ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT

12.00 noon

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [7th March, 1986] [2nd Allotted Day],

'That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1st April, 1986 to 31st March, 1987.'. - [Minister for Finance].

Question again proposed.

Mr Leong Horn Kee (Thomson): Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday, before the moment of interruption, I was speaking at great length on the issue of consumption tax. I said that, in principle, the concept of consumption tax is valid. If a person can afford and is willing to consume more, he or she should be prepared to pay more consumption tax. Although many people have reacted very strongly to consumption tax, such a form of taxation is not new to Singapore. Conceptually, we can consider the ad valorem duty on petrol and the 3% restaurant cess as forms of consumption tax. The difference is that the Government is now proposing to reduce income tax and switch over to imposing consumption tax on a wider scale.

While the principle of consumption tax may be valid, I should also warn the Government of the disadvantages of consumption tax which should be considered carefully before implementing. One of my constituents felt so strongly about consumption tax that he called me twice two weeks ago to express his concern. Yesterday, I mentioned two disadvantages of consumption tax. The first is that during the present economic recession, the imposition of a consumption tax now will further dampen domestic demand. The tax will put a heavier burden on the poorer people, especially on the unemployed. The second disadvantage is that the machinery or the organization to be set up to collect and enforce consumption tax could be cumbersome and costly. It would not be easy to find a mechanism for tax collection which would be simple but efficient. The final concern, which is also the most important concern of most people, is that consumption tax should not be imposed on essential items. I am pleased that the First Deputy Prime Minister has given his assurance that this would not be done.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. Minister for Finance has said in his Budget speech that the key priority for the coming year is to restore economic growth. The measures he has introduced in the budget for the new financial year is to gear towards helping companies to cut costs and maintain their competitiveness. Indeed, restoring economic growth has to be the key priority. Our unemployment rate has already reached 5% as at the end of 1985. Each year, 20,000 new entrants enter the labour market. If new jobs cannot be created soon enough, these new entrants will swell the ranks of the unemployed, adding another 1r-2% to our unemployment rate. If our young people could not find gainful employment after a long period of job searching, they will get disenchanted and restless. They will then find that it is no longer fun to have no work. The situation will become critical. It is therefore appropriate to focus on restoring economic growth. It is only through growth that new jobs can be created.

As economic growth is the key priority, I feel that an essential condition for us to succeed is to ensure that the public sector and the private sector can work closely together to achieve this common objective. A new consensus has to be forged between the public sector and the private sector. I believe we have reached a certain stage of maturity where the public sector and the private sector no longer need to treat each other with suspicion. The civil service has a very strict code of conduct on how civil servants should deal with the private sector people. This is necessary as they have to protect themselves against being subject to undue influence or be seen to be less than fair or equal in their treatment of competing private com- panies. Therefore, civil servants have to be very careful. They are even discouraged from accepting a cup of coffee or lunch with private sector people with whom they have business dealings.

By all means, I agree that the image and reputation for fairness and non-corruptibility of our civil service must be maintained. What I am suggesting is that civil servants at all levels should be encouraged to establish closer liaison and build up a better understanding with their private sector counterparts. An example is Japan where the bureaucracy and the business community have been able to work very closely together.

Sir, the Minister for Education had at one time called on the civil servants to speak their minds and give their Ministers correct feedback on reactions to new Government policies or on the effects after the implementation of certain Government policies. How else can they feel the pulse of the ground reactions if they do not interact well enough or have no opportunity to interact with the local workers, professionals and businessmen?

On the part of the private sector, they should adopt an honest and truthful approach in their dealings with the bureaucracy. They should not always take a pure commercial stance. They must think of the longer term. If they can earn the trust and confidence of the civil servants, their views and opinions will be valued and sought after. This is particularly important to them if later on there is a new policy to be implemented which will have adverse effects on their businesses. Then the local businessmen can find attentive and sympathetic ear among their civil service counterparts.

A striking example of how the public and private sectors have cooperated extremely well together is the Economic Committee. We are aware of how the private sector members of the Committee went out of their way to mobilize their staff, called on their contacts and collectively drew on their knowledge and experience to help to find solutions to our economic problems. We should build upon this spirit of rapport attained between the private sector and the Government sector by the Economic Committee.

