E.W. Barker
Singapore
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This is a simple Bill which seeks to amend section 33 of the Land Acquisition Act on the amount of compensation payable to owners of land compulsorily acquired under the Act.”
“For the five-year period from 1st July, 1981 to 30th June, 1986, the HDB demolished a total of 8,098 units. As the HDB's new accounting system was only implemented from 1st April, 1985, the Board does not have ready information on the value of flats demolished prior to 1st April, 1985. RELOCATION OF CREMATORIUMS 4.”
“The HDB did not allocate any MP's office to the previous PAP MPs for Anson and Potong Pasir constituencies. NUMBER OF H.D.B. UNITS DEMOLISHED 3.”
“I would not know. Why don't you ask them? I don't know. Sir, to put things in a nutshell, it is the legal profession amongst all the professions that help in the administration of Singapore. Doctors help to cure you of diseases.”
“I am not saying it's wrong. I am not telling you stories. I am relating. So they decided to take us on. When we went into Select Committee, the first day and the later part of the second day, there was confrontation between the Committee and the lawyers.”
“As the Member for Anson would know, the Minister for Law is not in charge of prosecutions or the conduct of any criminal proceedings in court, nor does he give any directives on these matters.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,152 lines we hold for E.W. Barker, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 44.
“Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1979 to 31st March, 1980, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.”
“Sir, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow? The Chairman: I give my consent. Is it the pleasure of hon. Members that the motion be moved as proposed? Hon. Members indicated assent. Resolved, "That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow." - [Mr E.W. Barker]. Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.”
“Sir, may I assure the Member for Kim Seng that he will have the whole day tomorrow. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY REPORTING PROGRESS (Suspension of Standing Orders) 6.06 p.m.”
“Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1979 to 31st March, 1980 and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.”
“Sir, as we are well ahead of time, I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow.”
“Sir, may I seek your permission, and if there are no objections from the House, I would like my Political Secretary to answer.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the sum under this Subhead in the Development Estimates makes provision for the cost of land acquisitions for general purposes. The cost of acquisitions of land required for specific purposes by various Ministries or departments are incorporated in the respective Ministries' development votes for these specific projects. Experience over the last few years has shown that the actual expenditure incurred under this Subhead has been less than that provided for. For budgetary reasons, it has therefore been decided to reduce the provision to a more realistic one to cater just for the immediate needs, leaving out longer term requirements. This provision has, therefore, been reduced to $25 million this year as compared to last year's $54 million. In the event of the provision being insufficient, an application for supplementary provision will be made, at which time the hon. Member can rise again and ask his questions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the State land next to the Philips factory at Lorong 1, Toa Payoh is, in fact, Lot 4061 pt, Mukim VII, with an approximate area of 38,653 square metres. This is the land referred to by the hon. Member. Approval has been given for the relocation of the Convent of the Holy Infant Jesus at Victoria Street, which is affected by the development of the Raffles International Centre project. An agreement was signed in 1976 between the Convent School authorities and the Permanent Secretary to the Minister for Education for the grant of a lease for the site. I understand that construction work on the site will start soon and that the Convent is expected to move from Victoria Street in a few years' time. In view of the Government's commitment, the site cannot be released for use as a multi-purpose community centre, as proposed by the Member for Kuo Chuan. However, should I be wrong and should the Convent not be interested in moving, I would be happy to allocate that piece of land for a community centre. I think this case has arisen because the construction of the Raffles International Centre has been postponed for some years because there was over-development in Singapore. But now there are firm plans to proceed with the construction, and once the 70-storey building goes up, I am sure the Convent will be happy to move.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not say "frustrate". I said, "in fairness to the Opposition".”
“I was not suggesting that the Member did. But impliedly, when he speaks of giving Members a freer rein during Question Time, one gets the impression that he wants to remove these restrictions. But I am sure the Member for Jalan Kayu would be the last in this House to ask for a free-for-all. As for the Committees, Sir, I agree with the Member that something should be done about the Estimates Committee and the Public Accounts Committee. What should be done, I do not know, because I have not been on these Committees. But the Member himself has chaired the Estimates Committee for several years. He has also chaired the Public Accounts Committee, which is the watchdog on Government spending. There is no clear division, although it has been spelt out in the Standing Orders, between what the Public Accounts Committee should do and what the Estimates Committee should do. But in thanking him for his comments on these two Committees, I would ask him, as the Member has the most experience in these Committees, to make proposals which this House will give consideration to.”
“If he wants a free-for-all for Members, Parliament will, I think, degenerate and one day collapse.”
