ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [11th July, 1997],

"That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1st April, 1997 to 31st March, 1998.". - [Minister for Finance].

Question again proposed.

Dr S. Vasoo (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in the debate.

Sir, I rise to support the Budget Statement delivered by the Minister for Finance. Some people are disappointed with the Budget, because over the years the tremendous expectations of incentives and various perks have been accorded. With these rising expectations, the present Budget did not provide for these incentives to be given, and it is natural that people have expected more but it has not happened. Therefore, there have been disappointments in various quarters related to the Budget.

I personally feel that the Budget is well thought of and has got long term plans in trying to meet the various challenges ahead, and we should in fact thank the Minister for Finance for thinking through a Budget which would allow Singapore to deal with the various socio-economic challenges ahead. The issue is that social and economic environment changes and therefore we cannot anticipate how this is going to affect Singapore accurately, but we must be able to foresee some of these things and therefore the Minister has taken these issues into consideration. I must say that the Budget has not met with the expectations the people have in mind. Particularly those in the manufacturing and industrial sectors were rather disappointed with the Budget that has been presented. Indeed, they have expected more because they were anticipating that the economy would be shrinking, the economy is on a down turn and therefore they expected the Minister for Finance to pump prime the economy in order to stimulate it. But I am sure he does not believe in pump priming the economy at this stage, because there are other prudent measures that have been undertaken by the Minister in his well-considered Budget for this year.

Sir, the thing that we should look at objectively is that the Budget is a sober one. It reflects the socio-economic situation around and, therefore, it is in response to a slow economic situation that we are facing and hence it is a prudent Budget which has been tabled in this House. I must say that the Budget itself looks at the long term perspective in terms of how we can further strengthen Singapore's competitive edge and its capacity to meet the challenges ahead.

Overall, Sir, some financial analysts and people have said that we should count our blessings. We are indeed fortunate that because of our prudent policy, the Singapore dollar has remained quite strong. The economic fundamentals are strong and this is what many financial analysts have said. This is true because if we look around, many of the currencies in the region have been affected by speculation, by socio-economic problems which the countries in the region are facing. And if we take the trouble to explore this and look outside Singapore itself, we begin to realise that many currencies in the region are being battered, and many people have lost money if they had invested in currencies of the region.

Sir, for the Singapore dollar itself and the fundamentally strong economic situation and the plans that we have, we have seen that the economy is on track. We have been subjected to various vagaries of other economic changes which we have no control and hence we are naturally going to be affected in some way or other. But if we look at it objectively as a whole, the Singapore economy is moving along, although it is not performing as well as it should, but it is performing satisfactorily, according to the various reports and submissions that have been given by the Ministry of Finance together with the economic forecast by the Economic Development Board itself.

Sir, what is important for us is to ask ourselves this question: why is the Singapore dollar still strong compared to other currencies in the region? I think that is a very fundamental question that we should ask. The Singapore dollar is very strong because, as the Minister for Finance has said, the Budget that has been planned is based on a surplus budget. And it is always good to work on a surplus budget, rather than a deficit budget. Based on a surplus budget that has been planned over the years, the Singapore economy has remained fairly sound and fundamentally strong. Therefore, that is one of the main reasons why the Singapore dollar has remained quite strong despite recent pressures by forex and other speculators on the Singapore dollar. Sir, we should, in fact, appreciate and commend the Minister for Finance for thinking through far ahead in terms of ensuring that the economy stays on track.

Sir, we should ask ourselves whether a budget surplus is really necessarily good for Singapore or we should, like many other countries, look at the basis of deficit, and in many places budgets are worked on the basis of deficit. Many countries have run into budget deficits and they have gone into borrowing, and this has led many economies into serious problems. I am indeed impressed by the fact that Singapore is worked on a surplus budget and this has enabled us to stay economically strong and to be able to counter against various economic contingencies that we may face in the near future.

Sir, there are two issues that I would like to bring up. We have this surplus budget and we are doing reasonably well. I would like to take up two issues which I feel that we should be generous about and we could do more. First, despite the revision of the Singapore Allowance for pensioners - the lowest is about $10 and rising up to $300 or so - I would like to say that the impact on the low income pensioners has been very marginal and small. And this is a group of people that we should think of helping them alleviate some of the difficulties that they face. I do not have the figures but I know that there is a sizable proportion of low income pensioners who receive less than $300 a month. If that is the case, many of them are affected by the fact that the minimum household requirement is in fact more than $300.

In this respect, I feel that the Minister for Finance should be more generous in trying to see what we can do for the low income pensioners. And I have been, together with my colleagues, advocating that we should review and see what we could do, because many of these people have in fact committed very long years of service to the Government. They have indeed done a lot of public good, supported Singapore during hard times and have given the best of their years of service to the nation. It is important for us not to forget them and the meagre increase in the Singapore Allowance needs to be reviewed. We can do a lot more and I would urge the Minister for Finance to relook at the needs of this group of low income pensioners and see what could be done. I would suggest a top-up for this group of people, particularly those who are receiving less than $300, by increasing their base as this would indeed be a tremendous relief for them. This would be a very good gesture and we should, in fact, do the best that we can for this group of people.

The second issue is that we need to be more generous in giving higher tax rebates for families who need to care for their aged sick parents because there is a growing number of families who need to look after their aged sick parents. We would like many of these aged sick parents to stay within the family so that care and support can be given within the family. The number is likely to become very acute in the near future. We need to take certain positive steps to register those who really look after their aged sick parents and they should be given higher relief than the $4,500 which will be generally accorded to normal families who have to look after their aged parents. There should be some differentiation in terms of support to this group of families who are facing quite a lot of financial strain if they were to continue to look after their aged sick parents.

I would also like the Minister to see whether a tax offset can be given against the maid levy, particularly for families that are looking after their aged sick. If they hire a domestic maid to look after the aged person and he remains within the household, there may be a case for us to look at how these families could be supported. I would urge the Minister to consider whether a tax offset can be given to this increasing number of families who engage domestic maids to look after their aged parents. The bottom line is that either you build more institutions to look after a number of them or you encourage families to look after the old within their own neighbourhood or community or within the family itself. The option is to enable the families to strengthen the family's capacity to look after their aged sick parents. It is, indeed, Sir, a serious burden that many families have to face. I would urge the Minister to seriously look at this whole issue because it is an issue that we will face critically in future.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore's economy began to show signs of weakening from the third quarter of 1996. According to the Economic Survey of Singapore, in our GDP there was a negative growth of 3.9% in the manufacturing sector in the third quarter of 1996, and there was -0.7% growth in the fourth quarter, and in the first quarter of this year, there was again a negative growth of 6.7%.

In the other sectors of our economy, the building sector, for example, the growth was also reduced from 26.9% in the first quarter of 1996 to 10.7% of the same period in 1997. In the commerce side, the growth was reduced from 10.4% to 3%. In transport and communications, it also dropped from 10.7% to 0.6%. Only the financial services sector performed well and was our star performer for the first quarter of this year.

According to the newspaper report this morning, although our external trade has put up a better performance in the second quarter of this year, we do not know whether this trend would continue. It is still an uncertainty.

In the manufacturing sector, the problem of rising cost is troubling the SMEs in Singapore and I think the Government should not take it lightly because this might result in many factories closing down. Faced with a situation where the manufacturing sector began to suffer a negative growth in the third quarter of 1996, the Government's reaction was to recommend through the NWC that the workers' average wage increase be restrained to not more than last year's 6.7%. The Government wants the workers to accept moderate wage increases, yet the cost of living here keeps going up. For example, bus fares, MRT fares and taxi fares have increased. Waste disposal charges have gone up, and university tuition fees were raised. Water tariffs will go up by 7 times. HDB flats are getting more and more expensive, and there is this impending electronic road pricing that is sending chills down the spines of the motorists.

If the Government does not prudently address the problem of rising cost of the manufacturing sector, resulting in the manufacturing sector not being able to survive or to register positive growth, then there is surely no question of higher wages for the workers. Yet, on the other hand, the Government continues to raise various charges and the ordinary citizens will have to face the serious problem of rising cost of living. Rise in service charges and the cost of living will make life more stressful for the people.

This Budget gives the people some $3 to $5 a month, or rebates of $100 to $200 a year. In comparison to the higher charges and cost of living as well as the more stressful life, the giving of these rebates is like trying to put out a burning cartload of faggots with a cup of water. It is an utterly inadequate measure.

Yesterday, the Member for Jalan Besar said that the Government was sharing its fruit of success with the people by giving rebates in rental and SC/CC charges through the HDB. What he had forgotten to alert the people in his speech was that these are a very small token of return after the Government raises the charges and taxes. In this so-called "pro-people" budget, the various kinds of rebates given by the Government to the people are not very much. The rebates proposed to be given by the Government to the people total not more $400 million. But the various levies to be collected from the people are increased by leaps and bounds. For example, the revenue from licence fees and permits is estimated to be $3,178.4 million. Vehicles-related revenue is $2,197.7 million. GST collection is estimated to be $1,860 million. As such, the tiny bit of rebates provided by the Government to the people is simply paled into insignificance when compared with all the tax revenues I have just mentioned.