Sir, I would like to move on to the topic of over-regulation. Somehow, over the years, we have the impression that there are more and more regulations being imposed. The Hon. Minister for Finance has spent a career in a private company. I think he understands this feeling among the people. Many people feel that we just have too many regulations. Every step we take, every move we make, we must be careful not to get a ticket. We are constantly told that we cannot do this and we cannot do that. So much so, Sir, that often it stifles initiative or, worse, it smothers our people's drive and entrepreneurship.

Sir, I am not suggesting that there should be no regulations. In fact, many of our regulations are necessary. But what I would like to see is that there should be a balance between regulations and permitting private initiative. As the Government is promoting entrepreneurship among our people, I think a right move is to reduce any excessive regulatory controls that we have imposed on our people and companies.

To be fair to the civil servants, they cannot be blamed for enforcing the laws. The situation of over- regulation is due more to the system that we have created. We should, in fact, be proud that we have a very efficient civil service. Most of our Government officers are hardworking and dedicated. What is needed is that they be given more discretion, so that they themselves can exercise more initiative and more flexibility in dealing with the public.

This flexibility, Sir, is even more important during the present economic recession. Regulations invariably are hindrances or obstacles to local companies. They can be real cost burdens. Too many rules, red tape and procedural delays are real and invisible costs which can adversely affect the viability of local firms. The Government is keen to reduce operation costs for companies. It should also look into cutting down cost burdens caused by the various Government regulations.

Sir, I would urge the Government to look seriously into this problem of over-regula- tion and its adverse effects. The first step has been taken by the formation of the committee to review Government regulations under the leadership of the Member for Jalan Besar, who is also the Minister of State for Trade and Industry. I hope the committee will look into eliminating outdated rules and regulations and also get rid of unnecessary or over-restrictive regulations.

I also hope that the committee will enlist the support and assistance of the private sector in their work. The public should be encouraged to come forth in giving their views on regulations which should be reviewed or changed. Moreover, the work of the committee should not be a one-time effort, but it should be a committee which can maintain a constant vigilance over over-regulation, as otherwise such over-regulations or over-restrictive controls will stealthily creep in again.

Sir, I would like to move on to the last item, which is on the unlisted stock market (USM). The Minister for Finance mentioned that during the year a second tier or an unlisted stock market will be set up. This is a good test case on whether the Government will adopt an over-regulatory approach. For the USM to be effective, the conditions for companies to qualify for listing in the USM should not be too stringent. There should be a balance between control and flexibility. The key reason for the success of the similar Over-the-Counter (or OTC) market in the USA is precisely because of the flexibility of its rules and regulations.

By its nature, the USM is a very speculative market. Therefore, certain regulations have to be imposed to protect investors. However, I would urge the Minister for Finance not to impose over-restrictive conditions so as to render USM ineffective. In addition, local investors, especially the small investors, should be carefully briefed and forewarned about the nature and the speculative aspects of the USM.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the budget proposed by the Minister for Finance is generous and comprehensive. It is a budget designed to give a stimulative boost to our economy. For our common well-being, I hope that everyone, that is, the civil servant, the local businessman, and the private individual will join hands to make the new measures and policies work. 12.16 pm

Mr Bernard Chen (Clementi): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Finance.

Sir, what I want to say today has, in fact, been said in the week when we debated on the President's Speech. But after listening to the Member for Rochore's discourse yesterday, I could not resist but to look into some of his comments in some detail and come out with my own interpretation of what he wanted to convey.

The Member for Rochore has included in his speech numerous statistics on various items. I am afraid that, despite the tutorials from the Member for Leng Kee and the Member for Whampoa, he has got his figures all wrong. I hope it is just a matter of misinterpretation rather than one of deliberate intent. One item he commented upon was that our income tax reduction in 1987 as proposed by the Minister for Finance is regressive. In his words:

'The revision of income tax for Year of Assessment 1987 is regressive. The weight of the tax burden is shifted to the lower and middle income groups.' And he went on to say, quoting the Table that he had circulated to Members.

