Ho See Beng
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State whether he is aware that each time re- settlement takes place, the business houses or firms suffer a terrible loss. Although the HDB could provide them with alternative shop premises, they have to rent them from the HDB.”
“Sir, I want to ask a supplementary question with vested interest. This concerns a teacher who upgraded himself or herself and got admitted into the University, but the teacher has got to forgo his or her salary. In the case of an SAF officer, if he is sent to the University, he does not have to sacrifice his salary.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask whether the Minister will consider giving incentives to consumers who read their own meters?. I ask this question because it will save PUB a substantial amount of money by way of salaries for meter readers, if the PUB succeeds in teaching consumers how to read their own meters.”
“But before I could explain the relevancy, I was interrupted by the Member for Anson, who stood up and denied that he had ever said anything about supplying me with such a list.”
“Sir, as I have said, I intend to appeal to the Minister for National Development whether he will consider giving priority allocation of flats to the Blair Plain residents who will be resettled by PSA soon.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when the House adjourned at 8.00 pm last night, I was reminding the Member for Anson that I have yet to receive his list of Blair Plain residents whom he claimed to have attended his meeting and approached him for assistance on the matter pertaining to resettlement.”
The complete record
Every one of 839 lines we hold for Ho See Beng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 15 of 17.
“If you have read the editorial of the Sin Chew lit Poh yesterday, even the paper suggested, "Why cannot both parties get together and talk and negotiate, and if they cannot talk and negotiate, why cannot the Government send this case to the court?" Now the Government says, "No, we will break the strike." Suppiah says, "We are going on strike and let you break it." So, where do we go from here?”
“During my budget speech last year, after the Finance Minister had presented his budget, I made the case for the daily-rated Government employees quite explicit, and I was under the impression that he would introduce the necessary provision in this year's budget which will meet the requirement of this particular case. But, unfortunately, the Finance Minister, who quoted Dr Benham last year to reject the demand of the Government daily-rated employees, has maintained a Sphinx-like silence this year by making no provision in the budget estimate in meeting the requirement under the terms of the 1961 agreement. In short, are we supposed to come to the conclusion that when the Government attests its signature to any agreement as an employer, it deserves to be treated as a scrap of paper and that implementation of a collective agreement is only applicable to the private sector and not to the public sector? If Government can flout its past agreements and assurances, I do not see any reason why a private employer should not follow suit. I am extremely doubtful how we can increase productivity with a dissatisfied, disillusioned and disgusted labour force. It is high time the Finance Minister and the Prime Minister wake up from their "slumber' and prove to the workers that they do believe in the expression, "Industrial Peace With Justice". I would like to say here in this House, for the information of Members, that today the situation in regard to the dispute between the Public Daily-Rated Employees Unions Federation and the Government is explosive. If we cannot find a solution, then there is no way out, they are going on strike.”
“Low productivity might be due to inefficient, unqualified family management, which employs cousins and nieces, and excessive investment on overheads, wrong predictions made by the entrepreneurs, large inventory due to lack of understanding of market, absence of specialised skill due to inadequate training programme of the industries, and so on. The possibility does exist of an industry even with 100 per cent labour efficiency which is still unable to make the grade. So why blame only labour for not helping to increase productivity? Hence it is high time the Treasury benches refrain from the over-emphasis that labour should further tighten its belt to increase productivity. Labour, of course, will continue to co-operate in increasing efficiency provided the management will answer the question "At what price do you want labour to increase productivity?" Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder what the Finance Minister had in mind when he mentioned that the Government will hold "a fair balance between management and labour". If he had in mind any decision to be made by the Government, ipso facto to be accepted and implemented by labour, he is sadly mistaken. Any unilateral approach coupled with the hysteria of "industrialisation at any cost" would be completely rejected by labour if it amounts to the exploitation of the interest of the working class. I am greatly disappointed at the Minister for Finance with regard to his budget for 1967 making no provision for its daily-rated employees. The Finance Minister knew full well that the 1961 collective agreement solemnly entered into between the management as an employer and the Public Daily-Rated Employees Unions Federation has not been implemented by the authority.”