“Members opposite are the elected representatives of the people, and since they belong to one party, our Party, they are absolutely supreme here. There is no one to take them on. So we have got to be careful. If we do what we like in this House, then one of these days we might have to pay for it. One of you MPs might lose your seat. So we have got to tread very carefully. As I have said, these Standing Orders have withstood the test of time, from 1960 up till today. So what are you grumbling about? Now, Question Time. What is Question Time? Question Time means what it says. You ask the questions, we give the answers. You pop a supplementary question at us, we try to reply. But now you want a full debate. The procedure now is that Question Time goes on for one hour. If you want a debate, there are many other opportunities for a debate. You are debating on the Budget today. You have Bills to debate on. Ministers move Motions. You Back-benchers can do the same. At the end of the day you can seize the last half hour for an Adjournment debate and the Minister will have to reply. Hence, the reason for Question Time. If we allow it to develop into a full debate, then we might be here till 6 o'clock, judging from the number of supplementary questions that are asked of one Minister. I am not with the Member for Jalan Kayu when he proposes that we remove the restrictions which have been put in. He calls them restrictions. I say Standing Orders - Rules of procedure. It is just like the referee at the Stadium in Kallang. He blows his whistle when someone is off-side or does not play according to the rules of the game. You, Sir, call us to order when we get out of order. I think that is the way it should be.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I have to inform the hon. Member, with regret, that he will not have the honour of the Prime Minister replying to him. The Prime Minister has asked me to reply on his behalf. Sir, may I join the hon. Member in thanking you for improving the facilities within this House and outside, in the Annex. This was long overdue. It took you some time to convince the Ministry of Finance, but you have done so. The next point, Sir, is the Standing Orders which seem to bug not only Members on the other side of the House but even my own colleagues. Our Standing Orders were first introduced on 1st January, 1960, and amended pursuant to several resolutions on May 1961, July 1962, June 1964, and November 1970, as stated in this Reprint dated 5th November, 1970. Our Standing Orders have thus been amended and refined from time to time. But I must remind Members again that these Standing Orders were drafted when we had an Opposition, and it was in fairness primarily to the Opposition, that these Standing Orders were drafted. We have not had an Opposition since 1966 when Members of the Barisan Sosialis left this House. Since then we have been returned unopposed and we have had it our way all these years. The Standing Orders are flexible. They are elastic. With your consent, Sir, and with the general assent of the House, we can do practically anything here. But do we want to write too much flexibility into our Standing Orders? What happens when the Opposition returns to this House? Do we go back to this Reprint? Members must realise that, under our system of Government, Parliament is supreme. We enact the laws. We can enact any law in this House.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the amendment contained in this Bill is a formal amendment which is consequential on the amendment contained in the Civil Law (Amendment) Bill, 1979. The reference to the Civil Law Act in the existing subsection (1) of section 19 of the Rubber Association of Singapore (incorporation) Act is inappropriate and unnecessary and the new subsection to be substituted in its place will have no reference to the Civil Law Act. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr E.W. Barker]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment: read a Third time and passed. JUDGES' REMUNERATION (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 1, line 15, to delete the words "in Singapore" Sir, these words are superfluous. There are commodity brokers in Singapore who deal with local clients in international markets and exchanges. It is therefore desirable, as far as the law of Singapore is concerned, that there should be no doubt as to the validity of these transactions. The amendment now proposed will thus remove such a doubt as it will cover contracts not only entered into by parties in any markets or exchanges in Singapore but also elsewhere. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2 as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with an amendment, read a Third time and passed. RUBBER ASSOCIATION OF SINGAPORE (INCORPORATION) (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading reed. 5.30 p.m.”
