my own view, Sir, that our present salaries are more than adequate and if any revision is to be made, the revision should be downward, particularly in view of the present recession in the economy. We have heard that said and I do not think that has been doubted. It would be completely wrong and it would be, I repeat, mocking at our workers, at our civil servants. And I am not talking about the Permanent Secretaries and the Staff Grade I and Staff Grade 11 officers. I am talking about our officers in the junior section of the Civil Service, that whilst they are being asked to tighten their belts and our workers are thrown out of employment, there should be any thought of increasing the Ministers' salaries.

We are opposed resolutely to any increase in Ministers' salaries. We are opposed on principle, not on anything else. We think it will be wholly wrong to try and compare salaries paid to Ministers with the private sector. It is a service to the country and I hope Ministers will accept that as a service, an honour, a privilege to serve the country. We must not demean the office of the Prime Minister and the office of Ministers of this country by making it mercenary. The impression is that they will not serve as Ministers or Prime Ministers unless they are paid. That is demeaning the office. And that would be a totally wrong thing to do.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not that our Ministers and the Prime Ministers are in need of greater salaries. When I came to this House in December 1981, in my very first speech, I asked that a provision be included in the Prevention of Corruption Act for a declaration to be made by all Members of Parliament setting out all assets owned by them, by their spouses and by their children, so that the public may know the financial standing of the Ministers and all Members of Parliament. I was not suggesting that they were corrupt. Far from it. I was saying that the public should know. The Prime Minister in replying to that said [Hansard, Vol. 41, Col. 332 of 22nd December, 1981]:

'I know exactly what each Member in this House is worth. They make full disclosures to me.'

May I commend to the Prime Minister that it is not a question of him knowing what his Ministers are worth. Far more important is whether the public knows.

The Chairman: Mr Jeyaretnam, you have used up your 10 minutes.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I would ask the Prime Minister whether he would now consider asking everyone to make this declaration.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would just like to comment on this paper that the Member for Anson has distributed to us. He makes certain comparisons between the Prime Minister's pay and the Ministers' pay of other countries with those of Singapore. I think he has left out the important perks in the other countries which add up to the kind of rewards that are given to the political figures. In Malaysia, there are other perks, while in Singapore, except for salaries, there is nothing else. In Australia, for example, I know for certain that a Member of Parliament, not to mention about Ministers, after a few years is given first-class travel, I think, with his wife to any part of the world to educate himself. All these should be included when you calculate how much a Minister gets. 3.00 pm

The Member also said the Office of the Prime Minister should not be demeaned as a result of us talking about salaries. If he takes a look at the salary of the Malaysian Prime Minister, I am quite sure there is no civil servant in the Malaysian Civil Service who draws anywhere near $10,000. I know for certain that it is much less than that. Take the middle rung; let us not talk about the Permanent Secretaries. A non-graduate teacher in Singapore, and similarly other middle rung civil servants, gets something like $3,000 maximum. In Malaysia it is $1,500. A graduate teacher in Malaysia gets $2,400, here it is $4,000 plus. So all the way up, when you compare salaries between Singapore and Malaysia, whether it is the junior civil servant or Permanent Secretary or Minister, we are much better off. We should be proud that we are much better off, and we wish Malaysia to be also better off in the course of time. But if you look at the salary of the Prime Minister in the context of the whole Civil Service, it is higher than any civil servant. So is the Minister's salary pegged, if not above, at least very close to the Permanent Secretary's salary. So if we are not to demean the Office of the Minister or the Prime Minister, an adequate recognition ought to be given to such office. And if we recognize that our top civil servants earn so much, then it is obvious that a Minister, who is above a Permanent Secretary, must get the same if not more, in order that he can acquit himself with dignity, because he has got to give directives to the Permanent Secretary.

Earlier the Member mentioned that in a political office, the holder must give public service, and he brought in the national service. You cannot compare the two. In the case of the national service, it is only for two years. He is given an allowance. Many of the young men do not have family commitments. In the case of political appointments, and in our situation where we want the best to lead us not just for two years, three years, or for four years, but for as long as they are able to lead us and continue to bring progress to Singapore for a long, long time. In a way, it is a career. We want the best talents from all sectors, whether from the private sector or, from the public sector to come in.

The Chairman: Mr Sia, your five minutes is up.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Can I just complete it? We have to be realistic in that to attract them we have to compensate them adequately. So it is in that context that we have to look at the Ministers' salaries.

Mr Bernard Chen (Clementi): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to say a few words on this. I think we can boil down the issue to one very simple principle which, in fact, has led to Singapore's success in the last 25 years. This is getting the best talent to do what we require, whether it is in the civil service, whether it is in the private sector or in the political arena. Take the Civil Service, for example. It is quite well-known in this region that we have the best civil service. How do we ensure that this principle continues? We pay our civil servants not because they are civil servants, but because of what they can contribute to the country, and to ensure that they stay we must make regular adjustments to their salaries so that the best are not lost to the private sector. I know for a fact, and I have been in the Civil Service before, that the Minister's responsibilities far outweighs those of even the top senior civil servants that we are talking about, such as the Permanent Secretaries. Apart from ensuring the smooth running of the Ministry, the Minister carries the responsibility for whatever action that Ministry takes. We are therefore talking not so much about a Minister's public service on that score. We are talking about actual work done and actual responsibility shared.