Sir, as a long term strategy for our economy, I think the Government should look comprehensively into how to reduce the cost of living and the cost of doing business here. The dilemma we are facing now is that if we increase the charges and the wages are not increased, the people will have difficulty in making ends meet. 20% of our salary goes to the CPF, which we cannot touch. A small increase in wages will not be sufficient to defray the increases in charges. On the other hand, if we keep on increasing the wages, the cost of doing business will go up and we will lose our competitiveness.

Many people have argued that we could reduce costs by increasing productivity. But to improve productivity will take time. In the past, we have been attracting more investments and promoting automation to improve our productivity. But to invest in more advanced machinery can have certain limitations because our operation processes now are already highly automated. What we have to look into now is how to improve the quality of our human resources to improve our productivity. To improve productivity, we also have to go through training and to change the work attitude of our workers. It has a lot to do with the basic educational level of our workers. All this will take some time before we could see any effect in improving our productivity.

In order to alleviate the burden of our people, the Government will have to provide more financial support to the service institutions so that they will not have to increase their charges. By providing financial aid to these organisations does not result in the people depending on Government's subsidy because this does not mean providing free services to the people, but just to make sure that the charges will not go up too much. So I feel that the Government should consider giving subsidies to the following areas: public transport, maintenance of HDB flats, waste disposal charges and university tuition fees. Our people will then not have to bear the very heavy burden in our cost of living.

Mr Seng Han Thong (Ang Mo Kio): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday the Member for Kreta Ayer-Tanglin described the Budget as a "Shenton Way Budget" because it benefits the financial sector the most. I think this is a "Shenton Way Budget" because NTUC is also in Shenton Way and it benefits the workers as well. As for the rebates for HDB residents, our taxi drivers, bus workers and factory workers all live in HDB estates and they also benefit from these rebates.

The Minister for Finance announced that there will be a surplus of $4.1 billion in this year's budget. Although it is the smallest since 1992, a surplus is a surplus. As we always say in our greeting during the Chinese New Year " The Minister for Finance has done the same. We have surplus year after year. Just now, the Member for Hougang described the rebates as "pittance". This is what we always say. "If we do not give, you complain. We give, you complain even more." I think the Member for Hougang is a Teochew. So let me use a Teochew saying which, translated liberally, means, "if you do not have, you complain that there is none for you. If you have, you complain that it is not good enough."

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Can I seek a clarification?

(In Mandarin): "If you do not have, you complain that you do not have. If you have, you complain that it is not good enough." Let me give you another Teochew saying which, loosely translated, means, "No big deal!"

Mr Seng Han Thong: ( In Mandarin): The Member for Hougang also referred to other matters, saying that the workers in Singapore are facing heavy pressure in life. He claimed that the amount of rebates is very small and of not much use. If we look at the rebates, it totals $36 million for rentals. For the utilities rebates, it is $72 million. Which other government in the world can give so much rebates to the people?

The Member for Hougang also said that these rebates are only a small fraction of the revenues collected by the Government. This is the way we manage the country. Those who are required to pay income tax are the more successful Singaporeans - about 30% of the population. The other 70% do not pay income tax. So those who can afford to buy cars are, of course, richer than the lower income group. So we will tax those who are more successful and plough back the surplus as a rebate to the lower income group. Does the Member for Hougang not agree with this way of reallocation of wealth?

Yesterday, the NCMP also referred to the plight of the workers. He said that some workers had to take on two jobs just to make ends meet. Yes, there might be some workers in Singapore who are doing this. Unfortunately, they do not join our trade unions. If they do, they may come across some good union leaders who can advise them on how to go for retraining and upgrade their skills so that they can get one better-paid job, instead of taking on two lowly-paid jobs. According to my statistics, in July 1997, there are some 9,900 workers attending training courses initiated by NTUC, and in the WISE course, we have 7,200 students. All these people know how to do their work and how to go for retraining in order to increase their ability to earn a better income. These workers will certainly sing the song: "Tomorrow will be better".

Mr Speaker, Sir, in seven months' time, we will be debating the 1998 Budget and that will be another budget with surplus. There will be some more rebates for the people, and then the Member for Hougang will say, "No big deal!" But then, how many countries in this world can do this?

I would like to make two proposals here. First, the Government should inform every household how much rebate it will get and allow those who are willing, to donate these rebates to charitable organisations. This I will elaborate later. Secondly, the Government should plough back from our surpluses more funds into the charitable organisations for their development and recurrent expenditure.

This year, Singaporeans will receive a lot of rebates on utilities, S&C and rental charges and residents of 1-room to 5-room HDB flats will receive the benefits. . A lot of residents do not really know how much rebates they get, and they think it is only a few dollars a month. That is the reason why the Member for Hougang said, "Don't talk too much." But I estimate that every household will benefit by $150. To the lower income family, this is not bad. I think this policy is "pro-people". They not only make the people happy but also grateful. For those who live in 4-room or 5-room flats, they enjoy better conditions of living and they are living quite well. So some of them told me that they feel too shy to accept these rebates, and some of them think that these are small amounts of money which they do not care too much about.

I would propose that the Government issue a letter to every household informing them how much rebates they will get and at the same time ask them whether they are prepared to donate these rebates to charitable organisations or grassroots organisations. Because the rebates are to be used to offset their payments to Singapore Power and the Housing and Development Board, we should also inform the residents how much utilities rebate, rental rebate and S&C rebate they are getting. The Government can then liaise with the CDC, the self-help groups and other charitable organisations, the Community Chest so that the residents who are willing to donate their rebates to these organisations could do so.

Although this may add to the administrative work of the Government, it can nevertheless achieve two objectives. First, all the residents will understand very clearly how much rebate they will get from the Government. Secondly, it will enable those residents who are willing to donate their rebates to these charitable organisations to do so. This is good for bonding the people with the Government and among themselves - the successful and the less successful, and this will be very useful.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government is now trying to hand over the administration of welfare work to civic organisations. Many of these civic organisations which have taken over the old folks' homes, family service centres, etc, have problems raising funds. They are always short of funds. So they have to start raising funds. That is their first job. The community leaders go to the shopkeepers in the HDB estates to raise funds. Professionals raise funds from the more successful people, and we have more and more fund-raising activities. In the past, every Saturday we walked past the Capitol Theatre, we saw a lot of young people holding metal cans to collect donations by selling flags. Now if you want to raise funds, you cannot depend on the cans alone. You have to use all kinds of devices such as 1900 telephone-calls, the $1,000-a-table charity dinner, and all kinds of lucky draws. The civic organisations have to resort to all these fund-raising activities to help solve their financial problems. Too much time and energy is spent on fund-raising, leaving behind not much time to look after the welfare of the less fortunate people in our society, to help them live a better life. Some volunteers told me that the shopkeepers were afraid to answer their calls for fear of being asked to donate. A businessman told me that he wanted to do charity, but because there were more and more fund-raising demands and the amounts requested were getting bigger and bigger, he just could not cope with them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a fact. Voluntary organisations have not only to raise funds but also to worry about funds. Because the Government has a certain quota for the grant of development and recurrent expenditures for charitable organisations, many civic organisations which have taken over this kind of work have to worry about funds. If they want to extend their facilities or rebuild their premises, the problem is even larger. The Ministry has already fixed a ceiling for such expenditure. But this kind of ceiling must be reviewed from time to time. For example, if a charitable organisation has a recurrent expenditure of $600,000, this organisation will have to look for $300,000, that is, 50% contribution - "co-payment", as in the case of the healthcare co-payment system, in order to prevent abuse. But when civic organisations take over the running of welfare work, they must have the full support of the Government. Since the Government has surpluses, the Government should pay for it. The good work must be financed by the Government and we will be able to do more in welfare work. If you insist on a co-payment in the welfare work, I think it will deter those who are willing to take on welfare work from coming into the picture. Now that they know the Government does not want to pay anymore, they would not dare to take on welfare work. We will then have problems finding volunteers. If we want these volunteers to keep on raising funds all the time, then we are not making good use of our limited resources.

I would suggest that in the next Budget to be announced in seven months' time, the Minister for Finance would allocate more funds from the surpluses to give our welfare organisations full support so that we have more volunteers to come forward to look after the old folks' homes, creches and other welfare organisations. If we want to build a gracious and cohesive society, we should have more volunteers to look after our less fortunate people. These volunteers should be extending their helping hand and not begging hands all the time.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I clarify?

(In Mandarin): Just now, in my speech, I did not mention about personal income tax. I have no objection to the Government's reallocation of resources. Mr Seng mentioned that the Government should write to the people to tell them how much rebates they will be receiving. Can I suggest that in that case, the Government should also tell the people, after offsetting the increases, whether the final figure will be a positive number or a negative number?

We know that there are workers in Singapore, particularly those who are less educated, who need to take on more than one job in order to make ends meet. If you want them to go for training or retraining, who is going to support their families? For garbage collectors, what training can we provide them to upgrade their skills and get higher wages?

Mr Seng mentioned the song "Tomorrow will be better". I too would like to see that the workers in Singapore have a better tomorrow. But under the present circumstances, if their wages do not go up and the cost of living keeps on going up, then I think the workers will be singing "Tomorrow will be more expensive", rather than "Tomorrow will be better".