“Regarding our industrialisation programme, while congratulating the Finance Minister on initiating a bold approach, I cannot give the seal of approval of the trade union movement, especially with regard to all the steps to increase production. We definitely support the Government's efforts to attract both foreign and indigenous capital. Nevertheless, I would prefer to sound a note of caution or warning with regard to the quality of foreign capital that enters the Singapore arena. We do not want to encourage those entrepreneurs, whether they are from Hongkong or Timbuctoo, who would be only interested in exploiting labour and accumulating profits on the basis of sweated labour. Many of them might have exhausted their quotas in foreign market from their countries of origin, and these birds of passage might consider Singapore as a convenient place for exploitation of labour and building up new quotas. This type of capital is unlikely to be helpful to the economy or the larger interests of this nation in the long run. Hence, I will be extremely grateful if the Finance Minister can give an unqualified assurance to the labour force in this country that in his enthusiasm to create a climate favourable for foreign capital, he will not follow a policy consistent with a Gladstonian economy. Unless a categorical assurance is given to the workers, the possibility of our co-operation is rather remote. The Finance Minister's advocacy for a productivity drive is well taken by the labour force. But he should realise that labour alone cannot increase productivity. Secondly, even in a plant or industry where the productivity is not high, it need not necessarily mean that labour should be held responsible.”
“Thus during the next five years the total new employment opportunities in the manufacturing industries would be 28,645. I am not for a moment ignoring the multiplier effect of employment provided in the manufacturing industries. Nevertheless, I would rather warn the Finance Minister that in his unwarranted optimism he might be caught in the pitfalls of the economy. I wonder whether the manufacturing sector can really raise the employment figures thrice in a matter of five years from today. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have also to recognise the fact that every year 19,000 teenagers will be entering the labour market, based on the figures supplied by the Finance Minister. I wonder whether the present system of liberal education has "tuned and tailored" the labour force to meet the requirements of our industrialisation. Otherwise you will have a very strange paradox that, on the one hand, you will have a large reservoir of unemployed with a secondary education, and, on the other hand, you will find a lack of skilled and semi-skilled labour force. This situation is fast developing in Singapore and I am glad to note that the Finance Minister has accepted my suggestion during my criticism of the budget last year when I advocated a crash programme to solve the unemployment problem. I am all for gearing up the present educational system to meet the requirements. It is high time that the Finance Minister also thinks in terms of incorporating a training programme within plants and industries for producing specialised labour. If the employers and Government will consider these suggestions, the unions in Singapore will go all out to make it a success.”
“A casual look at the speech with regard to the unemployment figures appears to convince me that - to borrow his own expression: 'Singapore would need not only to wipe off the backlog of the existing unemployed, but also provide another 95,000 jobs for our youths, who would be leaving schools and seeking entry into the labour market.' When we add these figures, Mr Speaker, Sir, to the number of unemployed at the end of 1965, that is, 56,300, we arrive at the shocking figure, viz., 151,300 unemployed. The pioneer industries, the pet project of our Government, and our people have provided jobs for only 12,000 up to today. 'During the period 1961-1965, employment opportunities increased by 57,600 jobs.' In other words, four very important facts appear to crystallise out of these figures provided by the Finance Minister. First of all, the pioneer industries have only provided one-fifth of the new employment available during the past five years. Secondly, we are faced with the tremendous task of providing employment for 151,300 during the next five years. Thirdly, based on our past experience as well as from the information provided by the Finance Minister, if we keep up the present rate of an average of 11,520 jobs per year during the next five years, even with our herculean efforts and our excellent optimism, we will only be in a position to provide new jobs for 57,600 people during 1966-1970. In other words, there will be a spill-over of 93,700 in the labour market of Singapore. The Finance Minister has stressed the fact that the manufacturing sector alone can provide employment during the next few years. Based on past performances, the manufacturing industries can only provide new employment for 5,729 per annum; from his figures which I have taken (47,217 minus 41,488).”
