WIDENING INEQUALITIES IN SOCIETY

Debate resumed.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I asked the question: what is the present poverty line? I inquired from persons. The first person I inquired was a single person living on his own. His answer was that he needed about $1,000 a month to live in Singapore to pay for the rent, for all the other things that went with a basic standard of living, not a living that affords chocolates, perfumes and luxury items, but basic needs. Then I spoke to another man and he said he had only one child. He said he needed at least $1,200 to $1,300 a month to maintain the wife and the child. Finally, I spoke to someone who had two children. His answer was, "Easily over $1,500. I need at least $1,600 or $1,700 a month." Have we made any study of the requirements in Singapore for a family of four, three or even just one?

I was asking for a Commission to inquire into poverty in Singapore. I would suggest that we seek the help of somebody from the United Nations Commission to come and help us to make a scientific study. They who know about poverty can then make a proper study and show the comparison between Singapore and other countries. But we have got this income disparity report. I was not surprised when I saw that report, as we said in the press report that I made on behalf of the party. We knew all along that the people down below were suffering.

What does this report now disclose? That for 30% of our members in the society, the average household income is just over $1,000 a month. 30% is not to be laughed at, Mr Speaker, Sir. How do you expect them to survive? When I say "survive", I mean a decent standard of living on $1,000 a month, when you consider that Singapore is one of the most expensive places to live in. This is even told to me, as I have said time and time again, not by people from India and Malaysia, but by people from the developed countries. They say Singapore is very expensive. If you set that level of income for the 30% against those in the top earners, Ministers and top civil servants, judges, I say it is a national disgrace.

In the last sitting, again when I was not here, I see the Minister tried to minimise the report. Of course, we had seen that earlier by Government officials trying to minimise the severity of the report. He is reported to have said that the poor are not as badly off as made out to be. I find that difficult to understand. How badly must they be before they are recognised as being badly off? Should they be starving, dying on the streets before the Government recognises that we have a section of our people who are badly off? This, Mr Speaker, Sir, in a country which is by no means a poor country. We boast, and again we make much of it, that we have built up foreign reserves to $128,457,000. So we are not a poor, struggling country that finds it difficult to see that its people can afford a basic decent standard of life. All they need, as I have kept saying again and again, is a political will to do something about the condition of this 30% of our society.

When I met the Prime Minister at the National Day reception of the President, and I told him I had this motion, he said, "We have got our programme ready. We have got everything ready." I said, "Great." I hope I shall be told what is it that the Government has got. What measures has it decided upon to check and correct this imbalance in our society? Then I saw at the National Day Rally the programme of the Government was to hand out lollipops. It is like handing out lollipops to children who are being querulous to keep them quiet. May I tell the Government that handing out lollipops is not the answer. Something more than that is needed, something which will improve the lives of these people over the long term. Of course, the local media, true to its role, highlights $3.2 billion, how generous the Government is. We forget that that is our money. All that the Government is required to do is to see that it is put to proper use, a judicial use that benefits all members of the society, not any particular section of the society. So we need to do something immediately.

I intend to list, first of all, what measures that I say have to be put in place and then come back and talk on each of these measures a little. The first one which is quite clearly crying out is that we should put our workers in a position of equality with employers. I shall expand on this. But today the workers have no more rights than the serfs had in the middle ages under the common law, and I shall read an excerpt from the Second Reading of a Bill in 1968, as exactly what was done. We need to put the workers on an equality with employers. You have got to recognise that labour has a definite contribution to make. Labour is not subservient to capital. Labour is not subservient to land. It is these three factors which are necessary for production. So they must be given equal rights with capital. For that, I shall list out why we need a new Employment Act. Secondly, we need a new Industrial Relations Act. Thirdly, we need a new Act, the Unfair Dismissals Act, to protect the workers from exploitation by the employer.

Fourthly, I am listing this out before I speak on each one of them. We have got to democratise our trade unions. Give them the power that trade unions in other countries have. We need to see that they are run on democratic lines. Let us remove the anachronism of a Cabinet Minister leading the trade union movement. How is that possible? The Government should be the biggest employer along with the statutory boards. And we have its Ministers leading the trade unions, the workers. It is laughable. The fifth proposal is to have a new Wages Council, where again the trade unions and the labour have equal rights. At the moment, they are outnumbered by the employer, 2 to 1.

Sixthly, we have got to have a new Trade Disputes Act. I am aware that there should be some limit on strikes. But we should not take it out completely from the trade unions. Strikes still remain the most powerful weapon in the hands of the workers. But as I said, I concede that there should be some limit. But at the moment, it is completely taken out of their hands. I see that the then Minister for Labour, Mr Rajaratnam, referred to the strikes in the 1960s as one of the things that we could not afford in our society. But I ask the question: who were responsible for the labour disorder, if it was labour disorder, in the 50s and 60s? Sir, I was here, I have said this before. Our present Senior Minister was the legal adviser to a number of trade unions. He was advocating the rights of the workers.

Seventhly, we got to give workers proper representation before inquiry tribunals, before they are dismissed by their companies. At the moment, it is all a farce. So all these measures are necessary to give our workers their rights which they deserve.

My eighth proposal is that Government now considers seriously revising the CPF contribution rates. We have advocated that the employees should only pay 15% and the employers pay the same amount. I call upon the Government to bring up the employer's contribution to 15% immediately and to reduce the employee's contribution to the same level, so that they have a bit more money to take home and to spend. Then, I have a number of measures. These are all structural changes we have to make.

Now, if I may touch on the measures to meet the needs of people who cannot afford them. I think it is time we seriously considered social security for those in need. The problem in other countries was that they give social welfare, medical relief to everyone, with the result that there was abuse of the system. But surely we can do something to see that only the needy get the benefit under the social security. Could we not provide social security and give benefits for those earning below $2,000 per month? They carry a welfare card to be entitled to all the benefits. And I am proposing that under that scheme, it should provide free medical care to those who qualify. Medisave does not cover outpatient charges. That is where most of the money goes. I hear complaints from people about how much they have to pay every time they go to a polyclinic for outpatient treatment.

Then, there should be payment of a children's allowance, not just designed to increase the population. But a children's allowance - I have been calling for this many, many years - for those who are in need of this allowance, to see that they can bring up their children, and educate them sufficiently.

Then, again, under the social security, I think the Government should seriously consider introducing old-age pensions for those over 65, regardless of whether they are CPF contributors or whether they have savings in the CPF fund.