“' Sir, the 1962 Amendment which I referred to sought to preclude the application of subsection (1), the effect of which is to render a wagering contract void to futures contracts in rubber. This is far from satisfactory as futures contracts are not, as such, wagering contracts and there is no necessity to exempt them from the application of subsection (1) of section 7. What this Bill seeks to do is merely to declare the accepted position at common law with regard to all futures contracts. That is to say, the mere fact that there is no physical delivery of the commodities in question does not by itself affect the validity of such contracts. This clarifies the law in Singapore in a manner which is consistent with the established common law position. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr E.W. Barker]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 5.28 p.m. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 -”
“, in 1958, reported in Volume 24 of the Malayan Law Journal at page 97, the Court of Appeal held that certain transactions in future contracts for the delivery of rubber were colourable and therefore null and void, being wagering contracts. But, the decision in the case should have been confined to its facts. However, because of this case which did not go to the Privy Council, rubber brokers in Singapore were rather concerned as to the state of the law. Hence in 1962 an amendment was moved to section 7, and the amendment is in section 7 subsection 3(b), which states: 'Subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall not be deemed to apply - (a) ... (b) to any contract or agreement which purports to be a contract or agreement for the sale or purchase of rubber either for immediate or future delivery. But members will note that this subsection is confined merely to contracts in rubber. Since then the commodity market has grown, not only in popper and sugar. We even have a gold market which was set up last year. Does subsection (3) (b) cover transactions in commodities besides rubber? To make the position clear, we have decided to delete this subsection and substitute it with a declaratory provision stating beyond doubt, in subsection (4), that: 'For the avoidance of doubt, whom any contract for the future delivery of any commodity is entered into in any exchange or market in Singapore, the fact that the contract is entered into by one or both parties with no intention of actual delivery of the commodity but with the intention of realising a profit arising out of differences in the price of the commodity shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the contract.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the object of this Bill is not to alter or change the law but merely to re-state it beyond any doubt. Section 7 subsection (1) of the Civil Law Act states that, "All contracts or agreements, whether by parol or in writing, by way of gaming or wagering shall be null and void." What does "null and void" mean? This is set out in subsection (2), I quote: 'No action shall be brought or maintained in the court for recovering any sum of money or valuable thing alleged to be won upon any wager or which has been deposited in the hands of any person to abide the event on which any wager has been made.' There is a lot of betting going on in this town: whether Singapore will beat Kelantan by at least four goals, whether Saas Fee will win the Singapore Gold Cup, or whether, as in the last by-elections, all the seven PAP candidates will win. But, sad to say, it was difficult to get a bet against our candidates, even at long odds, in the last by-elections. That is simple enough. That is plain betting. But when it comes to the commodity market, we can get into difficulties. If one buys rubber, ready delivery, there is no problem. But if one buys rubber for delivery in the future, there may be problems. If the intention of the parties is that no delivery is to be made but merely to pay each other on the difference in the contract prices at the date of the contract and the date of purported delivery, then the question arises: is it or is it not a wagering contract? In the case of Mizrahie v Stenton Nelson & Co. Ltd.”
“I have suggested that the Member directs his questions to the Ministers concerned. If he does that, I am sure he will get better answers than I can give him.”
“It is not top secret but it is a secret. If he is not satisfied with this answer, I would suggest that he pose a question to the Minister in Charge on some other occasion. As for the Ministry of the Environment, I have relinquished my duties there and I would again suggest that he take it up with the Minister concerned. As for the dollars and cents that we are asking for, Sir, during the period which I mentioned (1st April 1978 to 28th February 1979), the Attorney-General's Chambers dealt with and reached settlement in respect of 499 accidents. Of these accidents involving Government vehicles, claims in respect of 405 accidents have been settled and we paid out a total sum of $359,981.96. Agreement has been reached in respect of the claims for the remaining 94 accidents but payments totalling $168,180 have yet to be made. Hence the requirement of the supplementary vote for this sum.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid the note to the Supplementary Estimates is a bit misleading, at least the first part which states: 'The need for supplementary provision under the above object group is because of the payment of compensation for damages arising from the increase in the number and seriousness of cases involving Government negligence ...'. In fact, the number of accidents involving Government vehicles last year has gone down when compared to the figure for 1977. But the amount of compensation. has increased because of inflation and the higher cost of repairs to motor vehicles. The figures on the number of accidents involving vehicles for the last four years are as follows: 1975 1,545; 1976 a drop to 1,373; 1977 an increase to 1,819; and 1978 a decrease to 1,784. As I pointed out previously to the hon. Member for Punggol, criminal proceedings are taken against the drivers of vehicles, whether Government or outside the Government. But in addition, Government drivers are subject to disciplinary proceedings which are taken by the departments concerned in appropriate cases. As for the number of accidents for the various departments, I have a list here but I do not think it would be appropriate for me to read it out in detail. Of the 405 accidents for the period 1st April 1978 to 28th February 1979, the Ministry of Defence was concerned in 291 cases; the Ministry of the Environment 50; the Police 33, and the rest (whether it was the Fire Brigade or the Public Works Department) were all less than 10. The fact that the Ministry of Defence has the largest number of accidents does not mean that our Army drivers are just no good. It is because the Ministry of Defence has the largest number of vehicles in Singapore. I am afraid I cannot tell him the number.”