It is the same with the private sector. If you want to run a business, you just do not go out and get anybody you find and expect him to do the job. You want to find the best man available, and in a free market where supply and demand dictates what you get, one indicator is salary. This indicator has proven right most of the time. It is not wrong to compare Ministers' salaries with those in private sector. If we accept the principle that we reward each man according to the contributions that he makes, the alternative is to run a communist system where everybody is paid the same for whatever amount of work that he does. And in the communist system, such as China, they have discovered that this is not the way to motivate him to do his best for the country. They are also changing.

Comparison with junior officers is also misleading, as mentioned by the Member for Anson. In the society, where each member has a part to play, depending on what his contributions are, we cannot put a lorry driver to run a ministry because he is not equipped to do that. It will be disastrous if we did. The principle of paying each man according to what his contribution is must be followed. If we accept that, then there is a matter of detail as to how much that worth is, and one indicator is to compare it to the average worth existing in the country.

It is also misleading to compare Singapore with other countries. The circumstances are completely different, the cost of living, the environment, everything is different. We cannot compare apples with oranges. We here in Singapore are dealing with matters pertaining to Singapore, and therefore we should follow the Singapore concept of paying our Ministers, our civil servants, our chief executives, wherever they may be, their worth. I think once we accept this principle, the rest will follow.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just clarify this Table on which questions were asked by the Member for Moulmein. This Table, Mr Speaker, Sir, shows the basic salaries plus the Parliamentary allowances and all the other basic allowances that are paid. It does not, of course, include benefits of travel. But do Ministers in Singapore not have benefits of travel if they go abroad?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just be allowed to say a few words regarding salaries.

Having just come from the private sector and having worked four years as a Personnel Manager, I have done a lot of salary surveys and I know the methodology of surveying salaries and determining the economic worth of a particular job. I think it is completely misleading to compare salary for salary because, when we talk about the rate a person should be paid, we should think about the total compensation that is needed to attract a person into remaining in a job. We should not just say, "Salary $X compared to this person equals $Y." It should be the total compensation that the person receives. In the private sector, salary is not the only indicator. Other compensation includes bonuses, travel, educational assistance for children, insurance premiums, insurance cover, medical benefits, holidays, stock options, all these are part and parcel of the total compensation. So we should not just compare salary for salary. That is one point I want to make.

The second point, Sir, is that we cannot compare Singapore with another country because we are talking about the pool of people within the same country. If we take the United States, for example, the Secretary of State or the Treasury Secretary in the US gets about $80,000 or $90,000 a year. When he finishes his term of office, he is worth more than US$1/2 million a year. Why? Because the society is such that they pay people for what they are worth.

The Chairman: It may interest hon. Members to know that I should bring the discussion on this Head to a close at 4.30pm.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have asked the Whip to inform the Member for Queenstown that I am setting aside two hours for the discussion of Ministerial salaries in order that I would have the opportunity to clarify in his presence some points he made about workers having doubled or trebled their salaries, and MPs' salaries gone up by six times, and Ministers' salaries up by ten times. I am sorry that the Member for Potong Pasir - perhaps I should not say this, but I think I may end up relieved that the Member for Potong Pasir has decided to live up to his wish to play a constructive role.

I could take this debate in one of two forms. I could demolish the specious arguments of the Member for Anson and score debating points. Or I can present Members of this House with a problem we face in the 1990s and beyond.

How is Singapore to preserve its most precious asset, an administration that is absolutely corruption free, a political leadership that can be subject to the closest scrutiny because it sets the highest standards? It is not easy, because if we lose this, then our reason for our existence, our raison d'etre (as the French phrase goes,) will disappear. Why does this island survive? Why does it attract banks, computer software, financial services, information services, manufacturing, in preference to so many countries better endowed - natural resources, manpower, markets? Any traveller knows that from the moment you hit the airport to the time you get into a taxi, when you travel on the road, you know the difference: whether a place works on rules or it bends rules. I therefore want to take this discussion for which I have asked the Leader of the House to set aside two hours, at a non-debating plane. It is not for scoring points.

Just think about your future. How do you ensure that a fortuitous, purely accidental group of men who came in in 1959, and after 26 years of office - this is our 26th year - have remained stainless? How do you ensure that? Is it inevitable? 3.15 pm

Look at China. In 1949 - after 30-odd years of revolution, the same Long March veterans are watching their children and grandchildren scrambling for jeans, sun-glasses, stereos, hi-fi's, watches, pens, lighters, cigarette cases, pocket calculators, not to mention Mercedes, BMW, and other cars for the factories.

Look at Vietnam. Over 30 years they fought the French and the Americans. Sacrificed everything. (i am talking now of the North Vietnamese, not South Vietnamese.) And after victory, disaster. They have become corrupt. (I will come back to the press cuttings.) You go out from Hanoi airport, policeman wants to be paid. Why? Because after victory they wanted the fruits of that victory, and now they are embroiled in another long war.

Sir, we have tried to recruit like-minded, equally committed, men. But they are of a different generation, and I am not saying that they would not have made the same sacrifices. I could still pay them on the old rates, but would I be doing the right thing by them and by the country? For my generation, it does not matter.