'those whose a chargeable income is $5,000 to $25,000, the savings in tax vary from $32 to $494, ie. 0.64% to 1.98%. ... for those whose chargeable incomes are from $100,000 to $400,000, their tax savings are $4,144 to $21,644, ie, 4.14% to 5.41% of chargeable income.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would also like to circulate my own Table, which is an abstract of some of the data presented by the Minister for Finance in his Budget Statement last week. [Copies of tabled circulated to hon Members.] I think the Member for Rochore has committed a very basic error and a fallacy in relating the savings on tax payable on chargeable income. Surely the taxpayer does not pay tax equal to the chargeable income. In fact he pays a percentage of the chargeable income. For those in the bracket of chargeable income of $1,000 to $5,000, the effective tax rate is, in fact, 3.5%. If we look at the gross tax payable in this category of $148.75 the saving, in fact is not 0.64%. It is 17.9%, which is very much higher than what he has quoted. He said that the tax reduction is regressive; that we are penalizing the lower tax brackets. The Member for Rochore should know that under the present system all those earning below $7,000 do not pay tax at all, that is assuming that a family of four, one breadwinner, wife not working, and two children. He only starts to pay tax when he earns more than $7,000 a year, and only when he reaches $12,000 a year will he then pay a tax of $148.75. This amounts to about 15% of his monthly pay. For those in the middle bracket, by the time they reach a chargeable income of some $30,000 to $50,000, they will have to pay about one month's salary in tax. This is the progressiveness that we have introduced into our tax system for a long time, and I cannot comprehend on what grounds the Member for Rochore claimed that our tax system is regressive and inequitable and penalizing the lower income group. The interpretation of statistics, while they give a very low figure to suit the wishes of the Member for Rochore is, I submit, Sir, grossly misleading. And if it is done deliberately, it is mischievous.

The next comment that he made was on hotel rates. He mentioned:

'When a 5-star hotel in Singapore sells at 3-star rates, when an international hotel management that used to sell rooms at $200 a day now sells rooms in a new 5-star hotel at $70 a day, it goes to show the parlous state we are in.' Again, Sir, he has used only part of the statistics, conveniently omitting the others. I think we all know the $70 that he quoted. It was mentioned by one new hotel in town, and this $70 per room was specifically mentioned as a concession valid for the month of February, in which month the hotel was opened. The effective rate was, in fact, $140. This 50% would be increased progressively to 60% for March and 70% for April. So after the introductory period is over, the hotel will be charging a rate of about $110. I wonder why the Member for Rochore forgot to mention this.

If we cast our minds back three years ago, hotel rates in Singapore were much higher than even the $200 mentioned by the Member for Rochore. It was somewhere in the region of $250 to $300. Members will recall that at that time there was a great hotel shortage and the rates were jacked up so high that we were reputed to have some of the highest priced hotels in the world. At that time the developers did not complain that they were having good rates. Far from it. They were pushing to build more hotels, both new hotels and extensions to existing facilities. The Government at that time could not help stop these new buildings and extensions. If it had done so, it would be accused of stifling private initiative.

The Member for Rochore talks about flexibility in Hong Kong. He says that Hong Kong is very flexible in everything. I was in Hong Kong two years ago too when there was a hotel glut in Hong Kong as well. The prices charged by Hong Kong hotels two years ago were equivalent to what we are now having in Singapore. It was caused by, firstly, an over-supply of rooms and a drop in tourism because of political uncertainties. I was in Hong Kong just last month, Sir, and now the hotel rates in Hong Kong are much more expensive than Singapore. A 3-star hotel charges about $240 per room per night to about a 5-star hotel rate of about $300. Sir, this is what flexibility is about. If we expect Government intervention to be minimal, then we must allow the market to move. Whether the price goes up or comes down is a matter of market forces. We cannot expect the flexibility to be exercised only one way, and not the other. Whatever it is, the present supply of hotel rooms in Singapore has enabled us to become again one of the cheapest places for tourists to visit and, hopefully, our hoteliers instead of griping about empty rooms will concentrate their minds on finding more tourists now that they are more equipped to do so.

The third comment that the Member for Rochore referred to was CPF. He claimed that CPF is a tax on labour. He said:

'Ihat it may be a political gambit to placate the NTUC. But it was foolish to create the impression all along that the employer's contribution is part of their pay. It is not. It is unearned income, ... and it has never been negotiable. It is a tax on labour for social security that we have and the amount is dictated by the Government.'