“Mr Speaker. Sir, with your permission and the general assent of Members of the House, I would like to propose that we take item 7 on the Order Paper today immediately after item 1. Sir, Members within this House and outside this House are interested in knowing what taxes they will have to pay or what concessions the Hon. Minister for Finance is going to make. So I would suggest that we do as I have proposed!”
“Sir, we will cross the bridge when we come to the river. At the moment, there is no brain-drain. As I stated just now, the Member is assuming that these ASEAN students will not go home, whether they are scholars or private students. So far they have all gone home. So there is no question of withdrawing the scholarships. Their numbers are small. These countries are friendly to us, and I think it is a good thing if we carry on giving them scholarships. TRANSFER OF TEACHERS TO THE NINE SELECTED CHINESE SECONDARY SCHOOLS 3. Mr Ng Kah Ting asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education (a) how many teachers from how many schools have been transferred to the nine selected Chinese secondary schools; (b) whether the move has created problems for the schools from which those teachers have been transferred; and (c) how replacement will be made. The Senior Minister of State for Education (Mr Chai Chong Yii) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education): Mr Speaker, Sir, a total of 42 teachers from 32 schools were transferred to the nine selected Chinese secondary schools. The vacancies arising in the 32 schools were filled mainly by cadet teachers. The withdrawal of even a single teacher from any school must cause some disruption. However, a breakdown shows that of the 32 schools, one released three teachers, eight released two teachers and the remaining 23 released one teacher each. The release of more than one teacher by a school was conditioned by such factors as distance, the specific needs of schools and the standing of the teachers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, two Members of this House have sent in their resignations. Another four will be leaving us soon. May I join the last speaker in wishing the Members here present, Mr Ivan Baptist and Mr Ahmad Haleem, all the very best and the same to the others. We hope they will be as happy outside as they were in this House. [Applause]. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr E.W. Barker]. Adjourned accordingly at Fifteen minutes to Five o'clock p.m. to a date to be fixed. tabulation - LIST OF CHARGES (Cols. 265 - 274) Data - RECRUITMENT FIGURES FOR 1977 AND 1978, NUMBER OF TEACHERS INVOLVED IN IN-SERVICE TRAINING PROGRAMMES (Cols. 275 - 276) TABLES BASED ON 1977 GCE 'O' LEVEL EXAMINATION STATISTICS (Cols. 277 - 278)”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, following the resignation of the Member for Geylang West, Mr Yong Nyuk Lin, may I seek your concurrence and under Standing Order No. 34 to alter the terms of my Motion* for the appointment of Members of the Committee of Selection, by substituting the name "Mr Phey Yew Kok" for "Mr Yong Nyuk Lin", appearing in the last line thereof. *The motion reads as follows:-- That this Parliament, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order 95, appoints the following as Members of the Committee of Selection:-- Mr E.W. Barker Mr Phua Bah Lee Mr Sia Kah Hui Dr Augustine H.H. Tan Dr Tan Eng Liang Mr Yeo Choo Kok Mr Yong Nyuk Lin.”
“When we say, "We are not going to issue new licences," we mean that that is the general policy. But there may be cases of hardship where the only worker in the family or income-earner dies and the widow and children have no other means of support. In cases like that, we always do our best to issue licences. 4.26 p.m.”
“I will be very brief, Sir, to answer questions or clarifications sought by the Members for Whampoa and Kampong Kembangan. The Member for Whampoa wants to know why we say there are enough hawkers in Singapore. We say there are enough hawkers in Government establishments. We try to restrict their numbers. But there are 7,000 other hawkers. We call them stallholders in private establishments. We do not restrict their numbers. But the 27,000 or more hawkers in Government establishments are subsidised by the Government and we would prefer them to go into more productive jobs. Where they are healthy and able bodied, we would rather that they not be hawkers. As for supply and demand, we are not saying that there are enough hawkers and stallholders in Singapore. There is a distinction. When I say "hawkers", I mean those that are either in Government establishments, HDB markets or hawker centres, or those with the Ministry of the Environment, or if they are occupying pitches on industries. There is a day-pitch and a night-pitch, and we have got more than 4,000 of these street hawkers to resite. So the policy is to restrict the issue of new hawker licences; by that I mean Government licensed hawkers. There are also other canteens and restaurants where you can buy your food, or whatever you want. As for the private establishments, to give you an example, there may be a coffee shop which pays a licence fee of about $120 per year. This is a private coffee shop. In that coffee shop, there might be a few hawkers selling kway teow, mee rebus, or whatever it is. They only pay us $6 a year each because we do not subsidise them, nor do we control their numbers. All we do is to make sure that the food they sell is clean. So the policy of my Ministry is not rigid.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not easy. There are certain low lying areas in Singapore, like Geylang Serai and parts of Tampines, which are below the high tide level. All we can do is, when redevelopment takes place in these low lying areas, to raise the level of the land. Beyond that, there is not much we can do. Cutting more canals or widening the canals means money. It also means that there will be less land for other purposes. But, as I have said, we are spending quite a bit of money. We spent nearly $14 million last year to deepen and construct concrete drains and canals. This year we expect to spend another $18 million. NANYANG ACADEMY OF FINE ARTS (Problems) 3. Mr Ang Nam Piau asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Education, as the Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts is facing possible closure owing to financial difficulties, if the Government will consider taking over the Academy so as to continue its objective of improving the quality of life of the people and producing more talent for the commercial and industrial sector.”