I have circulated some Tables (Cols. 1241 - 1254). I want to thank the Member for Fengshan but I am afraid, assiduous though he may be, he has not been able to zero in on the top flight executives or lawyers or doctors. I have the advantage of Tables prepared by the Commissioner for Inland Revenue. I have included in Table 1 (ii) the Table I put to this House in 1981. Then I put in 1982 figures. Then I put in 1983 figures for comparison, Table 1. Tables (Cols. 1241 - 1254)

For simple reference, just run your eye through. They are the top three executives of the biggest firms in each category. If you run your eye through, you will see that the best paid are bankers at $147,000 a month, next architects $125,000, then lawyers $116,000, and the lowest paid are car dealers at $32,000. I could improve my lot by becoming a car dealer! If some Members feel that they ought to join some profession, I ought to point out that the 1983 figure, which is Table 1, for stock-brokers was an exceptionally bad year. If you look at 1982 (Table 1 (i)), it shows stockbrokers at $172,000 and the highest paid was about half a million dollars. He does not need any university degree. He does not even need a credit in English. All he has got to do is to be sharp on the ball.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I ask Members to turn to Table 6 where I have listed out, for easy comparison, salaries of those on the protocol list. It goes right back to 1959, and 1959 really reflects the 1955 position when I first entered this House, right down to Members of Parliament, $500 allowance. When I started in 1959 I had $3,500, the Chief Justice - he was on Superscale A - $2,375, and the Speaker then was paid more than the Chief Justice. I know this is a sore point with you, Mr Speaker, but perhaps you can persuade my successor that I was wrong in reversing the order. The Attorney-General was on B, $2,075; the Judges were on C, $1,950, and so the others.

If Members were to look at 1984, they will see that the Chief Justice is now on Staff Grade 11, $23,000. The Speaker is on $21,000. The Attorney-General is on $19,500. The Judges are on A, $16,680. I am at the top, just below the President whom I have left out, at $29,300.

I think it is fair that I should first answer the points made by the Member for Anson. He says we are over-adequately paid and that we should not equate the public service with the private sector, that it was an honour, a duty and a service, and he compared us with the national servicemen whom he said we were mocking, and to the junior officers. I will come to the junior officers later. I do not think they have done less well than us. I am sorry the Member for Queenstown is not here because I have put in a Table specially for his benefit to get his arithmetic right.

The comparison of Ministers is not with the national servicemen. If the Member for Anson will apply his mind, he will agree that the comparison is really in pari materia with that of the reservists. When a reservist is called up for duty, he is paid a pittance, his rank pay. Then by the Enlistment Act in 1978, we had what was called, in short "make-up pay". In other words, his family would not be worse off. You take in a banking executive or a lawyer for six months to do an SCSC course, and if you pay him the rank pay of Captain, I think there will be a minor revolution. He is going to fail the course.

This is a serious problem. If Members will run their eyes through that list in Table 6, they will see that immediately after we came into office in 1959, we cut Minister's pay by $450. I cut my own pay to $3,050 and it stayed cut for 2, A years till September 1961 when we restored it. In the next column, 1970, when the first fear of recession was over after the 1968 withdrawal of the British forces, Members will run their eye down that list, column (d), everybody had an increase except the Prime Minister. Deputy Prime Minister $4,500, Chief Justice $3,500, Speaker $3,000, Minister $4,500 and so on. But I stayed at $3,500 because I was nervous that the ground might misread the signal. Wage restraint would be thrown overboard by the unions and before we had really absorbed the full impact of unemployment we would be on the rocks. It was only in 1973 that a full adjustment was made - the budget of 1973 - when I went up to $9,500, and Members will see that parities are kept between the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Chief Justice, Attorney-General, Judges and so on.

For the generation that knows my colleagues and I, I do not have to prove anything. But perhaps for the younger generation I ought to mention that I do not believe Singapore is wise in demanding of my younger colleagues that same total, absolute dedication to a cause. I am not saying they are not, but I am saying I do not want to put them to that stress. There is very little now that money can do for my senior colleagues and 1. Mr Rajaratnam is not worried whether he is paid more or less. In fact, he has taken a pay cut. He has reduced himself from Deputy Prime Minister to Senior Minister.

This is the end of one episode but it is not the end for Singapore. If we slip, imagine the tackiness. You go through the airport and the chap likes your sunglasses, he flicks it. It is common knowledge. He likes your fountain pen, you give it to him. You fold in a $50 bill with your passport. He takes your shirt.

In Vietnam - this is Asian Wall Street Journal, 14th March 1985, page 7, continuation of an article on page 1:

'To make ends meet civil servants moonlight, some working two additional jobs. They translate textbooks, teach foreign languages and grow vegetables. Others cheat the system. Bus drivers, for instance, take on more passengers than they are allowed to and pocket the extra fares. In turn, police at highway checkpoints solicit bribes from the drivers to ignore the over-loading - half a dozen times on a 100 km ride from Hanoi.'

Thirty years they fought the Americans and before that the French. And it is not just the policemen. An AFP report carried in the Sunday Times, 13th January this year, says:

'Hoang Tung, a member of the Communist Party Secretariat, told journalists today that the punishment had been meted out for cases of corruption and other crimes at all levels of Vietnamese government, even among members of the central committee and ministers.'