Another thing I am proposing is that the Government now provides free education to all our students whose parents earn below $2,000 a month. A claim has been made, and it is still made, and I see that it is in today's paper, that in Singapore, education is free. This is one of the false claims that is constantly made about things in Singapore. I check it up, and I have checked it before as well. But I checked it up recently, rang a family up. They have two children in a primary school. Do they have to pay any school fees? They say that they have to pay $15 every quarter. What is in a name? It does not matter. You do not call it school fees, you call it under some other name, and collect the money. But the money still has to come from the parents. At secondary level, they say they have to pay $51 a quarter, that is, $17 per month.

So, let us stop this sham of saying free education for all, and see that families earning below $2,000 get their children educated free in Singapore. We can afford, if only we did not spend so much of our money on unnecessary things.

Lastly, under the social security, we should consider unemployment benefits for those unemployed, perhaps limited for a number of months. If they are genuinely unable to get employment, they should be helped and not told, "Hard luck, poor chap! Just carry on, try and get another job. Try and improve your skills. We are all right, but you know, you just carry on. Soon enough you will get a job." This question of improving skills - how much more are you going to be able to teach or improve the skills of cleaners and road sweepers? So what are we talking about when we say that they have got to improve the skills and learn more? How much more can they learn? Can we have an answer to that question? So what are we going to do? Are we going to leave them just earning $400 a month, and not give them any benefits, and say go and improve yourself?

May I say something about what I have listed first, and that is a new Employment Act that we need. We need a new Employment Act for the 21st century that will recognise the rightful place of labour in society. I see that a call was made by the NTUC. It was reported in the Straits Times of 23rd August 2000 that labour needed a new social contract. Well, that is it. But let us not just talk about a new social contract. Let us give them a new Employment Act. This present Employment Act was passed on 10th July 1968. Before that, there was the Employment Ordinance from 1955 which, let me tell Members, gave our workers more rights and benefits. But these were all curtailed under the new Employment Bill, because the British had pulled out their forces and we needed to improve ourselves, and so we needed to attract foreign capital, we needed multi-national companies to come in, and therefore the workers had to lose their rights.

Mr Rajaratnam, moving the Second Reading of this Bill, acknowledged that there were quite a bit of criticisms outside Parliament of the Bill. But he dismissed that and he said, and I am going to read what he said:

"But the people will respond provided they are convinced that the effort and difficult adjustments demanded are really directed towards eventually promoting the well-being of the people as a whole and not merely to enrich a privileged few - whether gay and fun-loving political leaders or the racketeering ruffians with whom they are allied."

These are not my words. These are the words of Mr Rajaratnam who was then Minister for Labour. He said that the justification was that in the end, the measures would promote the welfare of the people. Well, has the Employment Act promoted the well-being of the people as a whole? Has it achieved the objects that Mr Rajaratnam was propounding? Or has it left the workers worse off? Let us ask these questions seriously. He mentioned particularly about the criticism on clause 10 of the Bill which curtailed the right of the worker on the period of notice that he had to be given before his services were terminated. Under the old Act, the worker had a longer period of notice before his services could be terminated. I would not spell them out for want of time. But he had considerably more notice. And those who worked for more than five years had two months' notice. The new Act passed in 1968 by a government which had professed itself to be worker-conscious radically cut this down. It did not matter how many years the employee had worked, the maximum period of notice required was reduced to four weeks. And if you have worked for less than six months, you do not get any notice at all, you can be just fired immediately. So we need to appoint a committee to re-examine the Employment Act and to see whether we still need to continue with a law that practically makes our workers helpless.

Today, the employer holds the whip. It is no good saying, "Oh, there are benefits provided, and the employer has to provide that." But as long as he can hire and fire, these benefits are valueless. I have heard people come to me and say, "I have been given notice." Why? "Because I questioned my superior. I told him that I do not think that was right on something. So they said I am being insubordinate." So there you are. And he has no remedy because under the Act, there is nothing he can do. There is section 14 which, on the face of it, gives him a right of appeal to the Minister. But I have mentioned several times that that is really valueless. We have got to have an Unfair Dismissals Act under which the court can compel the employer to take the worker back into employment and, failing that, to pay adequate compensation for his losses and damage that he would suffer. This is the position in developed countries. This is the position in countries where they recognise the value of labour.

I said about trade unions. In the same month that the Employment Bill was presented to Parliament in July 1968, there was presented the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill. This really sounded the death knell for trade unions and see what the Minister said when he presented this Bill to Parliament:

"The trade unions have never questioned the rights of management to manage, first, as a matter of commonsense, and, second, it is because these rights are common law rights. But whatever the theory, the rights of management have over the years been eroded, perhaps not as a conscious policy by trade unions. What this Bill seeks to do is to restore these rights of management to the employers by making common law rights into statute law. No rights are being taken away from the workers because the workers never claimed these rights even though some of these rights have in practice been denied to management. We are not restoring these rights to management merely out of a sense of justice and fair play. But because we are convinced that unless proper management functions are allowed to be performed unhampered there would be little or no economic expansion or fresh investments."

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

4.06 pm

Mr Jeyaretnam: There you have it, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what I said. This Government was putting workers back into what the workers were in the Middle Ages. Because under the common law, with its emphasis on the power to make your own contract, the workers were unable to secure any rights for themselves. But progressive countries saw the need to cut down on these common law rights of the employers and to bring in statutory provisions to protect the workers. But here is this Government saying, "Oh, the workers never had those rights." Of course, they did not. And so it says, "We are now going to restore our workers to that position. The former labour government was misguided in giving them the rights. We are now going to take it away." That is what this Government did in 1968. Because what it did in this Act was to make the trade unions toothless. Section 16, or section 17, which gave the trade unions the power to give notice to the employers of a new agreement for the workers was drastically altered. Under the old Act, the trade unions had the right to make proposals about whose services should be terminated and what should be done before they were terminated, the conditions and a host of other things. I have not got the time to read all that. But this was taken away completely by the Employment Act, "No trade union can submit any proposal to the employer on all these rights." So where does it leave the trade unions? Practically powerless.

Someone from Hong Kong saw me the other day and he said, "I see now the trade unions are very busy running businesses." I said, "Yes, exactly, because they cannot do the work that they should be doing. So they go into business." But he said, "Is that the work of trade unions?" I said, certainly not. So we need to look at this. Is it still necessary to keep our trade unions in this subservient position that they have to go on bended knees to their capitalist employers? Or should they not negotiate as equals? And for that, we need a new Industrial Relations Act and then we need a new Unfair Dismissals Act. That is so clear.