“Sir, the work began in August last year. It will cost $32 million. The project will be completed in 1982, and it should alleviate flooding in the Orchard Road area. The first contract, from Kramat Lane to Queen Street, has been given out and work is being done in front of the Istana and the Plaza Singapura. The second contract, from Orange Grove Road to Grange Road, will be called early this year; and the third contract, from Grange Road to Kramat Lane, will be called at the end of the year. The final contract, from Queen Street to Beach Road, will be called in about early 1980.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members of the House to move the Adjournment Motion now. This will give Members more time to study the Presidential Address and the Addenda thereto, so that their contributions to the Debate would be that much better when we next meet.”
“Resolved, That pursuant to Article 25 of the Constitution of Singapore, the salary of the Speaker shall be $6,500 per month for the period 1st March, 1973 to 31st October, 1977 and $9,370 per month with effect from 1st November, 1977. DEPARTMENTAL TITLES 4.24 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name as it appears on the Order Paper. *The motion reads as follows: That pursuant to Article 25 of the Constitution of Singapore, the salary of the Speaker shall be $6,500 per month for the period 1st March, 1973 to 31st October, 1977 and $9,370 per month with effect from 1st November, 1977. Sir, Article 25 of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that the Speaker shall be paid such salary as Parliament may from time to time determine. The salary of the Speaker was last determined by Parliament at $3,000 per month with effect from 8th December 1965 by a resolution passed on 13th December 1965. On 16th February 1973 the Minister for Finance made a statement in Parliament relating to the revision of salaries for officers in the public service. The Minister stated then that the salary of the Speaker was to be revised to $6,500 per month with effect from 1st March 1973. No approval of Parliament was, however, sought to revise the salary of the Speaker accordingly. With the consolidation of the salaries of officers in the public service by the incorporation of the National Wages Council allowances for 1973-77 into the salary scales with effect from 1st November 1977, it is now proposed that the salary of the Speaker be revised to $9,370 per month, based on the pre-consolidated salary of $6,500 per month, with effect from 1st November, 1977. Members are, however, aware that the present Speaker has only drawn about half the salary of the Speaker and will continue to do so as long as he does not devote all his time to the office of Speaker. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to.”
“Sir, I beg to move, "That the clause be read a Second time". Sir, this provision deals with certain contingent circumstances in the case of a person who has ceased to be a Member and has the minimum period of reckonable service for a Member's or office-holder's pension but has not been granted any such pension because he has not yet attained the age of 50 years. If he dies before attaining the age of 50 years, his dependants or legal personal representatives may be paid a gratuity. If he becomes physically or mentally incapacitated so as to be unable to continue in any employment before he has attained the age of 50 years, he may be granted a pension notwithstanding the fact that he has not attained the age of 50 years. Question put and agreed to. Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.”
“Sir, I beg to move, "That the clause be read a Second time." Mr Speaker, Sir, this provision is designed to secure for a Member who has to cease to be a Member by reason of ill-health, a Member's pension if he has the minimum nine years' reckonable service, notwithstanding the fact that he has not attained the pensionable age of 50 years. The President must, however, be satisfied that on account of such ill-health he has become incapable of performing the duties of a Member. If such a person does not have the minimum nine years' reckonable service, he may nevertheless be granted a gratuity at the rate of 10% of his annual salary for each completed year of reckonable service as a Member. This provision will also secure for an office-holder who satisfies the President that he has to cease holding office on account of ill-health, a pension for service as an office-holder if he has the minimum eight years' reckonable service for such pension even though he may not have attained the age of 50 years. Question put and agreed to. Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.”