Mr Seng Han Thong: ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me answer the last part first. He said, "Tomorrow, prices will be more expensive." Of course, if our standard of living is improved, and we have to provide better facilities, then we will have to pay higher prices. So we have to balance cost and expenditure. The Member said that for the workers, it is "tomorrow will be more expensive". If you compare five years ago to today, are the workers not better off now? Every weekend, we see coach-loads of workers travelling across the causeway to have fun, shopping and eating in Johor. Many workers take their whole family for overseas holidays every year. Those who are not so well-to-do go to the neighbouring countries, and those who are better off go to China, Japan, Europe and even the USA for holidays. Our workers have also chances to go for overseas study tours. Recently, a group of our transport workers went to Hong Kong to study their public transport system. Even cleansing workers may be sent overseas to study how the advanced countries do their public cleansing work. When the Prime Minister visited the Philippines and Indonesia, he invited our union representatives to join him in his delegation. Very soon he will be visiting Mexico and I am sure he will be asking our trade unions to send representatives to see how the workers live there, as compared to how we live here. I believe that Singapore workers will have a better tomorrow.

As to how cleansing workers can go for training, I know that cleansing workers work for four to five hours a day, earning about $800 to $900 a month. Yes, their pay is low. But do they use the remaining part of the day for retraining to increase their income? As I said, doing two jobs is not a permanent solution. They should do one job and go for training during the rest of the day. Then he will increase his earning capacity. A cleansing worker came to see me. If I behave like the NCMP, I will just come to this House and make a complaint. But, no, I did more than that. I offered him a solution. I said to him, "We are short of bus drivers. Can you go and learn to become a bus driver?" He replied, "I never thought about that." That is upgrading his skills. We have the Skills Development Fund to help our workers upgrade their skills. If the worker learns and gets his driving lessons, then he will be able to increase his income from $800-$900 to $1,000-$2,000 a month. In five years' time, with overtime allowance, he will be able to earn $3,000. That is the way to raise his income, and "Tomorrow will be better".

The other matter he raised was that the Government should also set out in the letter how much the charges will be increased. I think these are two separate matters. I said that in this financial year, there are so many rebates that many people do not know. Even the Member for Hougang said it was "No big deal!" If we add them up, it is a very large sum of money. If you give the lower income people an angbao of $10, they will be happier and grateful to you. How about $50 or $100? They will be even more happy and grateful! So I think we should not mix up all these costs and expenditures together.

The Member said that he did not refer to personal income tax. But he was saying that there were a lot of revenues, and the revenues also include income tax. Vehicle taxes are also part of our revenue. What we are trying to do is to reallocate our wealth and narrow the gap between the more successful and the less successful Singaporeans, and strengthening the bonding between the two groups of people.

The NCMP and the Member for Hougang want to create the impression that this "pro-people" Budget is a very pressurising Budget. He commented that our people here are very hard-pressed and pressurized. Let me take a minute to tell you this story about "Tyranny being fiercier than a Tiger". One day, Zi Lu, a disciple of Confucius, walked past the mountain of Tai Shan and he saw an old woman crying by the roadside. He asked her, "Why are you crying?" The old woman replied, "My grandfather was killed by a tiger. My husband was killed by a tiger, and now even my son was killed by a tiger." Zi Lu reported the matter to his master. Confucius said, "Ask her why she does not move somewhere else to live?" Zi Lu went back to the old woman and asked her, "Since your life is threatened by the tiger, why didn't you and your family move somewhere else?" The old woman replied, "This government here is good. There is no tyrant here, only the tiger. That is why I have decided to continue staying here." When Zi Lu told Confucius what the old woman had said, Confucius commented, "Tyranny is fiercer than a tiger!"

One or two months ago there was talk about tigers in Pulau Ubin. When we talk about tigers, everybody is afraid. They all come to the main island of Singapore. They are not afraid of coming here, because we have a good government.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Clarification, Sir.

(In Mandarin) The story told by Mr Seng happened many, many years ago. With urbanization, all our forests are being turned into a city, so there are no more tigers in Singapore.

As for the Government, whether it is like a tiger which will suck our blood, let us leave it to the people to decide.

As for the rebates versus the increases in Government charges, I think what Mr Seng meant was that we will tell only the good news and not the bad news. He was talking about the cleansing workers who can be upgraded to bus drivers and they could earn $2,000 to $3,000. As far as I know, bus drivers are not paid so much. If they are earning so much, then they must have been working very, very long hours of overtime. Mr Seng has described our workers as very high class, going overseas, study tours, and so on and so forth. . Of course, there are some. We also know that in Singapore, there are some workers' country clubs where they can go and play golf. But the fact is, how many percent of our workers in Singapore really went and played golf or were lucky enough to be selected to go for overseas study tours? Also, for these tours, who pays for their expenses? Do they go free of charge, or do they have to pay for their expenses?

Mr Seng Han Thong: ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, before I reply to Mr Low about the bus drivers' income, let me say that I am a Director of SBS. I know the pay structure of the bus workers. Generally, the starting pay is more than $1,000. After three to five years, and if he is hardworking and does a lot of overtime work, he can earn more than $2,000, and even as much as $3,000. This is a fact and my colleague, Mr Ong Ah Heng, who is the Advisor to the Transport Workers' Union, can confirm that.

We have improved the living standard of our workers and we have improved their income as well. This is also one of the reasons why bus fares have to be increased. I would like to use the expression: "The wool must come from the sheep themselves". We know that a lot of our workers take their families away for overseas holidays once or twice every year at their own expense and then the whole family goes out on tours at their own expense.

Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, can I also clarify what was spoken by the two MPs because they have mentioned my name in their speeches. Perhaps Mr Low does not understand. For Singaporeans who are living in 1-room or 2-room rental HDB flats, their total income must not be more than $800 a month. If the total family income is less than $800, they can apply to rent a 1-room or 2-room HDB flat. So we are looking after the lower income groups in Singapore. For those who are earning less than $800 a month, but after deduction for CPF, their total income is just about $600. The rebates for water tariffs, utilities and rental and conservancy charges represent quite a large percentage of their income already.

In the PAP constituencies, every Member of Parliament gives away a lot of bursaries and scholarships to children of their constituents. Maybe in Hougang, the MP for Hougang did not give such bursaries and scholarships to his residents, and the people in Hougang may be suffering. But in our constituency, we help our constituents. It is a fact.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: ( In Mandarin): First of all, I would like to tell Mr Peh that in Hougang constituency, we have the bursary grants too. It does not come from the Government. It is a fund fully raised by us. So it has nothing to do with the Government. If Mr Peh means to make use of the Government's money to give to the residents, then it will involve a very fundamental question, that is, how should the Government make use of the people's money? I would like to remind Singaporeans what Mr Seng had said about the wool must ultimately come from the sheep themselves. Basically, what is given to you would be taken away from you.

Mr Peh Chin Hua: ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, can I also clarify? In my constituency, for the bursary and scholarship funds, I have raised about $1 million and we have used up about $600,000. All the funds were raised by us through fund-raising campaigns, not from the Government.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: ( In Mandarin): In Hougang, we give out bursaries to needy residents every year. The amount is about $20,000 a year. It may be a little less, but we are able to raise enough money to give away bursaries to our students every year. We have granted more than 80 such bursaries. We have done our best.

Mr Seng Han Thong: ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I clarify this point? He said that the wool must ultimately come from the sheep and that the Government gives you with one hand and takes back from the other hand. I would say that the Government takes from the fat sheep and give the wool to the thin sheep. It is not taking from the thin one to pay for the fat one.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in Singapore, the fattest sheep is the Government.

Mr Seng Han Thong: ( In Mandarin): The Government is the shepherd. It can take the wool from the fat sheep and put it on the thin sheep. That is what I meant by "the wool must come from the sheep".

Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed (Cheng San): Clarification from the Member for Hougang. I wonder whether he understands when he is talking about the sheep and tiger. Just now, he was saying that he is leaving it to the people to decide whether the Government is the tiger that sucks blood. I would just like to remind the Member for Hougang that the people had indeed decided. At the last election, the ruling Government has been returned with a more convincing victory.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, of course, I do not deny the fact that Singaporeans had decided that the PAP should be the Government. I think Mr Chay Wai Chuen said at the last debate that when the voters voted for me in Hougang, they know what is in store for them. So I also expect Singaporeans who have given the PAP a majority vote to expect what is in store for them. I do not deny that. But I think it is my duty here to air the views of Singaporeans and how they feel about the pressures in life and the cost increases that have inflicted a heavy burden in their life.

Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would also like to remind the Member for Hougang that when it comes to ---

Mr Speaker: Order, order. I think we have had quite a lot of clarifications. Do you have any new point to make? Otherwise, if we keep on going, we will never end this discussion.

Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed: I just want to add, Mr Speaker, Sir, that in fact, when it comes to airing of people's views, it is not the monopoly of only the opposition Member.

Mr Speaker: All right. Mr Chen.

Mr Bernard Chen (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been reading reports in the press today as to the various reactions to the Budget presented by the Minister for Finance. Everybody seems to think that this Budget is rather dull and no excitement. Even Members of the House were saying that there are not enough goodies for everybody. But if we cast our mind back, this has been the way the Finance Minister has presented the Budget for the last 10-15 years. The Budget has been rather dull every year and the economy kept on going. We get more and more things, tax reductions, and so on. If we look at the other countries, budget time is a time for crisis. There is something always going wrong in the country when the budget is presented and the people always look towards the budget to see whether the government has any solutions to resolve this crisis. You look at the recent budget in Great Britain, the Philippines and a few other countries. We are probably the only country in the world where we have a painless Budget.