“I read his Budget Speech with pleasure and optimism. I have followed it very, very closely, and I have no hesitation in saying and agreeing with him that the uncertainty following the separation has been dispelled, and that Singapore, as expected, will continue to have a buoyant economy. It is appreciated that if each sector plays the role assigned to it, there can be no reason why we should harbour any fears that Singapore will not solve not only its unemployment problem but also set an example to the rest of South-East Asia, including our hostile neighbour, that we have really become a welfare State. It is gratifying to note that the economy is forging ahead with substantial increases in gross domestic product, external trade market, and so on. While identifying myself with the sentiments expressed by the Minister for Finance, I cannot for a moment subscribe to his undue optimism which apparently is not matched by a stroke of realism. I am not for a moment making any suggestion to the effect that we are misled by our Finance Minister, but, nevertheless, as a Backbencher of the ruling Party - not on the Opposition, of course and as a trade union leader who has the interests of the working class at heart, I cannot but express reservations with regard to the Finance Minister's approach towards the solution of confronting problems that appear to face Singapore both in the economic and political spheres. The question is whether the economy can afford to produce more or less the number of new jobs to reduce the present rate of increase of unemployment, especially when we have one of the youngest populations in this region, and also when we recognise the fact that 10 to 15 per cent of the economically active population are unemployed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have read the Budget Statement by the Finance Minister. I believe that when I make my speech, he does not expect to get a bouquet from me. However, I will give him the bouquet he deserves.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am aware that one of the programmes at the present moment includes striptease acts. Will the Minister see that before any night club proprietor puts up a programme it must be scrutinised very closely by the police department? An hon. Member: By the Minister.”
“It is relevant in this sense - when a proprietor applies for a permit to open a night club, are there any conditions attached to such an application?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I know it is not very relevant, but I think it is relevant in this connection, that all those citizens who have passed the age of 21 prior to the pronouncement of Government about citizens by descent have to take an oath of allegiance. When these people went to the Identity Card Office to apply for a change of identity card, they were rejected. What are we going to do with these rejected persons?”
“Is the Minister aware that prior to the pronouncement of Government regarding citizens by descent, those who have passed the age of 21 have to take an oath of allegiance, or else they would not be entitled to apply for citizenship? I understand that a number of this category of citizens who went to the Identity Card Office to change their identity cards were not allowed to change their identity cards. Is the Minister aware of this matter?”
“I am not quite satisfied with the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance. What I am asking is whether he has received any grouses from the staff of the Income Tax Department, and if he has, what steps he has taken to remedy the grouses?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not saying that the Income Tax Department has got a high rate of resignations. I am asking, is it a fact that this department, compared to other departments, has got a high rate of resignations? The Minister for Finance, as his post in the Government is more or less like that of an employer, should know whether other departments have the same rate of resignations?”
“I would like to ask the Minister whether there is any possibility that the Head of Department, in dealing with the junior officers, has failed in his human relationship and that this has brought about this high rate of resignations in the Income Tax Department?”
“A supplementary question, Sir. Apart from the reason given of better emoluments from outside, is it a fact that the Income Tax Department is the only department in the Government that has the greatest rate of resignations?”
“As I understand it, this fee is required for administrative purposes and not as a source of revenue for the Government. The imposition of such planning fee is to ensure that proper planning permission is obtained by farmers before they construct any pig sty or chicken shed. It is difficult to understand why there is a necessity to increase this planning fee. The increase represents an increase of more than 100 per cent on the old rate which, as I say, may not be much to you and me but it means a lot to the farmers. As farmers are playing a vital role in Singapore's struggle for survival, I think it is only reasonable to expect that the Government policy is framed or applied in such a way that livestock farmers are encouraged and induced to increase their productivity and output and not in such a way as to demoralise them or force them out of production completely. In the end, it is we the people of Singapore who have to pay the price for a policy rigidly or unimaginatively applied by the department or statutory authority responsible for the administration of such policy. 5.37 p.m.”
“If land is as scarce in Singapore as it is maintained by the relevant department or statutory body, how is it possible that persons who are no longer interested in farming are allocated plots of valuable agricultural land on their resettlement? To me the remedy seems to lie in devising a proper system for the allocation of land to persons who are interested in carrying on farming, and not in the rigid and inflexible adherence to a policy of not allocating more than two acres of land to any resettled farmers, irrespective of the bona fides of their intention or requirement after resettlement. The last point which the Association has requested me to raise is a general grievance of all livestock farmers whether resettled or otherwise. But the grievance has been rendered acute in relation to the resettlement of farmers because of the rigid application of the policy of restricting resettled farmers to a maximum of two acres each. It appears that previously farmers were required to pay only $3 to $5 as planning fees for each unit of pig sty and chicken shed built according to plans submitted to and approved by the relevant Government department. Now it seems that this rate of fee for each unit has been increased to $12. The members of the Association are understandably upset by this increase in fee. Because of the limitation of land space or the irregularity of the contour and layout of the allocated land, or land acquired otherwise as a result of resettlement and rigid application of policy and for hygienic reasons, the farmers have to build many more units of pig sties and chicken sheds than necessary if they have not been so rigidly restricted in land area on resettlement.”