“New Clause (A) - "Pension (1) Where after the commencement of granted this Act a person ceases at any time to be to person a Member or to hold office by reason of ceasing ill-health and the President is satisfied to be that on account of such ill-health that Member or person has become incapable of office- performing the duties of a Member or of holder on his office, he may be granted a pension or medical gratuity in accordance with this section, ground. (2) In the case of a person who ceases to be a Member and - (a) who has the minimum period of reckonable service to be eligible for a pension under section 3, he may be granted a pension in accordance with that section notwithstanding the fact that he has not attained the age of fifty years; (b) who does not have the minimum period of reckonable service to be eligible for a pension under section 3, he may be granted a gratuity to be computed - (i) at the rate of ten per cent of his annual salary as defined in subsection (4) of section 3 for each completed year of reckonable service as a Member (including any period of reckonable service which may be counted by virtue of section 5); and (ii) at the rate of ten per cent of one-twelfth of such annual salary for any completed month remaining after the last completed year of reckonable service. (3) In the case of a person who ceases to hold office and who has the minimum period of reckonable service to be eligible for a pension under section 4, he may be granted a pension in accordance with that section notwithstanding the fact that he has not attained the age of fifty years.". - [Mr E W Barker]. Brought up, and read the First time.”
“Now, if he were to cease as a Member on the commencement of the new scheme, he will ultimately receive under the new scheme not less than the amount which he would have been eligible to receive under the present scheme in respect of the period of his service before the commencement of the new scheme. If, in the case of such a person, his Member's pension together with any pension which he may receive as an office-holder under the new scheme is less than that amount, his Member's pension may be increased by a sum equal to the difference. The proviso to the subsection makes clear that this special preservation of benefit will have no application in the case where a pension is granted in the circumstances referred to in the two New Clauses (A) and (B) which will be inserted as clauses 8 and 10 respectively later. Sir, as for the new subsection (5), this amendment will preserve the benefit of any person who is already eligible to receive a pension under section 10 of the existing Act, if he were to cease to hold public office as defined by that section, but only in respect of his reckonable service up to the date of commencement of the new scheme. No further benefit under section 10 of the existing Act will be available for any subsequent service in the public office defined by that section. Under the new scheme there will be no provision corresponding to the said section 10, as that section is considered to be an anomaly. Amendment agreed to. Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 9, after line 3, to add - "(4) If in the case of a Member who at the commencement of this Act has not less than nine years' reckonable service and has attained the age of forty-five years, the pension which he is eligible to receive under section 3 on his ceasing to be a Member, together with any pension which he is eligible to receive under section 4, is less than the amount of pension which he would have been eligible to receive under the former Act in respect of his reckonable service before the commencement of this Act had he ceased to be a Member at the commencement of this Act, his pension under section 3 may be increased by the difference between that amount and the pensions which he is eligible to receive under sections 3 and 4: Provided that this subsection shall not apply to a person who may be granted a pension by virtue of sections 8 and 10. (5) Any person who at the commencement of this Act is eligible to receive a pension under section 10 of the former Act in respect of his reckonable service under that Act if he had ceased to hold public office as defined by that section may, when he ceases to hold such public office, be granted a pension under the former Act in respect of the period of such reckonable service before the commencement of this Act as if the former Act had not been repealed by this Act.". First, may I deal with the insertion of subsection (4). This amendment will ensure that a Member who is already eligible will receive a pension under the present scheme, that is to say, he has done nine years' reckonable service and has attained 45 years of age.”