And ministers! They have sacrificed millions of lives. What has happened? Well, a mood vanishes, as we have seen the mood in Singapore palpably altered. The 1940s, dire privation, 1950s riots, it looked as if we were going to go under; 1960s, great instability as we were trying to find our feet with the British withdrawing and we were independent on our own for the first time. 1970, just beginning to get the first glimmer of hope as we raced away.

3.30pm

But look at the transformation between 1970 and 1985. 15 years, a whole generation has grown up, believing that this comes naturally. I am asking them to ask themselves and to ask their elder brothers and their fathers, "Does it come naturally?" I think it would be reckless to assume that that same unbending desire to keep a stainless surface on which no blemish can be allowed to stick, is automatically transmitted on, like learning languages. It is an attitude of mind. Perhaps the new Members will bear with me if I explain how we came to this attitude of mind.

My colleagues and I - Dr Toh, Rajaratnam, Goh Keng Swee - we were English-educated bourgeois. We wandered into a minefield of revolution - tough men, not only good at character assassination but good at assassination. We fought them with nothing. They had their elimination squads. They had their cohorts in the unions, and in the students' union, and in the musical associations, and the country dwellers' association, and the rural dwellers' association, and the old boys' association, and so on, and so on and so on. And their cadres, keen, eager beavers, believed that revolution was around the corner. They slept on desk tops at Middle Road. These are going on in my mind's eye - the decrepit corner building between Middle Road and Queen Street, full of little girls with pigtails and little boys with shorts climbing up and down, out to make revolution, like ants, like jumping beans!

I slept in an air-conditioned room and I worked in an air-conditioned office. And they made sure that every worker in town and in the countryside knew that . And therefore, I was not trustworthy. They slept there. They ate in the coffee shops, they went to ablutions at the back. They sacrificed with the workers. Did they? Well, they looked as if they were going, some of them did, but others went in for all kinds of finagling, including union funds too. But their top leaders were men that struck real fear into our hearts. We knew we were meeting formidable opponents.

I met the Plen in the Committee Room, which is now the Members' Room, for the first time, in March 1958. He was a hunted man, pale, lean. I met him between Victoria Memorial Hall and Empress Place Government Buildings. In case I should be nabbed by the Police, I could say, "This man wants to see me.", so I brought him to the Legislative Assembly. For 1 1/2 hours, I sized him up. I tried to size up the quality of the man - bright, keen, spoke Mandarin, adequate English, and a very determined fellow. And we knew that if we gave any hostages to fortune, we were finished.

The first pre-condition to be in the game, to receive any cards at all, was to put your life on the table, be prepared to risk it as he was risking his. And he did risk his. And we had never forgotten that. We knew that once we became tacky, the whole system would go down. It was not possible. Some have fallen by the wayside. Tan Kia Gan he was a minister. I had to destroy him. I could not find enough evidence but it was quite clear, more than just a suspicion, that he wanted a percentage on aircraft to be bought by Malaysia Singapore Airlines. After his dismissal, he was crushed. Wee Toon Boon went to jail. Phey Yew Kok, I am not sure which is worse, getting a sentence (or being acquitted, I do not know, he might have been innocent) or being on the run all his life. Every election, the Opposition bring this up. But perhaps I ought to mention here how painful these decisions were.

I ought to say this, because soon the principal actors will die. Nobody says, "Oh, well, they are all dead. He said so.' The Secretary-General of the NTUC came to see me on the Saturday before Phey Yew Kok was to be charged on a Monday in 1980, and he said that grave injustice was going to be done to an innocent man. He is now the President. He asked me to intervene with the Attorney-General and stop it. Pleaded, review the case. Because they spent years together in one fight, in a struggle, to build up the NTUC. How can he be sacrificed? I had the advantage of seeing the investigation papers. I picked up the phone and said, "After this lunch, see the Director of CPIB and he may show you some of the documents he showed me, and you will have no doubts whatsoever that a prima facie case has to be answered. If you still doubt that, ring me up on Sunday." Mr Rajaratnam, the Director of CPIB, is now dead but his Deputy, Evan Yeo, is not. He will remember that Saturday afternoon, and the Secretary-General of the NTUC retreated.

That is how this place is kept clean. every Member knows that there is no easy money on the take. That is the way we are. Nobody believes that we spent money to get into this House. Not even the two Opposition Members. We cleaned up politics in Singapore, from gangsters who ran around with M.P.D. Nair and Lim Yew Hock. We cleaned them up so that two English-educated lawyers, the bourgeoisie, could get into this House as Members of the Opposition. In a way, it is a tribute to the success of our policies. They did not get in because they spent money. You look at elections anywhere in the Third World. Vast sums of money are expended. Why? Because when you get in, that is the pay-off. There is no pay-off here. There are some advantages maybe, for lawyers. They get better known. Maybe if you have got a hopeless case, well, they will make a row with the magistrate, regardless of whether there is a case or there isn't.

I take great pride in the last elections as we have now three more doctors in this House. It is quite a feat - Member for Fengshan, Member for Ulu Pandan, Member for Telok Blangah, joining the Member for Ayer Rajah. I know the Member for Ayer Rajah closed up one clinic in order that he can be an MP. It cost him money. No patient likes to see his doctor in the House making speeches, or running around.