At the moment, as I have said, an employer can just terminate the services of an employee just because perhaps, as one Member said some time ago if the worker whistled and the employer did not like the tune or something he had only to say, "You can leave." We need to protect him and to see that he is adequately compensated, if his services are terminated without proper cause. Section 14 is no protection at all for an employee who is unfairly terminated. We have got to protect him.

And the fourth on my list is allowing trade unions to be run on democratic lines. Let them select their own leaders. It should not be left to the Government to appoint leaders in the trade union movement. Remove the post of the Cabinet Minister as Secretary-General of the NTUC. He is paid for doing just that, to keep the workers policed on behalf of the Government. Then, as I said, we have got to change the composition of the Wages Council. We have got to see that the trade unions get equal representation. They should have a definite say on how much a worker should be paid. At the moment, they are outnumbered. Let us consider appointing a new Wages Council, not just the workers, but for everybody, as I said. Let us have a National Council on Salaries for Ministers, Judges and top civil servants so that everyone is put on an equal footing and given the same consideration.

On the sixth proposal that I said about amending the Trade Disputes Act, again, I do not have to say very much more. We have got to give the trade unions the right to call off the workers, if the employers get very unreasonable and adamant about enforcing their own position on the employees. Let us give the worker the dignity he needs. I see the Deputy Prime Minister, some days ago, was saying that the worker is worthy of respect and he should be given the respect he deserves. Let us stop all this rhetoric. You can only give the worker the respect and the dignity if you give him the rights. A person without any rights is in the position of a beggar and how can you tell the beggar, "You have dignity, my man! Stand up, you have dignity!", when he is forced to go down on his knees, as the workers are doing at the moment, when negotiating with the employers?

Along the same lines is this representation before inquiry tribunals. The reason for excluding lawyers was that lawyers would make trouble. They would be too costly. But at least, the lawyers will be there to protect the worker. Why do we not force the companies to pay for legal representation and have a proper inquiry before they dismiss a worker? Surely if a company is interested in the welfare of its workers, it will agree to pay for the legal services of any employee who is charged with anything so that he is properly represented and protected.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr Jeyaretnam, your one hour is up.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I will take up the rest in my reply.

Question proposed.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: (In Mandarin): Sir, the problem of income gap has been in existence all along. The magnitude of the gap also reflects the seriousness of inequalities between the rich and the poor in our society. The recent figures released by the Statistics Department showed signs of a further widening income gap between the rich and the poor. I hope this will not become a trend, otherwise it will be very serious and will cause a divide in our social communities and ethnic groups, thereby weakening our social cohesion.

From the types of occupation of members of the families in the bottom 10%, as revealed in the survey report, it would appear that the cause of the problem lies in the widening gap of salaries for different jobs. Therefore, the top priority of the Government is how to upgrade the workers in the low-income jobs. At the same time, it should help the small and medium enterprises to develop and to make them more competitive and more effective, so that they could have the means to pay higher wages to their employees.

I have, on many occasions in this House, urged the Government to show more concern for those workers who are aged 40 years and above with low educational foundation and have hardly any skills. They are the people who are facing very acute challenges ahead, particularly when Singapore is moving towards a knowledge-based economy and an influx of foreign workers. The Government's answer is inevitably that the Ministry of Manpower has all sorts of technical training courses awaiting these workers to enrol and upgrade themselves.

I think this attitude of the Government is very negative. Although the Government has made available the various courses, it does not necessarily mean that the workers would participate in them. Many of these workers have to do two jobs or overtime work to earn enough to support their families. By the time they finish work, they would be exhausted. Where would they have the energy left to pursue upgrading courses? Even if they want to change jobs, they do not know what type of jobs to change to, and they worry that when they start a new job, the initial salaries would be very low as they lack the experience. As such, the starting pay may not be enough to support their family.

On the other hand, many of these workers do not know English and many courses and examinations are conducted in English. There is no way they could participate. The Government should be more proactive in helping these lower income workers. When these workers are prepared to accept skill upgrading training, the Government should pay them cost of living allowances during the period of training, as an incentive for them to upgrade themselves and move to better-paying jobs.

According to the recent labour market report, those workers above the age of 40 years with below secondary level education are more likely to be retrenched. As such, if the Government does not look into these problems seriously, we can well expect the income gap in Singapore to continually widen. The Government should not be so naive as to think that so long as the economy recovers, and the labour market tightens, the employment problem of these workers will be naturally resolved, and their income would be raised. Please do not forget that by that time, the income gap among the various job sectors will be correspondingly widened, resulting in greater inequalities between the poor and the rich.

This Government embraces the principle of market economy, and the rate of charges for public service is based on affordability. To the lower-income group, this type of policy is a merciless blow. If the Government does not take prompt steps to effectively check the widening income gap, then the standard of living for the lower-income families will simply continue to slide. This will be a great mockery to the Government's self-proclamation that Singapore is an affluent society and that some of our service industries are number one in the world and have reached world standards!

Mr Inderjit Singh (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, first of all, I would like to comment on the NCMP's observation that there are 14,700 Singaporeans earning less than $200 per month.

Mr Jeyaretnam: 48,000 less than $400.

Mr Inderjit Singh: As far as I know, there is no full-time job in Singapore that pays that kind of wages, but this may be so for part-time jobs. So I suggest that the NCMP study the statistics a little more to understand the real situation.

I also fail to see how a new Industrial Relations Act or a new Employment Act or the reconstitution of the NTUC or the National Wages Council and the rest of his suggestions can solve the issue of the widening income disparities. This shows a lack of understanding on the part of the NCMP on what are the real causes of the problems that we are discussing today.

Sir, during the debate on the Ministerial Statement by the Deputy Prime Minister on the new salary revision for civil servants and also during Questions for Oral Answers on 30th June this year in this House, the issue of widening income gaps between the top and the bottom earners was addressed to a certain extent by some Members of the House and by the Deputy Prime Minister and also by the Minister for Trade and Industry. From the discussions in the House, it was obvious that the issue of the widening income gap is not unique to Singapore. In fact, it is an issue which is part and parcel of the new economy. From the discussions, it also shows that the Singapore Government is not sitting on its laurels for the problem to become a chronic issue. The NCMP should judge the Government on the proactive actions it has taken to address the issues. Obviously, he has not been reading about and following the developments in the country in recent times, especially on how the country is preparing to address the issue of participating in the new economy.

Sir, with this in mind, I am moving an amendment to the motion standing in the name of the NCMP.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Can I have your amendment in writing? [Amendment handed to Mr Deputy Speaker]. Yes, it is in order. You can move your amendment. Have you circulated your amendment to Members?