“Sir, I beg to move. In page 4, after line 23, to insert - "Provided that where the monthly rate of salary applicable to any office previously held by an office-holding Member is increased during any continuous period of reckonable service while he is an office-holding Member but holding another office, he shall be deemed to have received such increased rate during his period of reckonable service as a holder of that office." Sir, this amendment is necessary so as to ensure that an office-holding Member who is appointed to another office, whether by reason of promotion or otherwise, will not suffer any detriment in the amount of pension which may be granted to him as a result of the change in his office. The amendment will give him the benefit of any increase in the monthly rate of salary applicable to any previous office held by him, if the increase is made whilst he is in continuous service as an office-holder but is at the time of the increase holding another office. 3.45 p.m. This will remove the possibility of a situation in which an office-holder who is appointed to another office will receive less pension than if he had not been so appointed because of a general upward revision of salaries after such appointment. If he has a very long period of service in his previous office or offices and only a short period in his current office before ceasing to be an office-holder, the pension in respect of his reckonable service in his previous office or offices will, without the amendment, be calculated on the pre-revised salary instead of the revised salary. The amendment will enable the revised salary to be used in computing his pension for the periods of reckonable service in previous offices which are continuous with his reckonable service in his current office.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, after line 6, to insert - "(2) The reference to service in Parliament in the definition of "reckonable service" in subsection (1) shall be read as Including a reference to service in the Legislative Assembly on and after the 3rd day of June, 1959, and before the 9th day of August, 1965.". Sir, this is a purely technical amendment to make clear that the reference to service in Parliament in the definition of "reckonable service" will be read as including a reference to service in the Legislative Assembly on and after the 3rd day of June, 1959, and before the 9th August, 1965, during which period Parliament was known as the Legislative Assembly. Amendment agreed to. Mr Barker: Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, to leave out lines 19 to 27 inclusive. This is considered now not necessary. Amendment agreed to.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I first thank the two Members who have just spoken for their valuable contributions and for taking this Bill in the right spirit. As for Ambassadors, the Member for Jalan Kayu asked that we think over this clause again. What can best be done is to provide for gratuities for Ambassadors through and by way of the Foreign Service. But to equate them with MPs will mean going back to square one. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr E.W. Barker]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 3.40 p.m. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 -”
“These Members will not be given, I repeat, will not be given, the option to remain under the present Act, even though the present Act is more generous to them. It is considered right and proper that they should come under the new Act, since the benefits they enjoy under the present Act were fortuitous and unintended. Sir, I have spoken freely and frankly within the constraints that circumscribe me as a Minister of the Cabinet. I hope hon. Members will speak even more frankly and freely than I have. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.30 p.m.”
“It is, therefore, proposed to fix the qualifying age for all Members of Parliament, be he a Member or an office-holder, at 50 years of age under the new scheme. Yet another defect of the present Act is contained in section 10 which provides for service in a public office (defined in that section as the office of High Commissioner or Ambassador or such other office as the President may determine) to count as reckonable service for the purposes of Parliamentary pension and for the pension to be computed on the basis of the salary drawn in the public office. This present provision is difficult to justify. Service as an Ambassador cannot in any circumstances be equated with service as an office-holder. The section has therefore been removed and will find no place in the new pension scheme embodied in the Bill. Though the present Act is being repealed, the rights of former Members of Parliament who are already in receipt of a pension will be preserved. So will the rights of former Members of Parliament who may become eligible for the grant of a pension on attaining the age of 45 years. There are some serving Members of Parliament who have already become eligible for the grant of a pension under the present Act, in that they have served for more than nine years and have reached the age of 45. If they retire or cease to be Members before the date of enactment of the new Act, they would be entitled to a pension. It is therefore considered fair that their rights should be preserved. I will be moving an amendment to Clause 15 to provide for this. There are other Members in this House who have reached the age of 45 years, but have not served for at least nine years. There are others also who have served for nine years or more but have not reached the age of 45.”
“Under the present law there is no distinction between the pension of an office-holder and that of an ordinary Member. A Member's pension at present would be computed on the basis of his reckonable service as a Member as well as an office-holder without any distinction, and on his best three years' salary. The new formula embodied in the Bill has an entirely different basis, treating service as a Member and service as an office-holder as separate and distinct. The pension benefits in respect of an office-holder will reflect the actual contribution made by him in his various official capacities. To qualify for a Member's pension, a Member must have at least nine years' reckonable service as at present. To qualify for an office-holder's pension, an office-holder must be an office-holder for at least eight years. However, if an office-holder has less than eight years' reckonable service there is provision to convert the period of his service in any office or offices to count as additional period to determine his eligibility for and the amount of his Member's pension. Further, the pension rate at present payable to all of us is fixed at 1/30th of our annual salary. Under the Act, the pension rate payable to a Member will remain the same, that is to say, at 1/30th, but the pension rate payable to an office-holder will be raised to 1/27th of his annual salary. Another defect of the present law is that the qualifying age for a pension is too low as it is fixed at 45 years. The normal retirement age for civil servants is 55 or 60 years depending on whether the officer is recruited before or after 1st July 1956. At 45 years of age a man should be at the prime of his life and should not be thinking of his pension.”