Is it wise then to follow the examples quoted by the Member for Anson? I think he has got his figures too generous. He should have completed the list. He is comparing me with the Prime Minister of Malaysia who gets only $10,000, and he does not take $1,000. He only gets $9,000 against my $29,000. That puts me in a very good position. And if you compare him with the Prime Minister of Thailand, he gets 16,000 bahts a month, or $1,300. You see a vast country, 50 million people.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I was being generous.

The Prime Minister: Yes, I said he was.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I think I should have brought in the President of India or the Prime Minister of India.

The Prime Minister: Why not, Mr Speaker, Sir? Why not? Let us take Asean. The Philippines President, official annual salary 100,000 pesos, which is $14,090 per annum. No other officially published allowances, but Malacanang is his official residence. The President of Indonesia, 150 million people, monthly salary 1.2 million rupiahs or S$2,520. Of course, like the Prime Minister of Malaysia, they both have an official house which becomes theirs when they retire. In the case of Malaysia, by the law they have got to pay about 10% of the value. I have an official residence. I had. I still have. It is technically mine - Sri Temasek. I have not regretted not using it other than for purposes of entertainment. I think I have brought up a family which has a better sense of proportion as a result of living in Oxley Road.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You have got guards.

The Prime Minister: Alas, I wish I could do without them. They only came with Separation in 1965. I had no guards before that. I get no joy out of having these guards. Mr Speaker, Sir, I can tell the Member for Anson quite honestly that it would be quite a relief the day I can shake off the guards, which would be quite some time because you cannot shake them off the day after office. Mr Nixon waited 10 years or 11 years before he decided to discard his.

There are two important tenets. Do we want to maintain our unique system? And it is unique. I am probably the highest paid in the Commonwealth if you go by official salary. But I am probably one of the poorest in the Commonwealth, the Third World Commonwealth. The Turks and Caicos Prime Minister had been arrested in Miami for drug trafficking. Other well-known personalities have had commissions of inquiries but nothing has happened. We meet and we know. The Commonwealth Secretariat does a lot of travelling. They know who's who, and what's what. I am one of the best paid and probably one of the poorest of the Third World Prime Ministers. 3.45 pm

Of the First World, how do they do it? Well, the British are subtle and very delicate about these matters. Their ruling classes came from the aristocracy, the landed gentry and the professionals. Office was for them a duty, service and honour, great honour too. Are they able to keep it up? With inflation, the quality of men in Parliament, and from them the Ministers, has steadily declined.

I have not been able to do for the British MPs the kind of breakdown I did for Members on Tables 3 and 4, "Qualification of Members of Parliament/Assemblymen" and "Educational Qualifications of Ministers & Ministers-of-State". Let us take 1959. Out of 51 Members, 21 had secondary education and 12 had primary education. And they thinned down until last year there were none with primary education, six with secondary, three upper secondary, 70 tertiary. I think we did the right thing,

What the Member for Anson did not quote was that the Malaysians pay much less to their MPs, something less than $3,000. I am sorry the Member for Queenstown is not here because I wanted to ask him about his arithmetic and his multiplication. He said:

'The workers' salaries have gone up by two to three times. MPs' allowance has gone up by six times. Ministers' salaries have gone up by 10 times.'

He was a good propagandist. He used to write my Chinese speeches. He was arrested in 1957 for pro-Communist propaganda. So he knows what revolution is about. But, like the North Vietnamese, he too feels caught up with the changing mood. It puzzled me why he felt discomforted. Why did he distort this, I wondered? I had asked the Whip to request him to be present this afternoon. He told the Whip he had no desire to be present. Well, it is a pity because he may well be able to rebut my arithmetic.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Expel him from the Party now!

The Prime Minister: We need ideas from people on how to run their Parties. Maybe the Member for Anson knows how to run a Party better than I do. I am grateful for the idea.

I have worked out Table 5. He was Minister for Labour from 1963 to 1968. So there is no excuse. He could easily have got the figures. He knows that we carry out labour surveys. Unskilled workers, if you include the CPF contributions, it has gone up by 8.3 times. His MP's allowance has gone up by eight times, not six. In rounding it off at six, he forgot his yearly adjustments since 1981. I think that is a bit of dishonesty. And Ministers do not get 10 times. They also get about eight times. If you do the calculation, between $2,500 and $20,485, that is eight times. So, in fact, we have kept pari passu.

I had wanted to ask him today whether it was true - this was such an unlikely explanation - that he felt that the Ministers who carried on and retired in1984 and those like me who have not retired yet, would have their pensions calculated on the revised salary, revised in 1981 when I came to this House, And because he retired just before that revision, he lost about 40% in pensions. I am really sorry because it could not be avoided. It was the luck of the draw. It is the way the cards were cut'-,It was not that he was less deserving than the Member for MacPherson or the Member for Telok Ayer. It was just the way the cards fell. But it was dishonest to put this at two, six, and ten, multiples when, in fact, if you work it out carefully, it needs no mathematical genius to say that it works out to about eight, eight, and eight multiples.

The Member for Potong Pasir may like to take my point, and perhaps take it seriously. We can demolish this quite easily, but people can work up a lot of popular feeling. Then we shift into padding. The quality of men we will get here will be different, and the way they are paid will be camouflaged, as they have been camouflaged in other budgets. We have an entertainment vote. It is not an allowance. If a Minister entertains, it is paid out of that vote. If he does not entertain, the vote is unused and goes back to the Consolidated Fund. I could follow the practice in many Commonwealth countries and change it into an entertainment allowance. I can provide cars with chauffeur. They are all entitled to houses too, which they can then live in and rent out their own. And in many of the jurisdictions, they are entitled to purchase the house. I do not mind. I am not saying that this is improper, Mr Speaker.