Sir, the CPF has been in existence for a long time and the Member for Rochore has also been in this House and in the Government for just as long. Surely he could not be serious when he said that the CPF is a tax and is not part of the employee's pay. If it were so, how does he explain that the CPF contributor can withdraw his contribution when he reaches the age of 55. And further before he reaches 55 he can withdraw his CPF to purchase private properties which he owns. A tax by definition is a levy that is non-returnable. It goes to the Government. He also mentioned that the CPF interest rate is nowhere near the market rate. He quoted the market rate of 12.4%. He also conveniently forgot that CPF contributions also attract an interest rate of 6r% tax-free. If we were to gross this 6r% up, the equivalent tax rate is, in fact, almost 11%. There were times when the prime rate in Singapore fell below 6r%. Is the Member for Rochore suggesting that the Government be compensated, or CPF be compensated for the fall in interest?

I think the Member for Rochore, in using statistics in his own way to suit his own purposes, has misled the House. The misuse of statistics is more dangerous than sweeping statements because, if the statistics are presented only partially, it may lead to gross misinterpretation of policies and facts. Let me just caution the Opposition Members, lest they feel inclined to quote the Member for Rochore, as they have often done in the past - that if you were to use the statistics, be very careful because you may also be trapped in having to answer for some of the statistics that the Member for Rochore has omitted but that you are not aware of.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): We can take care of ourselves.

Mr Bernard Chen: Mr Speaker, Sir, the income tax proposals put forward by the Minister for Finance, as stated by the Minister himself, will go a long way towards redressing the tax burden on all categories of people, whether they be in the lower income, middle income or higher income group. I think we should run a system where, to each, we must reward his efforts that he has put in. The Member for Rochore cannot surely suggest that everybody be treated the same. If it were so, there will be no incentive to work at all.

I would like to conclude by putting my full support for the financial policy as enunciated by the Minister for Finance in his Budget speech. 12.31 pm

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance has presented his budget this year as a budget for economic recovery, and he has outlined the measures that he thinks will bring us the economic recovery. But I shall point out shortly, that he is not so sanguine about them. I am sure all of us in this House and the people of Singapore outside this House hope very much that these measures will bring us the economic recovery that we are hoping and looking forward to. I have my doubts that they will, but I shall take that up presently.

First of all, let me, Mr Speaker, Sir, voice some of my own thoughts on this Budget statement and the policies outlined generally in the Budget. The first observation that I wish to make is that the policies, if pursued, will be discriminatory. They discriminate against the lower income group. They discriminate against the worker. They are aimed to benefit the well-off. Speaking in 1983 in this House on the Budget speech, I referred to the remark made by a British Prime Minister, in the turn of the century, about the country becoming a country of two nations - one nation of the rich and one nation of the poor. I said then that the Government should take heed that its policies would not bring that to pass in Singapore. But unfortunately it would appear that the Government is not taking heed.

I am, Mr Speaker, Sir, accused sometimes of trying to divide the community. Let me ask: who is dividing the community? Is it the policies that are pursued by the Government that will divide the community, or is it the utterances of some- one who points out that these policies will tend to divide the country? May I ask whether one is expected, in the face of divisive policies, to keep quiet and let the gap between the rich and the poor get wider and wider? Is one not expected, as part of his responsibilities as a citizen, to point this out? I, Mr Speaker, Sir, cannot remain silent when I see that the policies of this Government are divisive. I was not elected by the voters of Anson to remain silent. They were quite sure when they elected me that I would discharge that one duty, that is, to speak up for them, not so much to get benefits for them but to speak up for them. If they had wanted someone to agree with the Government and to keep quiet when he should speak up, they would no doubt have elected my opponent in the 1981 by-election and in the 1984 general elections.

But I see, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I am not alone in this view that the policies of the Government are discriminatory against the lower income group. I see from a report in the Straits Times of 15th March that an economist in the University has made the same remark that the policies, if pursued, will result in the lower paid having a lesser share, ie, a decreasing share in the economic cake of the country. So I am not alone in saying that the policies would appear to be discriminatory. They are discriminatory.