“Members to the most significant changes. First, I must stress one point. Our Party occupies every seat in this House, and has done so ever since the second half of 1965. We can enact any law and move any resolution that suits us in this House. But each and every law or resolution has to be manifestly fair and publicly justified, or the censure will be registered at the next elections. Because we occupy all the seats, we have a heavy responsibility, and this responsibility becomes particularly onerous when we are taking through a bill to provide for our own pensions upon retirement. It would be tempting and easy for us to provide enhanced benefits for ourselves, but it is a temptation we must resist when discharging our duty, namely, to ensure that any revision must be in the public interest. One of the crucial problems which we face is to ensure that there will be sufficient men of character, integrity and talent who can take over from the present leaders and ensure the continuity of honest, effective and efficient Government. It is, therefore, of paramount importance that we should make the terms and conditions of service for Members and office-holders sufficiently attractive for the ablest and best to want to enter Parliament and to take office. Mediocrity in political leadership is a luxury we cannot afford in Singapore. Hence this Bill which, it is hoped, will encourage our most promising to enter politics and to serve the nation. It will be a great tragedy if we should fail in this objective. A serious defect of the present law is that it fails to take into consideration the difference in the contributions made by Members in their various official capacities. A Minister, for example, has far more responsibility than a Parliamentary Secretary or a Backbencher.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill was tabled in the name of the Prime Minister. As it deals with pensions of parliamentarians, Government has decided that it would be more appropriate for me, as the Leader of the House, to move it. I moved the Parliamentary Pensions Act in 1969. Nine years have gone by since, but it still contains some defects and anomalies, in spite of the several amendments which we made to the Act. Government has therefore decided, after careful consideration, that the time has come to enact a new Act. This Bill was first read in this House on the 31st of January last. It has been allowed to lie on this Table all these months in order to allow hon. Members ample time and opportunity to study and consider its implications. Certain representations have been made by Members which have been carefully considered and a few accepted, as Members will see from the notice of amendments. A great deal of time, thought and effort has been given to the drafting of this Bill. It is not possible to accommodate everyone who stands to lose what he has or would have earned under the present Act, without creating new anomalies. However, we feel that the Bill together with the amendments, which I shall be moving in Committee, will provide a fairer and a more lasting framework. It has taken account of our social and economic circumstances. It will not do too much injustice in lost expectations of higher pensions of those who will in the future have their pensions as Members of Parliament and office-holders calculated separately, and not jointly as under the present Act. I do not propose to deal with the technical details and complexities of the Bill but merely wish to explain the reasons which prompted Government to initiate this Bill and to draw the attention of hon.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. ATTENDANCE FEES AT ACCIDENT AND EMERGENCY DEPARTMENTS AND OUTPATIENT DISPENSARIES AND DENTAL SERVICE CHARGES 3.29 p.m.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I seek your consent and the general assent of hon. Members present to move a Motion to exempt the proceedings on the matter to be raised on the Motion for the Adjournment today from the time limits laid down in Standing Order 1 (8) (b). Sir, normally a debate on the Adjournment Motion lasts for half an hour, usually from 7.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. Since it is only 3.30 p.m. now, and I understand that many Backbenchers wish to speak on a matter which touches their hearts, I seek your consent, Sir, and the general assent of Members present to move the Motion.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Motion* standing in my name as it appears on the Order Paper. *The motion reads as follows: That this Parliament approves the Statutes of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organisation (AIPO) made on the 2nd day of September, 1977, at the Third ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organisation Conference at Manila, as set out in Paper Misc. 3 of 1978. Sir, the Statutes of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organisation were finalised and signed at the Third ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organisation Conference held in Manila from 29th August to 2nd September 1977. The Senior Minister of State for Communications signed on behalf of Singapore. The Joint Communique issued at the end of the Manila Conference states, inter alia, that it was agreed that the Statutes shall take effect upon acceptance by the competent authority of each member country of ASEAN. Indonesia and Thailand have already accepted the Statutes. In the case of Singapore, the competent authority to accept the Statutes is this House. Hence, the Motion before this House. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament approves the Statutes of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organisation (AIPO) made on the 2nd day of September, 1977, at the Third ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organisation Conference at Manila, as set out in Paper Misc. 3 of 1978. ADJOURNMENT DEBATE (Exemption from Standing Orders)”
“The lands will not be acquired immediately. I mentioned just now that a number of cemetery sites which are required for development by 1980 will shortly be gazetted for acquisition and the rest thereafter. But there is no immediate hurry. In fact, we have delayed this statement for some time already. BILL INTRODUCED CUSTOMS (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Customs Act (Chapter 133 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Senior Minister of State, Ministry of Finance (Mr Goh Chok Tong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament and to be printed. CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 2.52 p.m.”
“Sir, I can certainly give that assurance.”