In 1971, a special Act called the Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj Act was passed in the Malaysian Parliament which provided that he will have a house, with maintenance, a car with chauffeur, steno, secretaries. There was an amendment in 1981 by which the provisions could be varied as circumstances change, with inflation, for subsequent Prime Ministers. I am not suggesting to the Member for Marine Parade that when I am not in this House he ought to pass one on my behalf.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You don't need it!

The Prime Minister: Yes, fortunately, Mr Speaker, Sir. I have made no bones about this. It was the luck of the draw that Singapore had, as its core leadership, men who, if you want to be unkind you could say, could afford not to worry. We did not allow our personal fears to affect our political actions. We had educated wives whom we all felt were capable of looking after the children and bringing them up if anything happened. Dr Goh, Dr Toh, Rajaratnam, myself, and quite a few others, Yong Nyuk Lin, K.M. Byrne. And as it turned out, it was not necessary.

But let me tell you the pressures that come on the mind. Once you start collecting the nest egg, that is the end. Because your secretary must know. It is not possible for him not to know. I get a gift, a valuable one, and I just take it home. I get many of them. What does he get? He wraps it up for me to bring home. It goes to the Treasury for a proper valuation if I want it. And because I am not a collector of objects of art, they end up in the lstana, or in my office, or in one of the villas in the grounds where they are displayed. Would I have done that if my wife was not a professional? I think so. I probably would have worried a lot more. But that is the luck of the draw.

The Member for Potong Pasir should take this lesson to heart. There are four brothers in my family - two lawyers, one doctor, one stockbroker who did not go to university. Yet he is the richest of us all. My brother who is a lawyer is richer than me. My brother who is a doctor is better off than me. And, as I have said, only half in jest, over these years really I have been a kept man. My wife keeps the family. Do you want to take that chance with successive Prime Ministers? It is foolish, is it not? Can we control what people get paid? In China, they do. And I wanted to ask Mr Jek, the Member for Queenstown, how much his brother was getting in Peking. He went back, works as an engineer in a factory. I thought it would be interesting because then we can work out these multiples.

In the basic handbook of the Republic of China, Council of the Asia Society, published in 1981, they set out the different wage scales. The highest is 560 Yuans. One Yuan is about 80 cents Singapore. And the lowest is 18 Yuans. So there is a ratio of 1:31. 4.00 pm

It is like what the Member for Potong Pasir pointed out - the poor worker gets $600, but the Minister goes on a walkabout gets $600 one day; he gets 30 times more. Well, that is what the People's Republic of China, the Premier gets over his lowest paid worker. I ask the Member now to look at Table I for lawyers. At $116,000 per month, that is five times. So in one hour, or 11/2 hours, he earns $600. We could juggle around and play this as a popular gambit. I will not retreat because I have got the political capital. I can last the onslaught. But let me warn everybody: you chase your political leaders and ask them in the name of honour, service, duty, to make the sacrifices, and you are going to have a different quality of men here. They are going to be deceitful, duplicitous, hypocrites, unless we work out a system like the British or the Americans. Let me explain how they work their system.

When Lord Carrington resigned as Foreign Secretary, he became Chairman of GEC, much more than Foreign Secretary. Now he is Secretary-General of Nato. When John Nott, Defence Minister, resigned at the time of the Falklands crisis, he went into banking, and his years as Minister, of course, must count. Recently I met Anthony Barber, Ted Heath's Chancellor of the Exchequer. He walked out from No. 11 Downing Street into Standard Chartered. He came out to open the Chartered Bank Building. There is one junior Minister. He is a consultant to SIA to try and help us to overcome the problems of going into Manchester, and so on. And why not? He is a good man. He knows the problems and he may help us push it through. He is registered openly and it is known that he is acting for us. Well, maybe we can develop that over time. It has not developed yet.

How do the Americans do it? They are a bit more blunt, a bit more blase. So the Washington Post, on 27 February, this year, explained the workings. It is by Elizabeth Kastor: "Cashing in on the Capital Connection". It is a pun - Capital and the Capitol.

'They cry about the government pay, all the way to the private sector.'

I will read just the excerpts. I will leave this in the Library. Michael Deaver, Mr Reagan's very close friend, just left because he cannot afford to carry on. It says here:

'In this game, [says the writer] power gets you money, rather than vice versa. Salaries in government are often doubled (and sometimes far better than that) out in what one former member of the lobbying community calls "the real world." [That's the real world.] .... Senate majority leader Howard Baker will make close to $1 million this year, primarily with the Houston law firm of Vinson & Elkins..... A spokesman for Geraldine Ferraro has said she will make $500,000 for appearing in a Diet Pepsi ad.'

There are others along the way. You don't expect them to come on the cheap. Michael Deaver is reputed to get at least $200,000 to join his Washington office. But he said he is going to start his own firm,

'The images that rankle [they rankle with the people who are in and not out] are of defeated or retired politicians prowling the halls of Congress, of former EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) employees representing the same firms they recently monitored, of former Defense officials working for the contractors who manufacture the arms they authorized in their Pentagon days, of former White House biggies [biggies are big people] picking up the phone and dialing the old familiar numbers on behalf of a trade association.'