“I stand to be corrected, Sir, if I say that the present policy of allocating land to resettled farmers is on the basis of the mere fact of occupation of State land required for development purposes. The departments or authorities concerned with the resettlement of such farmers do not seem to have considered the possibility that a policy framed on such a basis may not be equitable and, worse still, may lead to a highly undesirable situation as that where resettled farmers are allocated plots of land when they had no intention at all of carrying on their former farming occupation or on so extensive a scale as previously. In this way, in the face of the much often repeated affirmation that it is the policy not to allocate more than two acres of land to resettle farmers because of the physical scarcity of land in Singapore for agricultural purposes or otherwise, a farmer could still be allocated land on resettlement when he has no wish to carry on farming. It is because of this administrative inflexibility in the application of a sensible and logical policy of the Government that a ridiculous situation has developed whereby farmers, who are genuinely interested in farming and who found that the plots of land allocated to them on resettlement are insufficient for their needs, must acquire additional plots of land from other persons who have been allocated plots of land in excess of their requirements or who have no longer any intention of carrying on farming after resettlement. By making it prohibitive for the genuine and hard-working farmers to acquire additional plots of land, the departments or authorities responsible for the administration of such Government policy are, in fact, obstructing Government policy.”
“or Temporary Occupation Licence fees for such additional plots of land many times higher than the usual T.O.L. fees charged for those plots of land originally allocated to them. In normal circumstances, the T.O.L. fee per acre of agricultural State land is either $15 or $30 per year, depending on the situation of the land. But when the farmers acquire additional plots of land from other farmers, the T.O.L. fee for land so acquired ranges between $72 and $160 per acre in the case of land where the normal T.O.L. fee is $15 per acre per year and can be as high as $204 per acre for land which is normally $30 per acre. While the amount of increase may not appear very great to us, it represents a huge sum to the farmers. The difference of $100 in the T.O.L. fees payable by the farmers per acre may mean a difference between loss and profit to the farmers who already have other heavy expenses to shoulder. As I have already mentioned to you, I am aware of this Government policy of restricting the allocation of land to resettled farmers up to a maximum of two acres per farmer because of the sheer physical scarcity of land in Singapore. I also understand that it is also a necessary corollary of such policy for the Government to adopt deterrent measures against farmers occupying plots of land bigger than two acres by charging exorbitant premiums or high T.O.L. fees to farmers who want to acquire additional plots of land. But the fact remains that farmers who find the plots of land allocated to them insufficient for their needs are able to acquire additional land from other farmers who are allocated plots of land in excess of their actual requirements.”
“One obvious effect of such minimisation in our import of poultry and pigs would mean a saving in our foreign exchange reserves, a saving which is not to be sneezed at in the present context of Singapore's political and economic circumstances. What the Association has requested me to bring to the attention of the Members of this House is whether the Government can reconsider this policy of allocating a maximum of only two acres per farmer on the resettlement of such farmers. I am given to understand that this policy of the Government is well founded on the fact that land is a scarcity item in Singapore and that there is a limit to the amount of State land which the Government can set aside for farming purposes. On the surface, the present Government policy appears to be reasonable and logical in the circumstances. I wish to assure you Members of this House that I have no doubt in that respect. But I am inclined to wonder whether this present policy which has been rigidly applied or enforced by the department or statutory body concerned with the allocation of land to resettled farmers can be rendered more flexible in its application. This would become more evident in the course of the next point which I intend to bring to your attention. The second point of the Association's grievances is that, because some farmers on resettlement find that the land allocated to them is insufficient for their needs, they are forced to obtain an extra plot of land from other farmers who do not require all the whole pieces of land allocated to them. The complaint of the Association is that those farmers who managed to obtain additional plots of land in this manner have found to their astonishment that, after the transfer of land has been arranged and completed, they have to pay T.O.L.”