Members in this House always say that the Budget is painless and the pain comes afterwards. But very few countries in the world can afford this luxury of having a budget that has no excitement. But that is not really the key to the situation. The situation is that the Budget has been painless all these years because the Government has taken pains to make sure that there is no pain. By the time the Budget is presented, the various policies are already in place and under implementation. It is because of the smooth implementation of these Budgets that we do not have the ups and downs and the worries and pains that come along with it.

But I think many people in the public, and I must say some Members as well, have missed, one very key point in the Finance Minister's Statement. He mentioned quite extensively the longer term prospects of Singapore and the challenges that we face in the coming years. The challenges are real and difficult. Those of us, especially those of us in the business world, will know what it means. We talk about creating a second wing in the region. I think all of us who are doing business in the region will know that it is very difficult doing business, whether it be in China, Russia, or in any other places.

Secondly, we ourselves have to protect our own economy because of the challenges posed by the surrounding countries in their attempt to attract investments. The key question is how we react to these challenges. What kind of sacrifice we have to make and what must we do rather than what the Government can do for us. The Government can only do so much. But if we were to secure business opportunities in the region and to increase our competitiveness, we have to play our own part as well and not depend on the Government all the time to hold our hands. So these challenges underline not only this year's Budget Statement but the Statements in the past five years and whatever the Minister has suggested in terms of incentives are meant really to pursue these objectives.

Many of our local businessmen, especially in the manufacturing industry, have complained that the Government is not doing enough for them. The Government can only go so far as to provide finance for small businesses, ie, capital assistance scheme. But the Government cannot provide the entrepreneurship which these industries must have to penetrate the region. And this is up to us. And if we take a recent example of Hong Kong and Singapore, Hong Kong succeeds despite the government. There is no government. But in Singapore, if we were to succeed as well as Hong Kong, I think we must have the same entrepreneurship, the same amount of risk-taking and the same amount of self-sacrifice if we were to carve out a niche in the marketplace.

The second point raised by many Members in this House and also outside is the huge surplus that we accumulate every year. In fact, even the Minister for Finance was a bit embarrassed when he said that this year's surplus at $5.7 billion would be less than the $7 billion we had last year. But many of us fail to see that the budget surplus has been used to finance very major development expenditures. Quite apart from the housing that we have to subsidise quite a lot, the three hospitals that we have or are building cost us about $1.5 billion. The Airport terminals will also cost billions of dollars, and the MRT line will cost $5 billion. Where did all these monies come from? Contrary to what Mr Low Thia Khiang had said that it comes from the people, it has not. The surplus did not come from taxes. The surplus came from the operation of the Government. We did not have to raise taxes to finance all these expenditures. We did not even have to borrow externally.

In many other countries, you take Taiwan, for example, in order to finance the mass rapid transit system, they have to borrow heavily. In Thailand, they cannot have the MRT system because they have got no money. We are the only country, so far as I know, that can undertake all these development projects without borrowing a single cent. This is what the budget surplus is about. If we did not have this budget surplus, then you can forget about the North-East MRT line, whether it passes through Potong Pasir or not, and you can forget about the hospitals. You can forget about a lot of things. You would not even have an airport that has been consistently considered as number one in the world. So let us get first things first. You must make the money and after that, you can think of distributing it.

Mr Low Thia Khiang has said that the wool came from the same sheep. Mr Seng said that the wool came from different sheep. Wherever the wool came from, I think the Singapore Government has returned a lot of this wool to whatever sheep of whatever sizes, except the black sheep, I suppose. We all know where the black sheep are.

The Government has consistently lowered taxes throughout the years, not only corporate taxes but also personal income taxes. Mr Low Thia Khiang may say that the lower income people do not benefit from this reduction. But he would know that now 70% of our people do not pay taxes. This again has not happened in many countries of the world. Not only that 70% do not pay taxes, whenever the Government has to pass on some benefits back to those people who pay taxes, the Government makes it a point to pass back equal benefits to those who do not pay taxes in terms of rebates on S&C charges, utility bills and so on. So everyone gets back something.

We have the asset enhancement schemes, ie, Telecom, Edusave, Medisave, etc. The amounts that are passed back are not in the millions but they are in the billions of dollars. Where did all this money come from? It is not from the people. It is from the surplus generated, and income tax only accounts for a small proportion. And considering the fact that 70% do not pay taxes, obviously, the lower income people would not have contributed to this surplus.

In a statement made on Friday, we were told that we have to pay much more for water, four or five times more. But even in this case, the Government is concerned enough for the lower income people to pass back the entire amount of increase in utility bills in the form of rebates to those in 1-, 2- and 3-room HDB flats. I do not think many governments would be in a position to do that. So it is quite obvious that the Government has been looking after the lower income people all these years, and look after them very well, despite what Mr J B Jeyaretnam and Mr Low Thia Khiang have said.

Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr J B Jeyaretnam's statement could well be true 30 years ago. But in the 30 years since the PAP came to power, I think we have done more than our fair share, much more in looking after the lower income people than any government you can name me in the world.

I think there is an increasing mentality in the Singapore people, especially the younger ones now, and it may be our fault, that they have come to expect more and more from the Government. Why doesn't the Government do this for me? Why don't we do that? Why don't you give me this? And it is because for years we have been giving. Rightly so, because of our economic success, which is their effort. But I think it is time for us also to think of the challenges posed by the Minister in his speech. We are facing very difficult times, and normal reaction would not be enough. We ourselves have to do much more, rather than depend on the Government only. If I can refer to the famous saying of Mr J F Kennedy, President of the United States. He said this in 1960 when he became President. This is almost 37 years ago. He finished his speech by saying, "Ask not what the country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." I think this statement can well be applied today. To my fellow Singaporeans, I think we should stop asking: what more can the Government give us? The Government has given you more than enough, quite a fair bit. We should rather ask: what can we do to maintain Singapore as a country that we can be proud of, that we can do business in? It depends on our sense of commitment, our sense of sacrifice and our entrepreneurship in order to tackle the next set of problems. These problems are no longer the same that we faced even five years ago. These are difficult ones and it calls for extra commitment from us.

The Minister for Finance has, in his Budget Statement, tried to pass this message across. But as in all budgets, most of the discussion concentrates on the last 10 minutes, the last five pages. But I think the bulk of his message that bears closest scrutiny are the first 20 pages.

Dr Ong Chit Chung (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Budget presented by the Minister for Finance.

Sir, I agree with my colleague, Mr Seng Han Thong, that workers in Singapore have a bright future and a better tomorrow to look forward to. Year in and year out, we have good budget presentations by our Minister for Finance, and this year, it is no exception. It is indeed a good Budget. Taxpayers welcome the 10% rebate on income tax payable, and the increased child and wife reliefs. On top of this, there are the CPF Medisave Top-Up and Pre-Medisave Top-Up Schemes. There is also an increase in parents' relief for taxpayers who are living with their parents.

Sir, all these show that the Government cares for our people, especially the senior citizens. The Government is indeed doing everything possible to encourage filial piety and to promote Asian values in our country.

In the private sector, those in the financial services sector are most happy with the new tax concession, and companies expanding overseas in their efforts to regionalise will definitely benefit from the Overseas Enterprise Incentive scheme.

There is no doubt that it is a good Budget. Of course, some in the business sector are asking whether more could be done to give a boost to private enterprise, especially now when many of the companies are facing the twin problems of increasing business cost and increasing competition. The business sectors, particularly the small and medium enterprises (SMEs), are hoping for more measures to boost the economy, and some measures to help cut or contain business cost and enhance our competitiveness.

Perhaps the fuller measures will come when the studies and report by the Committee on Singapore's Competitiveness are completed. Well, some have called this a "delayed budget", but perhaps an "interim" budget will be more appropriate. Better measures may come later on. However, some want these measures to be effected earlier. In any case, I hope our Minister for Finance will take this into consideration.

On the whole, I agree with my colleague, Mr Bernard Chen, that we should learn from Hong Kong. Many of us who have visited Hong Kong on business are impressed by the enterprise, creativeness, the self-reliance and self-sufficiency of the people of Hong Kong. Singaporeans should learn from Hong Kong. They are enterprising, they are resilient. If anything goes wrong with their business, they would not blame the government. They blame themselves; they blame on bad luck. They go and consult all sorts of people to improve their luck and they try again. They try new and better methods. They are resilient. They are self-sufficient. We, in Singapore, should borrow a leaf from their book and learn from them.

On the ground, the people are most pleased with the generous utilities rebates, S&C rebates, rental rebates and the special S&C grants announced by the Minister for Finance. These, I believe, will definitely go a long way to help the lower income groups and it demonstrates again that we have a caring Government that is concerned about the well-being of the people.

Speaking on behalf of the residents and the 14 PAP Town Councils, as the Coordinating Chairman of the PAP Town Council Committee, I wish to thank the Government for giving S&C grants of $3 per month for 1-room HDB flats, $4 for 2-room HDB flats, $5.50 for 3-room HDB flats, and $4 for 4-room HDB flats. These are indeed very generous grants from the Government.