That is a way of doing things.

'When you leave the public sector for a lucrative private salary, you've earned it,'

says the writer. Says the American Business Conference [this is a businessman's point of view]:

'You're looking for a new challenge, and the opportunity to try to build some net worth for your family is important ...'

The Chairman: Mr Prime Minister, you have exhausted your time.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Mr Speaker. I will read this one last item, "Cashing in on the connections." Mr Nofziger who got a man pardoned by the White House, a man convicted in Texas. He said:

"'I've known Ed Meese, Mike Deaver, Bill Clark - I've known them for damn near 20 years. What am I supposed to do? Just forget they exist? I wouldn't expect them to do that.",

There are ways and ways of doing things and I am suggesting our way - moving with the market is an honest, open, defensible and workable system. You abandon this for hypocrisy, you will end up with duplicity and corruption. Take your choice. [Applause.]

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, may 1, by way of clarification of what the Prime Minister has said, put a few questions to him?

The Prime Minister was talking about his entry into politics. He was an up-and-coming lawyer in those days, 1959. I hate to think, Mr Prime Minister, that you came into politics because you thought you would get much higher pay in the Government. I would like to think that you were imbued with a greater sense of dedication than that.

The Chairman: You are not referring to me, are you?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I would like to ask him what is it that led him into politics. The other question is this: which does he think carries greater honour and prestige? Being the Prime Minister of this country or being, say, Chairman of the OCBC, the biggest local bank in Singapore? Does he not think that the comparison is completely mis-leading? Thirdly, he has talked about being the poorest in the Third World countries, in the Commonwealth. I put it to him in the 1981 speech, and I ask again, if it is the Prime Minister's view that Ministers are not adequately paid, that they are finding it difficult to live on their salaries. Will he now take up my request and file declarations from all Members of this House setting out their assets?

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, all Ministers file their assets with me. I am prepared to publish them, but I think we are going to reduce the chances of getting men to come forward. Why do they file it with me? Because when an allegation is made about them, that document and the authenticity or the veracity of that document is the basis of investigations. So it must be true, when they are in trouble, to begin with. To publish them means getting greater difficulty.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What is the difficulty?

The Prime Minister: People are not prepared to come forward. Really I did not persuade the Member for Kreta Ayer. It was the First Deputy Prime Minister who persuaded him. It was already difficult enough. We want him to list out his assets, his interests, what his wife does, and so on. Why should he? He would rather be himself. It is a genuine problem. The people capable of running Singapore can be counted in the 20s, total number.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You are suggesting the wrong motivation, completely.

The Prime Minister: No, Mr Speaker. This is a facing up to reality. It is not possible to reproduce the founder-generation. It is not possible to re-create the 1950s and the 1960s. Greater challenges are in store, but when they happen, the men will be put to the test.

If Members will look at Table 1A, they will find that 676 people pay more income tax than the Ministers. Now, I accept that stockbrokers, lawyers, doctors, dentists, earn more than my colleagues. But I cannot accept that there are 676 people who are more important to Singapore than at least three: the Minister for Finance who must be a heavyweight, or we are in trouble; the Minister of Defence who must be another heavyweight, or we are in deeper trouble; and the Minister for National Development who has the biggest budget of any Ministry in an expanding and building phase of Singapore. I cannot accept that anybody in Singapore makes decisions which have more repercussions than these three.

Why have I come in? Because it was a compulsion.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What made you?

The Prime Minister: A Japanese soldier slapped me in 1942. Yes, indeed. In 1942, as I was crossing the Red Bridge at Kampong Java Road, during the Japanese Occupation, to look for my aunt because I was alone in the house with the gardener in Norfolk Road, I did not know that I had to bow to a Japanese soldier. He said, "Kure" and he beat me up, slapped me. I wondered what right he had to do that. And I questioned why the British came back and lorded over me. And we became more and more drawn into revolution. 4.15 pm

You cannot repeat that, Mr Speaker, Sir. I claim no special virtue. We are the product of our times, Those who did not have it, they fell by the wayside. Fortunately, a few of us had it, and we are unlikely to be intimidated by the Member for Anson.

I ask him, very seriously, to answer this. Look at Table 6. The Chief Justice is paid $23,000, the Attorney-General $19,500. The relativities are kept. The Judges are paid $16,600. I have a vacancy for the Chief Justice. He is coming on to 68. There is nobody below 65 who is qualified and prepared to take on the job. I have a vacancy for the Attorney-General, who has come to 55 and is entitled to retirement. I have a vacancy for the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Law, who is on Superscale C, and since Mr Chandra retired we are so short of lawyers that we have made Mr Hochstadt, who is not a lawyer, double up. I have two judges who are over 70 years old. I have seen a dozen lawyers at the Bar who have the potential to be a Judge. They want more time.

I came with this problem in 1981. The Member for Anson has done me the courtesy of looking up my speech in 1981 by reading from Hansard, and so he knows the problem. It is a very simple human problem. I pulled the Member for Tanglin into this House in 1963 because I told him that, if I did not get good men, everything would be lost. He came in. He lost money by coming in. By 1970 he said, "That's enough. Things look all right. I have to leave." If Members want to know why it was altered in 1970 - I think I am not disclosing any secrets to say that it was because he could not pay his mortgage. Yes, his house was mortgaged. It was mortgaged on the income that he was getting in Lee and Lee. He could not pay his mortgage. I had to up his salary from $2,500 to $4,500.