Mr Inderjit Singh: I will ask the Clerk to do that.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May we see it?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, it will come to you in due course. [Copies of amendment distributed to hon. Members.]

Mr Inderjit Singh: Sir, I beg to move,

To delete the words after "House" in line 1 to the end, and to insert -

"(1) notes that globalisation and the knowledge economy are widening income disparities worldwide;

(2) reaffirms the strategy of embracing globalisation to create growth and prosperity for Singaporeans; and

(3) supports the Government's policy to equip all citizens to benefit from the new economy, to uplift lower income Singaporeans and to strengthen social cohesion."

Sir, the widening of income disparity, as I mentioned earlier, is a worldwide phenomenon and is affecting all countries that are embracing the new economy and those who have opened up their economies as a result of globalisation. In fact, it is happening in the USA, the world's biggest economy, in the OECD countries and it will also happen in all other countries that, as a result of the world becoming one big market, will have no choice but to globalise their economy. A country could decide to isolate itself from the problem by not globalising and not participating in the phenomenal growth of the new economy. But obviously, this will not be a rational decision because the world will not wait for those who are not able to change and accept and participate with the new rules of economic development. So we have no choice but to participate in this new economy if we want to survive as a country in the years ahead. If we look at the Gini coefficient in all countries that are already at an advanced stage of globalisation, all of them are recording a widening of income disparities.

Sir, as the Deputy Prime Minister put it in his speech during the debate on the Ministerial salaries, globalisation has created a single world market for talent. In my opinion, this is precisely the root cause of the issue of income disparities. The new economy will see wealth creation being accelerated by those who dare to take the risk and to venture into new areas of technology and business. Wealth creation in this new economy will be quite different from wealth creation that happened in the age of industralisation or in the old economy in general. While the enterprises in the old economy created wealth through bricks and mortar and also through bricks and mortar businesses and this typically took a long time to be created, in the new economy, entrepreneurs will be able to create wealth at a much faster pace than any time in history and the quantum of the wealth created will be so huge and unimaginable in the old economy. People like Bill Gates created so much of wealth in such a short time that they will not be able to spend all their money in their lifetime, nor in several generations to come for his family. Sir, Richard Li from Hong Kong created his few billion dollars worth of wealth in just three years, matching what his father created in 30 years of his lifetime. Such is the nature of the new economy and such are examples of things to come in the next phase of economic development in the world and by default, such will be the nature of things to come for Singapore from now onwards.

In the future, more Singaporeans will be more daring and willing to try and hence will have a chance to strike the gold at the end of the rainbow. We are already seeing many Singaporeans seeking opportunities in the knowledge economy, giving up alternative, stable employment in traditional industries and businesses. The question is: should we discourage or encourage such people? Should we create an environment that retards or inhibits such people or should we have an environment that further encourages more people to try?

Sir, to ensure Singapore's continued growth and prosperity in the future, we have no choice but to embrace globalisation and to participate in the new economy and to allow practices consistent with the development of the high growth knowledge-based economy.

Sir, in this new economy where opportunities will be more equal than in the past, everyone will have the opportunity to create wealth, but not everyone will want to or will be able to participate as effectively in the knowledge-based economy. However, in such an economy, those with skills and the relevant capabilities will command a higher premium and therefore higher wages.

Ultimately, entrepreneurs and technopreneurs will help create wealth for the country and hence create more jobs for others in Singapore. If we do not encourage such an environment that encourages technopreneurship or entrepreneurship, we will lose our talented people to countries like the USA where they will be given ample opportunities to excel. The competition for talent is global in nature, as I mentioned. Since our people will have more choices and will be a lot more mobile than in the past and since we have other countries equally hungry for the best talents from around the world, if we do not satisfy the demands of such Singaporeans whose skills are valued in other countries, they will pack up and leave. Similarly, even in big companies, or for that matter in the Government, the capable and talented people will have to be well rewarded if we want to keep them. Paying them high salaries is well worth the expenditure if they can create competitive advantages for the organisations that they work for. We should therefore compare the worth of our top talents against the global workforce in a global market place.

When we look at things from a global perspective, then we have no choice but to accept the fact that the wages of our top earners will have to be determined on a global basis, and we have no choice but to allow each to achieve his full potential of earning capability. We cannot artificially suppress anyone in order to address the issue of income gaps. So, the obvious thing to do is to let things go and allow our top talents to earn however much they can. When this happens, the sure thing to happen is that those at the top end will be extraordinarily rich, and this will worsen the issue of the income gap compared to the lower income earners in the country. In every society, there will always be people at both ends of the spectrum. This is the reality of life.

On the other hand, we also cannot artificially prop up the wages of the low income earners in order to close the gap. Because, just as the competition for talent at the top is a global one, similarly, the competition for jobs at the lower end is also global in nature. So our unskilled workers who form the lower income earners in the country will have to compete with workers from countries like India, China, Indonesia, Bangladesh and other countries around the world. Price of our labour must be competitive compared to labour from these countries. We cannot artificially prop up the wages of such people through practices like the minimum wage system, because we will risk over pricing ourselves and, hence, cause an acceleration of companies relocating out of Singapore to countries that offer cheaper infrastructure and labour cost.

To be realistic, we therefore have to accept the fact that more wealth will be created by just a few people. On the other hand, every society will always have its share of people who cannot successfully catch up with progress and who will lack the necessary skills to do well. Therefore, income disparities will continue to be worsened as we progress in this new economy.

While we will have very high income earners who will be able to enjoy very comfortable lives and who can choose to live in any country they choose to live in, our low income earners should not be deprived of the necessities of life and they should also have a share in some of the luxuries of life in Singapore. In other words, we must ensure that all Singaporeans have a reasonably good quality of life no matter what their background. This must be the Government's key responsibility so that we will continue to enjoy the good social cohesion that Singapore has enjoyed in the last 30 years or so.

The real question then is: how should the Government and the people of Singapore prepare to tackle this issue so that all Singaporeans, no matter what their background or income levels are, will have a good life in Singapore and no one should feel deprived or live in envy of others who enjoy a higher income level?

In my opinion, the best bet for us is not to try to balance income levels, but to have a level playing field for opportunities, so that no matter what walk of life one comes from, he or she will have an equal opportunity to earn as high an income as possible and have a chance to make a jump from the lower 10% earners to the top 10% earners in the country. Everyone should have a chance of achieving what they aspire to achieve and their success or failure should be the outcome of their own effort and capability, and not because we created some obstacles for some of them.