For those of us on the ground managing Town Councils, and for the HDB residents, it is indeed good news, and I must say it is a surprise to us. We did not expect such generous grants at this point. Though it is a surprise, we are nevertheless very thankful and appreciative, and much encouraged by the support given by the Government for the lower income groups in the 1-, 2-, 3- and 4-room HDB flats.

Sir, it is not just those in the business sector who are facing rising costs. Those of us managing Town Councils also have to struggle and wrestle with the rising costs in manpower, in cleaning and maintenance work, in cyclical work, in horticultural work, and in utilities and in water. My colleague, Dr Teo Ho Pin, has referred to them yesterday.

The 14 PAP Town Councils have, therefore, no choice but to raise S&C rates from 1st October 1997. Otherwise, the Town Councils will be running into deficit budgets and there will not be enough even for the cyclical works and ordinary maintenance works. Our Town Councils have tried our best to hold back any increase. The last increase was announced way back in May 1993, over four years ago. Costs have gone up significantly since then. For example, manpower cost in one Town Council has gone up during the period by 21.5%, and re-roofing works in the same Town Council by 189%.

However, PAP Town Councils will try our very best to contain and minimize any increase, and we cannot do less than the Government and will likewise take special care of the lower income groups. The PAP Town Councils pledge not to raise S&C rates for 1-, 2- and 3-room HDB flats beyond the Government S&C grants of $3 for 1-room HDB flats, $4 for 2-room HDB flats and $5.50 for 3-room HDB flats.

In other words, the net result will be that with the matching Government grants, the 1-, 2- and 3-room flats need not pay more from their pockets in the revision of S&C rates. Any such increase will be matched and indeed cushioned by the generous Government grants. The PAP Town Councils wish to play its part and cushion any increase for the residents, despite the rising costs.

For the 4-room flats which will receive $4 per month S&C Government grant, there will be some minimal increase above the $4 grant. The full details will be announced in the next few weeks by the Town Councils.

Sir, furthermore, the PAP Town Councils will continue to contain operational costs, maximize economies of scale, mechanize the cleaning operations and cut down our dependence on manpower. And I hope our own residents will help us by keeping the estates clean and beautiful, and thereby keep the cost of maintenance down.

Sir, I support the Budget presented by the Minister for Finance.

Dr Yaacob Ibrahim (Jalan Besar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Budget Statement announced by the Minister for Finance, Dr Richard Hu.

This Budget has, in fact, addressed some of the key concerns of ordinary Singaporeans. The income tax rebate and relief for personal taxation is indeed welcomed by many. Also, the rebates for service and conservancy charges and to offset the increase in utilities charges have been warmly received. In fact, Dr Ong has just explained in detail how these increases will be offset. However, there are those who have cynically remarked that this move undermines our efforts to make ordinary Singaporeans view water as an important and strategic resource. I believe this is largely not the case. Many I spoke to from low income families within my own constituency have not only welcomed the rebates but have in fact strengthened their resolve not to waste water.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are some areas in which I would like to address with respect to the Budget. R&D support for SMEs

The generous tax incentives given out to the financial sector must have been welcomed by one and all in that sector. In fact, as mentioned by Dr Tan Cheng Bock yesterday, word has it that this is a "Shenton Way Budget", and I understand Mr Seng Han Thong also mentioned that just now. Clearly, the Government is committed to making Singapore's financial industry the best possible in this region. I am confident that the measures that have been introduced will help the industry in this direction.

There, however, has been some disquiet about the absence of specific new measures for the manufacturing sector. This sector contributes significantly to our growth and the Government has on other occasions demonstrated its willingness to also help this sector grow and flourish. Hence, the disquiet. I would also add my own concerns here. However, Sir, my interest is with the small and medium enterprises which have over the years contributed to the growth in Singapore. Through sheer hard work, SMEs have in fact managed to stay afloat despite tough competition and rising business costs. DPM BG Lee Hsien Loong noted in his speech at the presentation of this year's Singapore Quality Awards on 16th July 1997 that the number of SMEs has declined over the years. Citing Department of Statistics figures, he mentioned that only 46% of SMEs operating in 1984 were still around 10 years later. And that among those which are still around, only 30% had increases in sales and employment and only 2% became large corporations. These numbers, I think, speak for themselves.

The Government has in place a variety of programmes to help SMEs. I understand that the Productivity and Standards Board (PSB) has over 60 development programmes aimed at helping SMEs to grow and develop. Among these, there are programmes designed to help SMEs undertake collaborative research with local universities or research institutes and centres. In this regard, Sir, I wonder if the Minister would consider creating more opportunities to encourage SMEs to undertake R&D work. The Prime Minister, in his speech during the recent debate on the Presidential Address, stressed the need for this country to develop its R&D capability in order to stay ahead. I think his call applies to all companies, big and small. The perception, however, is that most SMEs are not willing to undertake R&D work either due to the high cost or risks associated with such activities. This is where I believe a mindset change, something which has been discussed a lot lately, on the part of SMEs is needed. SMEs must begin to realise that in order to stay ahead, they must innovate. My senior colleague, Mr Bernard Chen, has just called for Singaporeans to do something instead rather than wait for the Government to do something for them. This is a case in point. Also, on the Government side, we must find creative ways of attracting these companies to undertake R&D work.

Small companies, unfortunately, do not have pockets as deep as the MNCs. R&D work usually does not bear fruit for a long time and tends to cost a lot. Hence, the way to go for SMEs is to form R&D consortia where the costs and risks can be minimised but the benefits can be shared by all. I understand such efforts are already in place but tend to involve large companies and have involved companies in a very narrow range of technology areas. Perhaps, the Government may want to consider making such arrangements more accessible to interested SMEs and encouraging efforts in a broad range of research areas. Participating companies could be given some financial incentives to encourage them to get involved. We need to convince more SMEs to participate in such arrangements as the costs and risks involved are minimised. Another way is to encourage big companies, such as MNCs, which are applying for R&D grants to rope in their suppliers, who are usually SMEs. In this way, the entire chain of companies involved benefits. I am confident that many SMEs would welcome some sort of help from the Government to help them remain competitive. Funds for National Education

Sir, given the importance of National Education, I am somewhat surprised that there is no special provision in the Budget for this undertaking. We have heard several of our top leaders and MPs voicing the need for National Education. Here, Sir, I would like to suggest that perhaps the Government consider starting a fund for National Education.

The thrust of National Education is to ensure that succeeding generations of Singaporeans will continue to remember how this nation of ours came about despite the odds and the turbulent times we went through in the 50s and 60s. It is an attempt to pass memories down to the next generation. And, in so doing, to mould a people into a nation. The Government has, on its part, undertaken this task through a variety of projects. For example, the education curriculum, as I understand it, will be modified to incorporate elements of National Education. A recently launched exhibition in the Singapore History Museum entitled "From Colony to Nation" attempts, in a simple yet informative manner, to illustrate our short history. I understand a bigger exhibition is planned for next year. This is well and good.

However, should not the dissemination and familiarisation of our history be done also by groups outside the Government? After all, the history of our country belongs to everybody. And I believe that there is a role for private groups in National Education. Private groups, by their very nature, would take a somewhat different perspective on National Education. With the inclusion of private groups, Singaporeans would be served a wide menu of presentations on National Education. Some will find one dish more appetising than others. In the end, all will be served. I believe in the long run it would be better for our country if the implementation of such an important subject as National Education includes everyone, as it would bolster a sense of collective ownership in our history.

A fund for National Education would attract private groups. They could apply for support from this fund to implement some National Education projects. Private production houses, for example, could use this fund to produce children's TV programmes to promote National Education. I am sure we can think of a variety of projects which private groups could undertake. Such an arrangement is not uncommon in Singapore. The Government, for example, has set aside some money which private groups can tap into to fund projects which promote the Singapore Family Values. A Committee known as the Singapore Family Values Promotion Committee (SFVPC) decides on each application for funding.

Thus, Sir, a similar fund could be set up by the Government to draw upon the resources and expertise available from private groups and organisations in our National Education effort. This fund would signal to the ground that this Government is serious about National Education and that everyone in Singapore has a role to play in its dissemination.

Support for people pursuing arts education

Our DPM Dr Tony Tan spoke in this House about the need to develop a stronger spirit of creativity and innovation in Singapore. The development of creativity through the arts is important for Singapore for two reasons: to establish Singapore as a cultural renaissance city and to sharpen Singapore's economic competitive edge. I fully support this view. I welcome the move to develop further both LaSalle-SIA College for the Arts and the Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts (NAFA). We need capable and talented men and women who can contribute to the artistic and creative life in Singapore, and man the key institutions and bodies which govern art life in Singapore. We will need people to manage the Singapore Art Centre, to guide the National Arts Council and to oversee the many museums that we have here.

Along these lines, Sir, one question that comes to mind is what incentives are in place to encourage students to pursue a career in the arts? Do we need such incentives in the first place? I believe we do. Given a choice, most students would prefer a career in professions such as law, engineering and medicine. In fact, we have seen a trend where students choose to do a course in business rather than engineering. The reasons invariably revolve around the perceived potential income associated with each profession. I believe there is enough talent in this country to develop a vibrant art life.