As a result of his being persuaded by me to hang on, he has missed all the bountiful years. Never mind what it was. Last year, the top lawyers were earning $13 ' million. Let us take the top 10%. I think the Member for Tanglin would easily qualify. He was a Queen's Scholar, in case the younger Members do not know. Lawyers with more than 20 years' experience which include the Member for Anson, the top 10% earned over $700,000 a year.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I don't. [Laughter]

The Prime Minister: I am sorry. The top 2%% earned $350,000 a year. But the median, that means the average, is $150,000. For lawyers of 10 to 14 years' experience like the Member for Potong Pasir, the top 10% earned in excess of $330,000 a year, and the top 25% in excess of $200,000 a year, and does anybody want to be a Judge at $16,000 a month, or the Attorney-General at $19,000?

Let me say how they solved it in Hong Kong. There are not enough lawyers in Hong Kong. They got a QC out. He is paid all-in about $400,000 and he pays negligible income tax. If you take the QC in Hong Kong and our Attorney-General and deduct income tax - before tax the QC earns 21/2 times the Singapore Attorney-General - after tax, he earns 3,3 to four times. I suggest that we will solve this when we move towards the market. If we do not, the judicial system will not be able to stand for another five years. Two Judges are over 70.

After the revision in 1981, I had two members of the Bar take up appointments. One, Justice Lai Kew Chai from Lee and Lee. The other is Mr L.P. Thean from Shook Lin and Bok. No others. I had to bring back one of our top diplomats, Mr Punch Coomaraswamy, to take on the job. There is no lawyer on the PAP side in private practice. Why? Because there was no lawyer of that quality. The only lawyer who could fill the role of the Minister for Law is the Minister for Home Affairs who came from the University.

That is why I am seriously considering whether we should not have an Enlistment Act to meet this problem. It is a problem. Let us not deceive ourselves. Let us not be hypocritical. Your wife, your children, they are of university age. Are you going to do this job indefinitely? With all the pressures in Singapore, where wives meet and discuss what they do, what their husbands do, what their children's future will be?

The Minister for Finance can walk out and go back to OCBC. I asked the Chairman of OCBC just casually over lunch, "What would you pay him?" He said, "i will double him straightaway, plus perks."

Mr Jeyaretnam: But he would not walk out.

The Prime Minister: No, he would walk out but for the fact that I persuaded him. Mr Hon Sui Sen persuaded him first before I did. He has no reason to want to do this job. Why should he? To face all this unpleasantness? Why? He is a quiet peaceful man. He is not combative, like me. I am prepared for a scrap any time, any place. But he would rather be quietly living by himself.

The next Minister for Finance - I had intended to revise his salary. My younger colleagues say, "Please wait until the business climate is better. Maybe next year." But I intend to revise not just his salary but those of, what I consider, the heavy ministries. You tell me that a man is Minister for Finance and Minister for Defence, and he is not worth this money when he is making decisions that affect your future. He should not be in the job if he is not a heavyweight, and I am looking for heavyweights.

The Member for Kim Keat - he could earn three times what he gets despite a building glut. I am giving away no secrets. I am just going by income tax returns. The top 25% - I am not even putting him in the top 10%.

Mr Teh Cheang Wan, I asked him half in jest, "What would you do, Cheang Wan? Would you join your friends?" He said, "Join my friends? What for?" I said, "You earn more." He said, "I will be a developer. I have learned enough about cutting costs. I can beat any developer." If I am thinking of retirement, I am going to be his manager! Why should he be doing this - humour Members about the multifold problems of their constituents? But he is part of the old guard - a sense of mission, a desire to transform this place. Where are you going to get another Teh Cheang Wan? It is a serious problem. Born South China, educated in Penang, landed in Singapore.

Look at all the Front Bench now. They were all born and bred in Singapore. Your catchment is a smaller one. You will end up trawling. In the end, what do we get? Two Opposition Members, Singapore is getting a good glimpse of them.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You've got to give some greater motives. You've got to give people higher motives.

The Prime Minister: I am asking people to be honest, not hypocritical. If we continue this hypocrisy, we will not be able to run the system. The system must break. If you want them to be dishonest, that is simple.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You are mercenary, That is what you are.

The Prime Minister: I am mercenary?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes.

The Prime Minister: I did not offer to give up my MP's allowance, I just gave it away to the Member for Telok Ayer as Organizing Secretary of the PAP, for about five years. Mr Ong Pang Boon came down from Kuala Lumpur at half the salary he earned there. It was a bubbling situation with revolution. Do you want to repeat that? Are we going to deceive ourselves and deceive Singapore? Remove what we have taken 20 years to get together? We started self-renewal in earnest in 1970, with the Member for Whampoa amongst those.

The Chairman: Prime Minister, you have taken up all your time.

The Prime Minister: I suggest we stick to honest, open, comparable rewards.

Mr Speaker, I do not want it to appear that I unwittingly took up so much time that the Member for Potong Pasir or the Member for Anson was deprived of a chance to intervene. If they wish to say anything, they are at full liberty to say so. I do not wish to snuffle out any debate.

4.30 pm