The other thing is the absence, entirely in this Budget statement, of the role or a place for the labour movement. It would appear that the Budget assumes that persons who have anything to do with economic recovery are only the businessmen and the people with money and that the workers in Singapore have really no place in this economic recovery, no contribution to make, except of course the oft-repeated admonitions to them: work harder, work harder, work harder. That is all they have to do.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I refer the House to the statement made by, I think, the then Minister for Trade and Industry and now the Minister for Education on 11th December 1981 when he was speaking at a University forum. I referred to this in my speech here on 15th March 1982 on the Budget debate, and this is what he said then:

'It is the workers and the management who will decide whether or not Singapore continues to thrive in the 1980s or begin the slippery slide to disorder, unemployment and stagnation.' As I then pointed out, I said I was grateful to him when he put the workers first - "it is the workers and the management who will decide". In his Budget speech, he acknowledged the contribution of the workers for the growth in the year preceding when he said:

'They worked harder and smarter than the year before and acquired new skills.' But in this present Budget statement it would appear that our workers are completely ignored. They have really no place or no part to play in the economic recovery. That, I think, is regrettable because of the contributions that they have made to the economic progress of this country. That should be acknowledged and then they should be told now what is their role in this economic recovery and how they would be helped to play that role. I will deal with that a little later, Mr Speaker, Sir.

May I go on to the adequacy of the measures. As I said, I have my doubts whether these measures will in themselves be adequate to bring about the economic recovery which we are all hoping. The Minister, in presenting the Budget, said we should not be overly sanguine. We have now for the first time an admission that we are in the midst of a severe recession. The Minister makes that admission at two places in his Budget speech. That is something, because in the past we have had Ministers trying to make light of the recession.

One cannot help contrasting the present Minister's remarks about his hopes for recovery with the remarks made in 1985 by the then Minister for Finance presenting his budget. In his reply, he said [Col. 960 dated 19th March 1985]:

'I have to inform the Members of this House that the rumours about the impending demise of our economy are greatly exaggerated.' I have already mentioned more than once about the inability of the Government to see the trends that the economy was taking. He said in 1985 - it is good to remind ourselves of what he said then - finishing his speech in reply to all the speeches that were made on the debate, he said:

'We have every reason to be optimistic that, as the motto of one of our schools says, "The best is yet to be.".' Some best we have had since then.

Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the reasons why I am not optimistic, and it has been mentioned, is that the policies will further depress local demand. I have said before, and I say it again, that not enough attention is paid to local demand. I see that an article in the Far Eastern Economic Review last week says this as well, ie, that while exports are important it is the local demand that would seem to be causing anxiety.

Then there is an assumption in the Budget that all these concessions that are being given to the companies and to the businessmen will somehow find their way back into new investments and that they will be ploughed back into expansion of the industries or businesses that are carried on. Well, we all hope that that will be the result. But I have my doubts, very serious doubts, whether they will not take them away as soon as they get these concessions rather than put them back into this country. I am, of course, talking about the MNCs and the foreign companies.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we perhaps tend to rely too much on foreign investment and foreign expertise. We seem to think that our local people are not in themselves able or adequate to find solutions and to come up with solutions for our economic ills. There is, in my view, very little encouragement that is being given to local entrepreneurship. We have heard only this morning about the over-regulatory feature of this Government which has, to put it quite simply, put our local businessmen into a straitjacket. They cannot do anything without first having to get permission for this and that from the Government. I hear this again and again, even in small matters. If they do something, immediately somebody swoops down on them and says, "Oh no, you can't do this. You cannot even put up a stick in your garden. You have to report this to the Building Control Division."