The recently launched Singapore Youth Festival which I attended showcase the many talents which are available in our schools, in which even the Minister for Education agreed with me by nodding his head just now.

Those who pursue a career in the arts often do so because they believe in it. However, the remuneration is not always comparable to other professions. Given our goal of establishing Singapore as a renaissance city, I would suggest that the Government provide more incentives for people pursuing education in the arts. These incentives can come in a variety of forms, eg, scholarships, low cost loans and other financial incentives. Such incentives would help to underscore the importance of arts education in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would welcome any move by the Minister for Finance to consider my humble suggestions.

On this note, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Chng Hee Kok (East Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just seek a clarification from Dr Ong Chit Chung? He mentioned earlier that the S&C charges increase which the PAP Town Councils are contemplating will be offset by the grants for those living in 1-, 2- and 3-room flats. Is it not possible that, in some cases, the residents may suffer from some marginal increases because of the fact that the Town Councils comprise different areas which were amalgamated after the last general election?

Dr Ong Chit Chung: Mr Speaker, Sir, each Town Council has to decide, within its boundaries, how best to harmonise different rates. For example, my Bukit Timah Town Council has five former Town Councils within our current purview and we have to harmonise all the rates after the general election. We will try our best to harmonise in such a way that it would be fair to all residents, and we will take a benchmark and add on the new rates, bearing in mind the Government grants. So there will be minor differences. But on the whole I think the effect will be cushioned by the Government grant. But definitely, from area to area, each Town Council can make its own adjustment and decide on its own how best to serve the residents and how best to peg it.

Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (Bukit Timah): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, let me congratulate the Minister for Finance for a "pro-people Budget" which benefits the lower income group. However, while adopting these "pro-people" policies, we must also remind our people that they should not take our present economic successes for granted. They must not forget to keep on improving their skills to ensure their life-long employability, and to assist Singapore maintain its leading position in a competitive global economy.

When we are debating the Budget, we are very calm and relaxed in our discussion. But, according to my colleagues who have just returned to Singapore, they are apprehensive of the economic problems of countries which they have just visited. Recently, the NTUC sent a study mission to 3 countries in Europe, ie, Switzerland, France and Germany. According to its Report, which captures my attention, the unemployment situation in Europe is very serious. The unemployment problem is mainly structural in nature. For example, in France, the unemployment rate is 12.6% and structural unemployment accounts for 9.7%. In Switzerland, of the 5.3% unemployment rate, 3% is structural in nature. Why should there be structural unemployment?

Different economies have different theories. But according to the Report I have received, the three main factors are, first, in the economic context, the technological demand and employment demand are not properly coordinated. In other words, some workers above the age of 40 who have lower educational qualification cannot find suitable employment. In the meantime, many companies are upgrading and restructuring and they need more skilled workers. But those unemployed are not able to meet the requirements of employers. That has thus resulted in structural unemployment.

The other factor is that the unemployed have to share the job with existing workers. In other words, existing workers have to shorten their working hours so as to share their work with the unemployed. Sometimes, two jobs are shared among three workers. However, despite shorter working hours, the workers and the unions are not prepared to accept lower wages. The companies are having difficulty resolving this problem.

The most `fatal' factor is the existing rigid welfare system in these countries which has resulted in the Government having to spend more when unemployment rate is high. However, the Government does not have the extra money to spend. With high unemployment, the Government wants to step in to train and retrain these people, but there is not enough money to conduct the necessary training programmes.

When we talk about the Singapore Budget, we must not forget that as a trade union leader, our most important job is to help our workers generally. We must maintain our competitiveness and to ensure Singapore's full employment situation. Under such a situation, even if the unions do not ask for a wage increase, the employers will take the initiative to offer wage increase. We must understand that we may not be able to enjoy a full employment situation forever. Take, Switzerland, for example. They have been enjoying 30 years of full-employment, but now they are also facing high unemployment problems.

Even when our economy is good, the Minister for Finance and all the other Government agencies must constantly review and implement policies to encourage workers to continuously upgrade their skills. According to our report on retrenched workers, from 1987 to 1996, the number of retrenched workers in Singapore rose from 3,600 to 11,000. Most of these people are above the age of 40 who have a lower educational level. They are unable to find an alternative job that pays the same salary. If you want them to go for training, they have problems too. A few Members have already touched on this. I will not repeat here.

According to statistics from the Skills Development Fund, there are 700,000 workers in Singapore above the age of 40, and among them 56%, or 400,000, did not complete their secondary education. So our main task ahead is to encourage this category of workers to continue upgrading their skills to ensure life-long employability. Regarding this, I believe the Government has certain schemes in place already. But I personally feel that the Government has not done enough.

Although for the past 18 years we have been rated as the most competitive labour workforce by BERI, in terms of technical skills, we are ranked 39th; in terms of motivation, we are ranked 12th; and in terms of workers' ability to accept changes, we are ranked 7th. As such, when we talk about training or retraining of our workers, it is not only technical training but also training on teamwork, work attitude and other aspects of human conduct and behaviour.

The Singapore Standards and Productivity Board, trade unions, and EDB have been providing some ad hoc training programmes. I think we should set up a coordinating centre for continuing education and training. The NTUC has considered this very seriously. One of the problems we encounter is that our workers were educated in different language streams. We have to encourage them to learn English before they go for skills training courses. This is very difficult. For those who are above 40, I think we should have a nation-wide standard evaluation system to ascertain their skill levels and to upgrade their skills accordingly.

Some Members have talked about the bus drivers. Like workers in some industries, they can only work up to the age of 45. We have to help them find a suitable job later by providing them with career guidance as to what kind of jobs are high in demand in Singapore, and whether these jobs are suitable for them. Therefore, a coordinating centre would be needed to do the study and investigation on the needs of different trades and industries, and the training required. Perhaps we can set a certain quota or criteria on how many workers we want to train or retrain per year. Otherwise, it may be too late to train the unemployed when structural unemployment occurs in Singapore. We will then be faced with the same problem as the European countries. So we must ensure that at least 50% of our workers in our workforce undergo training or retraining programmes.

Next, we must have proper educational guidance so that our people can understand the need of training and retraining. They must be willing to sacrifice a few hours every evening to ensure they remain employable for the next 10 to 20 years. At present, our workers claim that they cannot afford the time to go for training or retraining because they need to work overtime or take up two jobs to make ends meet. Therefore, our training programmes must be made flexible in terms of time and contents (so as to meet the needs and the time of the workers) to help them overcome their problems.

When we talk about training fund, the Government has told us that money is not the problem. In Singapore's situation, we have enough funds. Since money is not a problem, the real problem is whether the money has been properly allocated. I think in our Budget, it has not been very clearly indicated as to how we are going to help our workers and employers to undergo the training programme. I would suggest that we set up a National Centre for Training, with financial support from the Government. Since the Government is so generous to train our present students through the Edusave top-up, I think we should also seriously consider setting up a personal skills training savings account for each of our workers.

In short, the NTUC's suggestion is that the Government and the employers should set up a nation-wide coordinating centre for continuous training for our workers until they reach their retirement age. It is only through skills upgrading, productivity enhancement and full employment that we will be able to improve our standard of living, especially for those low skilled and lowly educated workers. We know that the open-door policies of China, India and other developing countries have intensified competition in the field of labour-intensive industries. If we want to constantly improve our standard of living, I personally feel that the only way is to have full employment and to improve the skills of our workers.

Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad (Pasir Ris): Mr Speaker, Sir, as one of the last few speakers, many of the positive side and accolades about the Budget I intend to mention have already been raised by my colleagues who have spoken before me. Sir, allow me, nevertheless, to briefly present my comments on the Budget and views on some business issues which have been the central subject of discussion yesterday and earlier today.

In terms of what the FY97 Budget meant for businesses, I wish to echo my agreement with some of those who have spoken earlier of it being a sharply focused one, targetted at specific components of the financial sector. It contains no sweeping give-aways for business on the surface, and is, therefore, looked upon as quite a disappointing budget for businesses in general.

Sir, closer scrutiny of the Budget, however, suggests that there is indeed light at the end of the tunnel. Hidden goodies appear to be embedded in the expenditure side which I would urge businesses to look at closely for them to take advantage of. For instance, there are financial set-asides to be disbursed under the Economic Development Assistance Scheme and the Cluster Development Fund amounting to almost $300 million. To encourage more research and development initiatives, a whopping $482 million has also been allocated under the aegis of the second National Science and Technology Plan for businesses to benefit from. Businesses also stand to gain from the massive $4 billion in economic and infrastructural expenditure which is twice that of the preceding year.

However, Sir, amidst this backdrop, our businesses, especially home-bred SMEs are feeling the intense cost pressures and competition in virtually all areas. Sir, while this situation has propelled many companies to upgrade and automate their existing operations, or relocate to a lower cost environment, many also continue to struggle and are uncertain about what needs to be done, and therefore their future.