We cannot just think of redistribution of wealth. Otherwise, we risk losing our wealth creators. I therefore hope that the Government will continue to emphasise the concept of equal opportunities for all Singaporeans, which has brought success for Singapore up to now. I sincerely believe that in this new economy, it will be even easier to make that big jump, to create wealth for oneself, provided we have a sufficiently well trained population. It is therefore critical that the Government equips all Singaporeans with the right tools so that they will be able to benefit from the tremendous opportunities that the new economy provides.

Sir, I am sure Members of this House will agree with me that Singapore already allows a great deal of social mobility for everyone, no matter what their background is. Over the last 35 years, since independence, we have seen so many examples of families who have seen hardship and poverty, and who have later broken out of their social position as a result of their children being given opportunities to excel in their studies, thus allowing them to take on good and well paying jobs. Similarly, for those who are willing to work hard and improve themselves, they have been able to attain a better standing in society, because the country allows them to do so. No Singaporean is expected to remain poor forever and our society allows everyone to rise up the ranks, whether in position or in income earning ability. This is what I mean by equal opportunities.

The Singapore Government's answers to the new economy are and should be the following. First of all, a good education for every Singaporean child, who is trained to learn for life and trained to plug into the knowledge economy. We should never end up in a situation where a child from a lower income family does not do well in studies as a result of the family not being able to afford it. Every child should continue to be given equal opportunity to excel in his or her studies, and our education system today allows it. In fact, I was surprised that the NCMP mentioned free education. I thought we already have free education starting from primary school. And for families who are in difficulties and cannot afford to pay school fees, there are many avenues of help, and I have not come across, in my constituency at least and I am sure many Members will agree, of any child who has not been given a chance to fulfil whatever level of education he or she wants as a result of not being able to pay for it. So I really did not understand the issue of free education that the Member brought up.

Secondly, an opportunity for all Singaporeans to be retrained easily and affordably at any point of their lives is also an important thing that the Government should focus on. We are already seeing problems of our older workers who have become unemployable as a result of their old skills becoming outdated and irrelevant in the new economy. Initiatives like the Skills Redevelopment Programme and the concept of life-long learning must continue to be developed to address this issue.

Sir, the NCMP has a lot to learn about retraining. Even cleaners, the example that the Member brought up, can learn a lot, especially when we decide to automate and mechanise the industry. I have actually seen training manuals two inches thick that contain a lot of materials on how cleaning can be done more efficiently. And I think our cleaners and our road sweepers can benefit from such training and, as a result of automation and mechanisation, they will be able to earn a lot more income because of the higher value added that they add to their jobs.

Sir, thirdly, a related issue which I think is very much relevant in the new economy, as it was in the old economy, is that everyone should have access to affordable housing and medical care. We should never over price these necessities to the point where only the well-off can get good medical care and good homes. The Government has a direct role to play in ensuring this happens fairly and should continue to be accountable for equity in the future. As long as we continue to ensure that every Singaporean has access to housing and medical care no matter what his income level is, we will continue to avoid any issue of envy or the feeling of being left out. And I think we have many programmes, eg, Medifund and the various top-up schemes and assistance schemes that actually will be able to help families who are not able to afford such necessities.

Fourthly, we should have sufficient safety nets to help those in society who cannot keep up with the pace or who just cannot overcome the obstacles, so much so that they have difficulties in making ends meet. No matter how much we do, we will always have such people in our society. In fact, this is a fact of life in every country in the world. There can never be a situation where you have zero percentage of the population who are in this position. Comparatively, we do not have too serious a problem today, if we compare ourselves to even countries like the USA where there are many people living on the streets. We do not have a single family living on the street in Singapore today. And we must, of course, continue to systematically help such people who will tend to lag far behind in society for whatever reasons. We, so far, have a good track record and should continue to keep it this way in the future.

Sir, as I mentioned, there will always be people who face tremendous problems and difficulties, and this is a fact of life in any country in the world. Therefore, hardship cases were present in Singapore in the last 30 years and they will continue to be present. The real issue is how can all of us reach out to such people and try to reach out, locate them and help them as much as we can through all the various schemes that exist. Therefore, we should not mistake these hardship cases as an outcome of the widening of income disparities. We should continue to evolve on how we handle and resolve such hardship cases.

Sir, in the final analysis, the key solution of the widening income disparities is to balance opportunities rather than balancing income levels through artificial or unrealistic means. Such an approach which Singapore has adopted, ie, levelling of opportunities, is more sustainable in the long run and will produce the best outcome for all Singaporeans. We must not restrict the growth of the top income earners and, at the same time, we should continue to focus on uplifting the lower income Singaporeans through the means that I mentioned earlier. Only then can we ensure a strong and united Singapore. We are fortunate that the Government has already proactively addressed the issue of widening income gaps, and this is precisely why we will not run into a situation of riots or unrest that the NCMP has brought up. I feel that the NCMP does not sufficiently understand the issues of the new economy and therefore has raised issues that are so misleading. He needs to plug into the new economy if he is serious about addressing such issues.

Mr Deputy Speaker: It has been proposed, as an amendment, to leave out all the words after "House" in line 1 to the end, and there to insert the words -

"(1) notes that globalisation and the knowledge economy are widening income disparities worldwide;

(2) reaffirms the strategy of embracing globalisation to create growth and prosperity for Singaporeans; and

(3) supports the Government's policies to equip all citizens to benefit from the new economy, to uplift lower income Singaporeans and to strengthen social cohesion."

The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr Jeyaretnam: Can I speak on the amendment?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, later on. Mr Chay.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak in support of the amendment to the motion in the name of Mr Inderjit Singh.

Listening to the NCMP just now, I found that it is as if we were all caught in a time trap together with Rip Van Winkle, going into the 60s, hearing all the stories of industrial strike actions and demonstrations on workers' rights. I think he has also forgotten that during this period, trade unions had also changed and trade unions had also modernised. He recounted about the experience of a Hong Kong gentleman who visited him and said, "Oh, now, they are all doing businesses." Trade unions have always been doing businesses right from the beginning - cooperatives. It is one of the features of European trade union movement that cooperative businesses were started right from the beginning of the trade union movement. And even today, if you visit countries like Sweden and Germany, cooperatives run by unions have always been there. But there may be a difference. Those in Singapore run by our NTUC are pretty successful.