An hon. Member: Is that true?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is time we changed our attitude towards our local entrepreneurship. There is too much reliance on foreign advice. We were told, even over the establishment of marina centres, in a Ministry statement, that the Government was going to send somebody overseas to learn how to develop these marina centres. But we have our own clubs here, and I was going to mention yesterday, "They have been clamouring to be heard." They wrote to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister referred them to the Ministry of Community Development. The Ministry of Community Development shuttled them to the Ministry of National Development. And they have still not been heard. All they are asking is that they be heard before the Government proceeds on its plan to set up marina centres, because they say they have got ideas. So may we have less reliance on foreigners and more reliance on our own people, on our own people's ingenuity and their ability to cope or to come up with solutions to our problems.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think what is needed more than anything else, besides the measures that are being outlined, is a complete change of attitude on the part of the Government and the Ministries, and particularly the statutory boards. It is no exaggeration to say that our economy has been brought to its present state by the overcharging by Government and statutory boards for all kinds of supplies and services rendered by the Government and the statutory boards to the community. There has been some faint recognition of this in the rebates that were frantically handed out last year.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the whole philosophy has to undergo a change, whether it is the proper function of Government and statutory boards (statutory boards are quasi government) to accumulate wealth as one of the objectives for their existence. We have been told about the huge surpluses that have been accumulated by the statutory boards. This year we are budgeting for a deficit. In truth, there is no deficit if you bring in all the surpluses from the statutory boards. So it is just an illusion that there is a deficit.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let us take the HDB, one of the statutory boards. The HDB was set up to provide low-cost housing for the lower income group, the wage earners. That should have been its main objective. That objective seems to have been somewhat lost sight of. As the HDB began to look upon itself as a commercial organization, like one of the MNCs operating in Singapore, it became greedy for profits and started venturing into private sectors where it should not venture. The only motivating factor would appear to have been that these activities, if indulged in by the HDB, would bring in immense profits. And, of course, the HDB has made profits. And as the Auditor-General pointed out, the HDB invested monies in the MND Holdings company, which was outside the ambit of its powers laid down in the Housing and Development Board Act. And as I have pointed out more than once, they have made immense profits but they do not bring those profits back. They are all secreted away, still with the MND Holdings. I could go on, Mr Speaker, Sir, about the activities of the HDB.

Some hon. Members: Carry on.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Now, we have heard about prices of HDB flats. HDB tried to cash in into the boom, started over-building, jacked up the prices along, of course, with the URA. Then you have the car parks. The HDB saw that as a very profitable source of business. Car park fees went up, quite unnecessarily. And rentals for shop houses. The HDB saw that again as a convenient source of revenue, forgetting that it was set up as a public housing body. And so we have rentals raised by the HDB from time to time. I have, Mr Speaker, Sir, somebody living in my constituency who has a shop in the Rochor Centre. He said that his rental was increased by the HDB from $1,100 to $2,800 within a period of one year. And he said, "I can't carry on any business there." This is the sort of thing that has killed many businesses in Singapore. So I say, besides these measures, a change of attitude is important. But will we get this change of attitude from the Government and the statutory boards? - That profits are not the only motive for the existence of Government and statutory boards, - that Government exists for other purposes and not to make profits on all its operations, that statutory boards do not exist just to make profits, huge profits, on all their operations. One can understand wanting to cut even but not to accumulate huge surpluses.

Mr Speaker, Sir, one other aspect of this Budget Statement, before I come to the measures in the afternoon, that I wish to touch on briefly now is that the Budget does not address itself at all to the problem of unemployment, which I said in the debate on the President's Address is a stark reality. It does not say anything to these unemployed workers. They are just left to take care of themselves, "I am all right, Jack." I want to know from the Minister what measures the Government proposes to take for those who are unemployed and who are unable to get jobs over a period of six months, nine months, one year. It is no good pretending (I tell this Government that people have been unemployed) that people have not been unemployed for six months, nine months. I know of several cases. I see that in a panel discussion, the managing director of a bank from New York says, "Oh, let things get worse, let there be more unemployment. Then the workers will come to their senses. They will not be choosy." Is that what the Government proposes to do? Do nothing; let it get worse? And who will suffer? Just the workers. Who cares?

I want to know from the Minister why is it not possible to give unemployment relief. Because unemployment, as I see it, is going to be with us - not only for the next two years, it will probably become a permanent feature. I think it is time we discarded these ideas about unemployment relief being a soft measure, soft option, subsidy, and faced the problem fairly and squarely. And I hope I am not going to be told that the United Kingdom and other countries have all been brought to their knees because of unemployment relief. It is nonsense, as any good economist would tell you. I have said that it makes good economic sense to look after your workers who are unemployed.

Mr Speaker: Order. It is 1.00 pm. The Sitting is suspended until 2.30 pm.

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