The plight of our local SMEs is a known fact to this House and Singaporeans in general. They continue to be confronted with many problems, such as inertia, lack of professional expertise, generally lower productivity compared to MNCs and difficulties to cope with increasing costs. Feedback from industry associations and business groups suggests that labour cost in general continues to be the leading contributor to escalating business costs. In a tight labour market situation, many of them have to resort to the recruitment of foreign workers and are feeling the pinch of high foreign worker levies. They are once again appealing to the Government to help them by considering further levy reductions to reduce their high operating costs. Sir, I do understand the Government's need to balance economic, business and social factors in our foreign worker policy but I feel that this could be achieved by imposing perhaps more control on the dependency ceiling and quota as a means of control, and therefore allow some room for pricing relaxation.

Another concern expressed by this group, Sir, is the pace of restructuring. Many of them understand the Government's intention to encourage or quicken the move into upstream and higher value-added activities in order to increase productivity and preserve our competitiveness. But many of them are asking if we are proceeding at an appropriate pace. Some feel that we are moving too fast - without much regard for the fact that the majority of our SMEs lack expertise, financial resources and technology and, therefore, need more time to prepare themselves to switch to upstream activities.

Sir, if this is not already done, I suggest that the appropriate Ministry undertake to track and study the readiness and the extent of assimilation of our SMEs in gearing themselves up for the current restructuring phase by employing Econometric Modelling or other suitable techniques.

Although our SMEs provide slightly less than 50% of employment to our workforce, I believe they continue to represent more than 90% of the establishments in Singapore and they are, therefore, a key pillar of our economy. I know, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Government has done quite a lot to assist them through various assistance schemes and programmes managed by the Productivity and Standards Board, the Economic Development Board and the Trade Development Board. In view of their limitations, I think it is important that the Government continues not only to do more to assist them but also to further promote our SMEs as they are our indigenous and home-bred establishments that will stick through thick and thin with us.

Sir, perhaps, one way to stimulate accelerated growth of our SMEs is to encourage mergers and acquisitions by the more promising ones among them. Such a strategy will enable the pooling and harnessing of scarce resources very much needed by our SMEs. Of course, I am not suggesting the creation of a climate of hostile takeovers but friendly ones. As a means to quickly obtain specific capabilities in some key technologies and know-how, the more established SMEs could consider merging with or acquiring foreign companies, as proposed by Mr Sin Boon Ann yesterday in the context of what we could do with our budget surpluses. This will enable our SMEs to quickly bring in expertise they do not possess instead of trying to reinvent the wheel themselves, which not only will take much longer but will also sap their limited resources.

Retail Sector

Sir, the retail sector is another segment in our economy which appears again to have been ignored. Every Singaporean is aware of the predicament of the retail sector, especially in the last several years. Many have gone out of business while those remaining are bleeding and left in the lurch to fend for themselves.

A significant number of them are indeed struggling to survive and the very fact that they are still around, I believe, is due to one primary reason and, that is, they do not know what else to do. They just keep going and struggle to keep themselves afloat. Do we leave things status quo and let them `die a natural death'? Do we simply allow the so-called process of creative destruction to take its toll on these people, without rendering them any help?

While it is encouraging to note that the negative trend for retailers is somewhat reversed in May, as reported recently, it is too early to assume that this is going to be a sustainable trend. I therefore hope that the cries for help from the retailers will not continue to fall on deaf ears.

Manpower Issues

Sir, let me now move on briefly to the subject of our manpower development. With the increased pace of technological change as we gear ourselves up for upstream economic activities, I believe skills and knowledge obsolescence will become a bigger issue in the near future. This concerns particularly our older workers aged 40 and above who also represent the group with probably the lowest education in our workforce.

In spite of increasing retrenchments in recent years, we have been lucky in being able to find replacement jobs for those affected because of our consistently healthy economic growth year after year. However, we cannot assume that this phenomenon will continue into the future nor could we afford to allow it to mask the impact of an unevenly developing workforce. Apart from finding it harder to find alternative jobs if retrenched, these workers, if they are not prepared for the change in our economic environment, will potentially contribute to an adverse impact in our overall productivity as the economy goes through its restructuring motion.

While there are efforts such as the Skills Redevelopment Programme initiated by the NTUC and jointly supported by various Government agencies, I am concerned, Sir, that the pace we are proceeding in addressing this problem is not in tandem with the quicker pace of change in our economy.

Considering the fact that we have a sizeable portion of our total workfoce falling in this category, I would like to reassert what Mr Lim Swee Say mentioned yesterday about the important need to also invest in our not-so-young Singaporeans. Sir, I think we need to do this with a greater sense of urgency in view of the experience of several European countries, as cited by Mr Lim Swee Say and also by Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon. In a recent conversation I had with a top German banker recently, I was told that there is no solution in sight to the structural unemployment problems in Germany because the country had not adequately prepared for it when things were buoyant. We cannot allow this to happen to us. We just cannot afford it. I know we are not resting on our laurels on this issue as evidenced by what we know is being done again by the NTUC, PSB, ITE and EDB to address this problem, but I would like to urge the Government and these agencies to intensify their efforts in finding more creative approaches in confronting this challenge.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Sir, I would like to say that although the FY 97 Budget, with an anticipated surplus of $4.8 billion, is expected to be the lowest in five years, it is still very healthy. The increase in development expenditure will go a long way in strengthening our long-term future to enable us to continually attract high quality investments and ensure continued economic growth.

The Budget is generous in rewarding the man-in-the-street and favouring the financial sector but I hope more could be done to help our SMEs and our local businesses.

Sir, I support the financial policy for FY 97.

Mr David T. E. Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

The focus of the Budget this year is to keep Singapore competitive and to build up social cohesion. These two perennial challenges are our prerequisites for success. But these are challenges, not goals. They are means towards an end, but not the end itself. When all is said and done, we still have to ask ourselves how we measure the worth and meaning of our lives.

Our goal is to become a civil society, one in which each and every individual lives a wholesome and fulfilling life, no matter what jobs we do, or where we live, or how much money we make. A society where each citizen actively participates in the affairs of the community.

Today, we fall short of this goal. We have succeeded economically. And our per capita is now one of the highest in the world, higher than many developed countries. But we are not yet able to call ourselves a developed country. Not just because we have yet to develop depth in our industry, but also because we have yet to achieve maturity in our social and community institutions.

Sir, the prerequisite for a civil society is that we value and consider it our duty to contribute to society's development. We should be offended if anyone says that we are not doing enough to care for the community, and to share the wealth that we have with others. We should be ready to say that we have set aside not just part of our wealth, but part of our time, in the service of others. We should be, but we are not yet.

Today, it is not easy to find volunteers to help out in community work. Often, it is the same group of people who come forward to serve. There are many reasons for this but, basically, most people have not set aside time to serve. In busy Singapore, time is a premium commodity. We need to create a new social ethos if we are to overcome this limitation. At first, I thought that I should speak in favour of five-day work weeks - a topic I think that has come up before - that would free up weekends and give people more time to participate in social work. I still think this would help. But it is not the root of the problem. Years in corporate life has taught me that we will never have enough time unless we set priorities. And setting priorities is a reflection of our values.

This is something which each Singaporean has to do personally. My wish is that all Singaporeans will take stock of their busy schedules and make a conscious decision to free up some time for community work. If we want to be a civil society, we need to change our values and our lifestyles.

A civil society cannot emerge by Government policy. We cannot mandate it, or legislate it, or enforce it. But the Government can do more to create the conditions which will foster its emergence. One of these conditions is the climate for creative and open discussion.

Sir, much has been said about the quality of debate in Singapore. Some perceive that the Government does not encourage open debate. Much has also been said about the strictness of laws in Singapore, and how this leads to feelings of being restricted and over-controlled. These perceptions are real, to the extent that people believe in it.

I believe, as do most people, in the rule of law. The effective enforcement of laws has helped to make Singapore safe, efficient, and a trusted place to do business in. I also believe in placing markers for open debate - to disallow inflammatory remarks and orations which stir racial hate or seditious emotions. These markers help us to maintain social stability and create quiet conditions in which, once again, business can flourish.

But for a civil society to emerge, we must change the perception that the marketplace for ideas and expression in Singapore is restricted and confined. In diversity, we will find even greater strength than in conformity. We can and must search for those means which allow free expression but, at the same time, contain unwholesome and unwelcome behaviour.

Sir, I cite a recent example where a ban was placed on 16 year olds at tea dances. Yes, this measure solves a problem. It is an immediate and efficient fix. And I think many parents who found it difficult to control their children welcomed this.

But it does not solve the problem. I asked a teenager what she thought of this. She told me that, at best, this would only drive them to other locations and, at worst, underground. The need for young teens to meet and to socialise is real. Cutting away their meeting ground does not curb that need. She asked whether I had considered an alternative: to station a police team at the tea dance. Now that may not be very efficient, manpower-wise, but I think it is a step in the right direction. If we think it over, perhaps we can find some other hybrid solution which does not punish the kids for wanting to belong, but helps them stay away from the dark alley ways and the wayward habits of street gangs.

If we can find such a creative solution, which holds back the strong arm of the law, and holds it in reserve for when it is really needed, we will go far in establishing a climate of accommodation and trust. Then more people would be willing to speak up and we would move forward in a virtuous cycle of fostering more discussion, more ideas, more trust and more responsibility.