He talks about Cabinet Ministers being in the trade union movement. Perhaps he has forgotten our unique historical struggle. The PAP was founded by many leaders who have trade union connections. It is more than a gesture. It is more a pride that we have got Ministers who can also represent our workers' rights at very, very high level in the Cabinet so that workers' rights are taken care of, problems and issues discussed, weighed and even anticipated right before they arose. The NTUC in Singapore has been singular in promoting the trade union movement. It highlighted the problems of workers in training and retraining that are necessary for the new economy. It spearheaded programmes to raise funds and got the Government to co-fund and today we have this SRP programme which is being run by the NTUC for the retraining of workers. So I find all these issues that he has brought up rather misleading, but it is important for us to lay clear before the public that these issues have actually been addressed before and some of the issues that he has brought up are really misleading.

I want to talk in support of Mr Inderjit Singh's motion. He pointed out quite correctly that this inequality in income in the last 20 years in advanced countries like the US and OECD is quite an important fact. There has been this rising income inequality in these countries. This is attributed to several important factors which he has already highlighted. But I would like to develop on some of them later on.

This whole issue of income inequality actually arose from this report some months ago on this phantom $133 worker that the Straits Times reported.

Mr Jeyaretnam: It is from the Statistics Department.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen: Yes, from the Statistics Department, but I say "phantom worker".

Mr Jeyaretnam: Then sack the Department.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen: This issue arose from the Department of Statistics' paper on income disparity. Of course, arising from that there have been many reports on this widening of income gap and many proposals on why and how such gaps as reflected in the Gini coefficient should be closed.

Economic growth and income distribution has always been an area of concern by economists, politicians and journalists. These issues attract popular interest because at best they reflect a genuine concern for the well-being of our fellow men.

This amendment motion recognizes our economy's openness and the globalization forces that sweep the world economy, with so much technological and communication technology advances that are going on. These forces will have an impact on our society and will cause more advanced segments and less advanced segments within the society to develop. We have no choice, I believe, but to embrace this because we are a very open economy. The Government will have to continue to take steps to foster greater social cohesion and the Government has done so.

I would like to put forward some positions from economic studies that we must see these widening inequalities in society in perspective.

If we look at the Department of Statistics' paper of May 2000, "Is Income Disparity Increasing In Singapore", the Gini coefficient was shown to have increased from 0.446 in 1998 to 0.467 in 1999 which showed a positive increase of 0.021. From 1990 to 1999, the increase is 0.031.

If we look at the ratio of the average income of the 9th decile to the 2nd decile, the figure rose from 5.5 in 1990 to 6.8 in 1999.

So there is no doubt that there is a widening income disparity in Singapore over the last decade, but we must also remember that the GDP in that period doubled, averaging at a compound rate of 7% per annum for a decade.

Has the Government been taking action to lessen the disparity at the lower end by appropriate transfer of income and assistance schemes? The answer is yes.

In fact, the Government has realized that some years ago and that this is likely to be an enduring feature of our open economy at this stage of our development where we are actually embarking on a growth path, not just catching up with the advanced countries, or what they call "catching-up growth" but in the literature they call it "endogenous growth", ie, growth that comes with technology. The Government has, over the last few years put in all kinds of assistance programmes such as rental and assistance scheme, SC&CC rebates and utilities rebates, RUAS scheme, public assistance and various personal tax rebates.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Lollipops!

Mr Chay Wai Chuen: Lollipops to him, but not to many people who need them. By the way, these lollipops cost a few billion dollars. These schemes have been in place for several years. What have been the main driving forces in changing the face of our economy over the last 10 years that these will have a significant impact on our income inequality?

Firstly, I would like to say that it is our increasing openness and dependence on the world economy in trade and also in resource factors. Secondly, it is the globalising force that is sweeping the world economy. Thirdly, it is the emphasis we have been putting in raising our productivity, by raising the skill content of our exports and manufactures in order to stay competitive. Otherwise, we will have less investments coming into Singapore. Fourthly, it is the emerging technological changes and knowledge-based system that will determine the new employment profile in the New Economy.

These driving forces affect wages unevenly. Skilled labour gets to do better and better because they are paid better and better. Unskilled labour wage cannot rise as fast as the skilled ones. Often times, there will be dislocations and unemployment where jobs and incomes are lost. As a result of all this, there is income disparity.

Given the high degree of our economic openness and the state of globalising forces impacting us and the technological progress that affects the growth in these economies, what can we draw from the studies of these countries' experience similar to ours?

The good news is that our experience is not unique. This means many countries like the US and the OECD countries over the last 10 - 20 years, as pointed out by Mr Inderjit Singh just now, have also exhibited this tendency towards rising income inequality as their mature economies embark on more skill intensive technological growth.

I would like to point out that this issue of economic growth and income distribution over time and across countries have been an issue of considerable interest study since the 50s. It is not a new subject.

One of the first economists in this area of studies was the earlier Nobel Prize winner, Simon Kuznets, whose hypothesis was that economic growth would generate rising income and wealth inequality during the early industrialization period, and later a declining inequality during the mature industrialization period.

This hypothesis has always been controversial but in the last 20 years, the experiences of the United States and the OECD countries do not conform to this hypothesis of declining income inequality at the mature stage, as rightly pointed out by Mr Inderjit Singh. This is because the experience of the OECD countries has been one of sharp rise in wage inequality since the early 70s to till today.

Recent studies have also identified certain factors which have caused this tendency towards wage inequality in these advanced mature economies. The most important of these is skill biased technical change. Once an economy is engaged in the international trade, the impact of trade will reinforce the labour saving technologies and the skill intensity of jobs so that the wage inequality is further deepened.

The impact of globalisation and the borderless world means that MNCs locate themselves all over the world such that they can produce at the lowest cost. My colleague, Mr Inderjit Singh, has very elaborately highlighted on this. Modern communication means they can employ their executives from anywhere so that relative scarcity of labour skill and talents is transparent. That means executives are also competing globally. Workers are also in a way competing globally, except that executives can move across borders whereas ordinary workers have to do so within the confines of borders. Modern technology and communication also means much flatter organization so that wider control can be executed giving productivity to the higher level executives, enabling them to be better rewarded. Skill biased technical progress also can substitute for unskilled labour. That means that as progress is introduced, more and more skill intensive jobs will be demanded. It is complementary to skilled labour, dislocating unskilled labour by demanding more skilled labour. In this process, wages are made more unequal.

The driving force of technologies does not just cause income inequality across industries but also within industry differences. This is due to more skilled labour having to work with newer types of capital requiring more updated skills, leading to better wage rewards.

With these driving forces of technology and change, our Government and the NTUC have prepared our workers for the new challenge ahead.

I hope the NCMP has heard of ManPower 21, this new Manpower Development Plan for the new economy. He said we do not have any scheme. The NTUC raised funds for the Skills Redevelopment Programme, which is jointly funded by the Government. Today, I was told the demand for the Skills Redevelopment Programme has been very good. This will ensure that our workers will be continually upgraded in their skills.

The Prime Minister in his National Day Rally speech has just announced a $3 billion package to target social objectives, to foster greater community bonding among Singaporeans. Many programmes have been in place for some years, such as the asset enhancement scheme, CPF top-ups, rental rebates on service and conservancy charges, and Edusave rewards which are aimed precisely at levelling up the lower income classes. This levelling up approach is the correct approach. Otherwise, if the top income earners are constrained, our dynamic economy will suffer and more unemployment will result, when growth slows down.

When that happens those with skills and knowledge will move elsewhere, reducing our potential for economic growth and employment generation, bringing us into a vicious trap of slow growth and low income.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support this amendment in the name of Mr Inderjit Singh and I wish that the NCMP would be better informed in future when he talks about the NTUC.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what I heard from the two speakers were not unexpected at all. This is what we have been hearing ad nauseam. What it boils down to is this. Mr Inderjit Singh says it cannot be helped at all, lah. It is globalisation, lah. So there is nothing to do. So sacrifice the worker at the altar of capitalism. The worker is to be completely thrown onto the rubbish heap, because he has no place in the society. Talking about improving skills, about 50% of our workers have less than secondary education. So how are you going to teach them to understand the intricacies of machines and other things that are needed? Can you explain that?

Education, of course, is a very important thing. That is why I say that we have got to see that every child gets, what they say, the same opportunity. But how can you when the family is struggling to make its ends meet? Expect the family also to see that the children are properly educated when they have to pay school fees. One of them said that I was wrong in saying that there is no free education. I do not know whether he has got children. But does he not have paid something every month, because that is what every parent tells me? So it is a sham to say that there is free education in Singapore.

It is no good just indulging in words - we must do something; we must do something; we must do something. Spell out your measures. That is what is needed now. Enough of rhetoric. And the amendment does not seek to spell out any measures. It says, "supports the Government's policies to equip all citizens to benefit from the new economy". What are the Government's policies? We have not heard anything about that. What are the Government's policies to uplift lower income Singaporeans? I still say that what was handed out at the National Day Rally, are lollipops as are those so much vaunted rebates on rent and conservancy charges. They do not address the problem of the difficulties faced by people who are only earning $400 or $500 a month, and they cannot afford the basic things in life.

I have set out a number of things that the Government can do. I am not here advocating that everyone should be paid the same. That is not what I am advocating. What I am saying here is that we have got to see that in this globalisation, new economy, that a substantial portion of the population do not suffer as a result of that. Other developed countries have got proper safety nets. The UK government has got a national health service and had it for years now, providing medical care for those in need. Do we have it? They have an Unfair Dismissals Act. They have enough protection for the worker. Do we have them? So are they saying, "We can't do anything for the workers. It is all globalisation." Societies in those countries will not tolerate that answer.

So instead of saying that there is something that we can do, the poor worker has to accept globalisation. Let us say that it is immoral that in a society like Singapore, with just 3 - 4 million people, very rich in its foreign reserves, for 30% of the people to be living at the poverty line. Let us have it openly, instead of indulging in all these words, words, words, which is what we have had from the Government and from its supporters. The Government must do this, the Government must do that. Let us have them. What are you going to do?

In my view, this amendment adds nothing to what we already know and it does not say how the people who are left out are going to be helped. All it says is, it is a fact of life, accept the fact of life, let us return to the law of the jungle. Those who are able, those who are strong, can push ahead. Those who are weak, those who are disabled, can all just be left behind to die. That is the law of the jungle. Is that what we want in Singapore? Or do we want a caring, humane society which says that we have a duty, as a society, to look after our needy, those who are unable to do things for themselves. I hear several complaints from the disabled on how neglected they feel in Singapore. But it is not for them that this motion is moved, it is for our workers. Shall I say that, unless you also strengthen the workers' rights, you are not going to help them improve their positions, and so try and lessen the gap. It is only when they have rights that they can do something to improve their position. If you keep them as serfs and tell them they have got to go on bended knees to the employers, then they cannot improve themselves and so lessen the inequalities.

As I have said, I have not only these measures to improve the workers' life, I have a number of other social benefits that should be granted. Why can we not grant them? Why can we not recognise that this 30% of our people need these benefits - provide free medical care, provide free education for their children. That means, their parents will not have to pay one cent. Not keep saying, "Oh, no school fees.", but the parents pay $15 a month for other things that are provided in the school. Why can we not have an old-age pension? Have you given answer for that? What is wrong with it when other countries have all got an old-age pension? The CPF is not the answer. Do all families have enough in the CPF to meet their needs when they grow old? Many of them will have nothing, practically nothing. So what do they do? And what do we do about the unemployment problem? It is growing. So what do we do about them? Just throw them on the dust heap. It is globalisation, it is globalisation. So we cannot do anything for you. It is just bad luck!

I do not want to continue. I really cannot understand what I have heard this afternoon. It comes as no surprise, but to say the least, it is amazing that in a society like ours we should hear these views in the 21st century.

Mr Hawazi Daipi (Sembawang): Sir, I did not originally plan to speak. But listening to the NCMP, I thought I should respond to some of the allegations that he has made.

Sweeping forces are affecting our life in Singapore and will affect our life even more so, especially the lower income workers in future. There are now faster technological changes that would affect the ability of our workers to hold jobs due to the fact that the competition that we face, the companies in Singapore are facing, will be more global rather than local. As a result of these two factors, our employees cannot expect full-time employment any more because their companies will restructure and restructure from time to time.

The NCMP needs only to listen to the speech of DPM Tony Tan yesterday at the Manpower Summit which brought together representatives from the Government, employers as well as unions to understand the sweeping changes that have affected the world and are affecting Singapore; and listen to the Prime Minister very carefully to understand and appreciate what are being done for the ordinary folks in Singapore.

What do our workers need generally? Basically, I think they need three things: (1) fair remuneration; (2) fair play at workplaces; and (3) job security. All three of which are being provided for by the unions in Singapore. What we are doing is not just to give them the basic but more than just basic, in order for them to enjoy a better life and in order to keep enhancing their ability to provide for their families.

Mr Jeyaretnam talked about the Employment Act and the need to change the Employment Act and Industrial Relations Act. Yes, there will always be a need to change and to review Acts and laws. I agree. But, first, we have to recognise the factors that would require us to review these laws. And secondly, there is, of course, the need to change mindset. That is what I think we all need to do, especially those who do not understand the forces of globalisation that are now affecting us.