Sir, the tea dance problem also reflects a larger, underlying impediment to the building of a civil society, ie, that society should still look to Government to solve a problem whose root lies basically in the home. Tea dances started as a fun way for teenagers to let off steam. When I was young, we socialised by other means, like catching spiders and fighting kites. But with urbanisation, there are not enough spiders to go around, let alone find space to fight kites in the neighbourhood. We could have joined up with street gangs then, but whether we did or not was a matter of how our parents looked after us, and brought us up.

Tea dances are not evil by design or intent. But they have been corrupted. The problem is not just the street gangs which have infiltrated the dance halls. The problem is also the influence which parents have over their teenage children, and the role models which they set out for their kids. The problem of tea dances is something which parents, and not just the Government, have to address.

Sir, to build a civil society, therefore, both Government and each citizen must do their part. On the part of the Government, each department, each agency, each officer, can think about how we can shape policies and programmes which give more choices, allow freer expression of preferences, and which help to encourage community oriented behaviour. As a country, we pay a great deal of attention to our financial resources as evidenced by the care with which the Government prepares its budget. We should pay as much attention to the development of our values and our people.

And as much as we need greater diversity in our economic structure, we also need a broader spectrum of ideas and ideals in our social institutions. Each Singaporean must play his or her part. My wish is that each of us will make time for the community, will speak up, and will take on commitments that will transform Singapore into an open and civil society.

Sir, I support the motion.

Dr Ker Sin Tze (Aljunied): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion moved by the Minister for Finance.

Like many budgets in the past, the Government has earmarked large sums of money for the teaching and learning of mother tongue languages in the current Budget. Vast resources have been committed by the Government in the teaching of the Chinese language? We should therefore ensure that our students having learnt the language will use the Chinese language effectively.

Sir, I mentioned in my speech in this House on 2nd June this year during the debate on the President's Address that the current syllabus for the teaching of Chinese in schools not only allows our students to competently master the language but is also effective in maintaining the standard at a relatively high level. In terms of usage, Mandarin is now commonly used as a means of communication by the man in the street. We observe it being spoken in hawker centres, markets and other communal areas. This is an encouraging sign.

However, in certain institutions and on formal occasions, the use of the Chinese language is less frequent. In such an environment, many Chinese educated Singaporeans feel a sense of alienation and they are reluctant to speak Mandarin in public places.

A commonly observed scenario is this. A group of young people are conversing in Mandarin in a lift. But the moment a stranger comes into the lift, they will quickly switch to English. Of course, this may be due to the fact that they want to show respect to those who do not understand Chinese. However, some people deliberately reduce their use of Mandarin just to show their competence in English. Should such a trend continue, the use of Mandarin will gradually become confined to only within the lower strata of our society. And even possibly a language used by only a minority of our population in the future. Is this the situation that we would like to see?

Some may think that such a development is not possible, taking into account the enhanced economic value of Mandarin nowadays which would no doubt spur interest in mastering the language. However, one needs to ask this question: does the value in learning Mandarin arise solely from reaping possible economic gains? If so, should such gains diminish? Is the need to master the language negated as well? We should carefully deliberate this issue.

Currently, the economy in China is growing by leaps and bounds as a result of reforms, offering vast opportunities for investments and commercial development. Is the driving force behind the enhanced commercial value in learning the Chinese language? However, as the Chinese economy matures, its growth rate will gradually taper off. In addition, once its capital formation and accumulation reach a desired scale, its need for further foreign investment will not be as urgent as before. With economic progress comes the attendant risk of increasing labour and production costs which will slowly erode China's current competitive advantage derived from a low cost production base. As such, further investment opportunities will be much more limited as compared to the present situation. So in 10-20 years' time, it is possible that China will, like Japan, produce a group of talented people who are proficient in the English language to handle its global economic matters. Then there is no need for our young people to learn Chinese to go into the China market.

I think most people will agree that the need to learn the Chinese language cannot arise solely from the opportunistic pursuit of the economic gains it promises. Rather, mastering the mother tongue is a task undertaken with a view towards the preservation of one's orientation and its cultural values.

Our outlook, actions and disposition in general should concur with our origins so that our roots and pride are preserved. Consequently, learning the mother tongue should not be viewed as merely a route to any short term economic gain. Rather, it should be perceived as a part of our endeavour to enrich our heritage and mould our cultural awareness.

However, at this juncture, Mandarin is still not frequently spoken at major func- tions and occasions, although Government has been pushing the Speak Mandarin campaign and encouraging more Singaporeans to learn the language. Without any special encouragement by the Government, it is feared that the interest in learning the Chinese language will wane. Therefore, it is hoped that the Government will try its best to promote the use of the Chinese language so as to dispel the mindset among our people that Mandarin is spoken only among the lower middle classes.

I urge the Finance Minister to allocate more funds towards assisting the various Ministries to promote the use of the Chinese language.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak in support of the motion in the name of the Minister for Finance.

After so many speakers have spoken, I just want to add three points in observing the Budget presented by the Minister. Firstly, there were a lot of remarks by business people outside that there was no reduction in corporate tax in this year's Budget. Therefore, it was felt by some people that this Budget has not quite given the goodies that they expect to the business community, particularly at a time when business is not too good in the economy.

I really want to ask whether giving a 1% more corporate tax, from 26% to 25%, weigh that importantly in the calculation of investors and businesses. And those who argue that it would must rightfully believe so. But does it? For MNCs, it does not really matter. An MNC that does not know how to differentiate the location of their production and the location of their tax, or take into consideration covers and shelters for their taxes is not much of an MNC. A local profit-making business would not really quibble about 1% more of corporate tax to be given to the Government, and a company that does not profit or making losses would really find it not a practical idea to consider whether there is a reduction of tax.

The issue really concerns the marginal struggle business. In that respect, I suggest that addressing the cost items of doing business is more important than just considering a reduction of corporate tax. And it is in this area that I hope the Minister would consider granting or favouring businesses in lowering their operating costs.

The problem of cost items above the line has to be tackled separately, rather than by just bemoaning the Minister for a 1% corporate tax reduction. And I share some concern that unit labour cost rose 3.5% last year, in 1996, and productivity growth declined to 0.7% in 1996. For the unit labour cost increase in the overall economy of 3.5% in 1996, 5.1% increase was due to Government rates and fees. 1.4% increase was due to services cost and 3% increase was due to unit business cost of manufacturing. These figures are found in Table A 2.3 on page 71 of the Economic Survey of Singapore 1997 (first quarter).

If you look through these figures over the years 1991-1996, the section on Government rates and fees component comes up top. And in five of the six years, this figure shows that the Government figure was top. In two of the six years, the increase in cost attributed to Government rates and fees was in double digits. So I can understand why businesses and businessmen complain about the high statutory cost that they have to bear in businesses. I urge the Minister to look into this area to minimize this large statutory cost that businesses have to bear in order for them to be more competitive in the private sector.

The Minister mentioned that many of our competitors have the advantages of lower land cost and labour cost, and are more competitive in attracting investments than us. And we do not need to add to this the high statutory cost to the list.

The third issue which I want to urge the Minister to address urgently through this Budget concerns the productivity and growth decline. This is related to the urge for training and retraining programmes for our workers. The figures in the Economic Survey show that this is the third year in succession where our productivity growth has declined. It was barely 0.7% in 1996, and for the first quarter of 1997, it shows a further decrease, a minus figure of 1.7%. As the Minister has constantly reminded us, we rely on the skills and the managerial capacity of our workforce and our people to stay competitive. We do not have big land or natural resources. The only way that we can be competitive is through raising our productivity.

I would have expected that the Minister, in his Budget Statement, would provide for some kind of training and cross-training or retraining schemes where we can allow a large part of our labour force, who have been lacking in training and skills, to be retrained during this period when they are employed, and not to wait for the time when the competition has taken away their jobs before they start looking for retraining. We know that a large part of our workforce do not have those literacy and numeracy skills to be trained in the classrooms. Because they are fully employed, there is a lot of pressure for them to do overtime, to stay on the job, to show their commitment to the job and so on, that very often there is little time for them to do anything except in the weekends.

But surely we can think through some schemes and I think this point was mentioned by Mrs Yu-Foo just now and Mr Lim Swee Say yesterday. There is something that we can do, initiated by the Government, work through with the employers and labour, something we can package to enable this large category, somewhat in the region of a few hundred thousand, to be retrained at this crucial time, and we do not have much more time. There should be no let-up in this retraining and I would say "cross-training programmes". When a worker is engaged in his work, whatever you train him along is training on the job, and employers may find reasons to fund or encourage such training. But we should also package programmes where we can allow workers to cross train, to learn other skills where it may not be economically meaningful for the employer to do so. But we can package such schemes, we can reward and compensate employers and employees so that at the end of the line when the workers have to move because the competition has taken away their jobs, there is still something they can go for, and not to ask to be retrained after they have lost their job. So training beyond their present skills is very important.

I know that we have been spending hundreds of millions of dollars over the years in giving transfers to citizens, S&C rebates and utilities rebates. I am all for helping the poor and those who cannot afford. But I do not think all Singaporeans are that poor and cannot afford. If we were to marshal the resources, spend it in the right focused way, to train them and give them this opportunity to learn to fish in another way, in another pond, in another sea, I think that is more meaningful and it is where we should put the resources to train our workers.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank you for this opportunity that you have given us to speak our mind and I want to support the motion in the name of the Minister for Finance.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.50 pm until 3.30 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.30 pm