Sir, on the Employment Act, Mr Jeyaretnam asked: who benefits? My answer is the workers have benefited from this Act because it has helped us to attain full employment over the years, and this is the best protection that we can provide for our workers in Singapore. Because in a full employment situation not only would our workers be able to retain their jobs, but at the same time, they can get higher salary. In the face of globalisation where our workers cannot expect to keep their jobs for life, what the unions, working with the Government and employers, are doing is to ensure that they are better skilled and reskilled to be able to enjoy better quality jobs and better income in future.

Mr Jeyaretnam also spoke of the Industrial Relations Act and the fact that our workers' right to strike has been removed. He cannot be more wrong than that. The unions in Singapore have the right to strike. Mr Jeyaretnam understands this. But they choose not to strike because that would work against the interest of the workers themselves. They can strike if they get the support of more than 50% of their members.

The NCMP should look at some countries in Europe to understand how they are responding to these forces of globalisation and trying to protect the interest of their members and workers, and we have seen this. In one meeting with top leaders of a union from a European country, we asked whether they had forgone the approach of striking. Very quickly, the top leader of the union said, "We are now focusing on partnership." What is meant by "partnership"? It means that they are now working more closely with employers by establishing a partnership institute. While they talk about workers' strike, human rights, at international level, at home, they talk about ways to enhance the workers' skills so that they can get better jobs and better income.

Mr Jeyaretnam also talked about the union's role for not serving their workers well. Tripartism has been the hallmark of our industrial relations in Singapore and it has done so well. I am very proud to say that so many unions from all over the world are looking at our example, even though we do not project ourselves as a model for any country. They thought that it is worthy for them to come and watch how we are doing things so that they can learn a thing or two. And I am proud to say that, despite the fact that they see the model that we have been practising for a long time, we are not ashamed to learn from that trade union in Europe which is now focusing on partnership. We will learn from anywhere in order to enhance further our services and protection for our workers.

The new challenges are many. In the past, we were talking about full employment and employment. Now we are talking about enhancing employability. In the past, we just talked about cost competitiveness. Now we talk about new capability in productivity and innovation. Sir, what we are now doing is actually focusing on job creation, skill creation and employability enhancement for our workers. And these are the best protection that we can give to our workers.

Mr Jeyaretnam gives the impression that nothing is being done for older workers. Again, he cannot be more wrong. Because 80% of those who have gone through SRP training have less than eight years of formal education and 70% of them are above 40 years old. Some 30,000 workers have been trained under this Skills Redevelopment Programme and as far as I know, we are trying to train 70,000 more people in the next three years. If that is not helping workers to cope with the forces of globalisation, I do not know what is.

In my view, what is important is to help our workers cope with the changes in the new economy rather than talking about doling benefits to them. It will not help them in future. You can give free medical services. You can give free of everything, but in the end, it will not help them in the long run.

Mr Jeyaretnam talked about the problems of having a Cabinet Minister being the leader of the trade union movement. He sounds like the trade union leaders in Europe talking about us, probably about five to seven years ago. Even now, they are changing. They are coming to discuss with us on what we have done for our workers that they can take a look at.

Who has fought for continuing education and training for our workers? It was NTUC. Who fought for SRP and Education and Training Fund? - $100 million a year and the Government, as announced by the Prime Minister, has agreed to give $500 million more to a fund that will ultimately be $5 billion in Lifelong Education Fund. NTUC has a part in it. And because NTUC is led by a Cabinet Minister, the workers' concerns go direct to the Cabinet and it has helped the workers. Who has first articulated the view that CPF should be restored early? It was NTUC. And who during the recession tried to lower costs for ordinary Singaporeans? It was NTUC, through NTUC FairPrice, and various other cooperatives. So these cooperatives are not just organisations which are there to make money. We are in business because we are helping the workers. Mr Jeyaretnam, we are in the business of helping workers.

Is NTUC outnumbered in NWC? Again, he is very wrong. NTUC, the Government and the employers have an equal number of representatives on the NWC.

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Government is an employer.

Mr Hawazi Daipi: The Government is the representative of the people. He said that we are forcing Singaporeans and our workers to accept the effects of globalisation. What we are doing is actually helping them to be part of globalisation and benefit from it, and not run away from it, but overcome the forces and benefit from it. He said that we should help those who are left out. But we are not helping just those who have been left out, we are helping those Singaporeans so that they are not left out. So before they are left out, we want to help them through skills upgrading and other schemes.

Sir, in conclusion, I can only summarise that Mr Jeyaretnam has written the workers off. What we are doing is that we have tried to help our workers to overcome the forces of globalisation.

Let me just quickly respond to Mr Low Thia Khiang. He expressed concern over the widening income gap and workers older than 40 years and those with low skills. Every Singaporean should. But who first identified the potential dangers of structural unemployment? It was NTUC. It was in 1997, even before the recession began. And what did we do? We did not just sit down and talked in Parliament. We designed the Skills Redevelopment Programme and asked the Government to fund it and raised it to be a national programme. We also realised that there would be workers who could not benefit from the SRP. NTUC itself set up a fund called the Education and Training Fund. We have raised $5 million and the Government has topped up $15 million. The Government has agreed to give another $15 million if we can raise another $5 million - to raise the fund to $40 million.

Sir, it is very easy to talk about how to help the workers, but we should not just criticise efforts that have been made or, worse still, not recognising what has been done for the workers.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I ask the speaker, by way of clarification, what is this call by NTUC for a new contract that I saw in the Straits Times on 23rd August. Could he explain to us what is this new contract that you are calling for?

Mr Hawazi Daipi: Sir, I do not think this is a forum to discuss that.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Why not?

Mr Hawazi Daipi: You can file another motion to debate that.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, I agree. Or you can look up the newspapers.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Amendment accordingly agreed to.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted."

Amendment accordingly agreed to.

Mr Deputy Speaker: The Question now before the House is the Original Question, as amended:

"That this House

(1) notes that globalisation and the knowledge economy are widening income disparities worldwide;

(2) reaffirms the strategy of embracing globalisation to create growth and prosperity for Singaporeans; and

(3) supports the Government's policies to equip all citizens to benefit from the new economy, to uplift lower income Singaporeans and to strengthen social cohesion.".

Original Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

"That this House

(1) notes that globalisation and the knowledge economy are widening income disparities worldwide;

(2) reaffirms the strategy of embracing globalisation to create growth and prosperity for Singaporeans; and

(3) supports the Government's policies to equip all citizens to benefit from the new economy, to uplift lower income Singaporeans and to strengthen social cohesion.".