“The size of the plots of land allocated to farmers on resettlement is a matter of paramount importance to the farmers, because, generally speaking, the bigger the size the easier it is to observe the standards of hygiene in respect of the poultry and pigs. The result is that, because of the rigidly enforced maximum of two acres of land to be allotted to each resettled farmer, who might have previously occupied five or six acres, the farmers on resettlement have no choice but to cram their flocks of fowls and herds of pigs into the limited space allocated to them. It does not require much imagination to realise that cramming these animals or livestock into a much more confined space than advisable would have an adverse effect on the health of the animals. This in turn would affect the volume of production of eggs and meat for the market, whether domestic or foreign. This effect of a rigid application of the policy restricting each resettled farmer to a maximum of two acres, I think, should give rise to grave and serious concern not only to the Government but also to all persons who have the interest of Singapore at heart. We at present are engaged in an all-out effort to increase the level of productivity. The local rearing of poultry and pigs should play a significant and important role in this effort to increase productivity and output. Instead of taking a flexible attitude to consider the farmers' plight, our Government policy is so rigid where it does not warrant rigidity. For example, in the Ministry of Finance, they are so very liberal in issuing bar licences - but here they are so rigid. The bigger the volume of our local production of poultry and pigs and associated products, the lesser the dependence of Singapore on other countries for such commodities.”
“It appears that these farmers did not own the land on which they have been working. Such land was invariably State land which they have been allowed to farm under Temporary Occupation Licences. Under the terms of these Temporary Occupation Licences, or T.O.L.s, as they are popularly known, for which nominal fees are payable, the farmers have to vacate possession of the land on demand by the Government. Because of the rapid pace of Government's industrial and housing development, those farmers who have been unfortunate enough to occupy State land in certain areas which are marked out for development purposes, have to vacate possession of their respective pieces of land on which they may have worked for several years and start all over again on fresh plots of land. In this respect, I must congratulate the Government on its human gesture in providing an alternative site to the farmers so requested to vacate possession. The snag is that on the previous sites most of these farmers have been occupying areas of several acres. But on resettlement they are only allocated areas of not more than two acres. Some farmers may even be allocated pocket-sized plots of land. It may seem strange to the Members of this House that, instead of being grateful for being allocated any land at all, the farmers are now carping about the plots of land allocated to them. But it must be appreciated by this House that these farmers are mostly breeders of poultry and pigs, particularly of the foreign or cross-bred variety. Such poultry and pigs are less hardy than the pure local strain. Therefore, for the successful rearing of the foreign or cross-bred variety of poultry, a certain minimum standard of hygienic practices and precautions must be adopted.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore Livestock Farmers' Association wrote to me on 25th November, 1966, requesting me to bring before this House the grievances of their members in respect of the resettlement of livestock farmers who were occupying State land required for development purposes. The request of the Association has been made too late for me to raise the matter during Question Time, and that is the reason for my present adjournment speech. The Association has also attached to its letter to me a copy of the letter dated 2nd November, 1966, which it has previously sent to the Director of the Primary Production Department and to the Minister for Law and National Development. Whatever may be the reason for the Association to request my service to place its grievances before this House only shortly after it has made representation to the Department and Ministry responsible for the resettlement of the farmers, I am in no position to comment. But the three points raised by the Association in its letter relate to an important and interesting aspect of any public administration, that is, the particular application or execution of a general policy of the Government by the department or statutory body charged with the administration of such policy. For this reason alone, if not for any other, I consider it most appropriate that these grievances should be aired before this House. The first point raised by the Association in the letter mentioned earlier is that many of its farmers have been adversely affected by the Government's industrial and housing projects. But before any Member of the House jumps to any hasty conclusion, let me add that the Association is not grumbling about the farmers literally standing in the way of progress.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I myself do not like to make contact with bar waitresses to find out whether or not their employers pay C.P.F. for the waitresses. But if the Acting Minister for Labour would take the trouble to send somebody to all the bars in Singapore and make inquiries, I am sure he can find out. An hon. Member: We will send you!”
“Sir, is the Minister aware that the proprietors of these bars have not paid the contributions to the Central Provident Fund of some of the waitresses who work in their bars?”
“Mr Speaker, the Acting Minister for Labour has said that he will be looking into the question of bar waitresses under the age of 21, but I am afraid he may not be able to do anything. So I am appealing to him, if he cannot restrict girls under the age of 21 from working in bars, to prohibit the dimming of lights in bars.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think all of us are aware that when the P.A.P. first came to power in 1959, the former Minister for Labour introduced an Ordinance relating to bars. At that time, the lights in the bars were not allowed to be dimmed. But nowadays if any one of us here goes to bars, he will find that they are made to appear like the Black Hole of Calcutta. Will the Acting Minister for Labour also consider the enforcement of the Ordinance to make proprietors brighten the lights in their bars?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a provision in the Labour Ordinance which prohibits female factory workers from working after 10 p.m. I wonder whether the Acting Minister for Labour will consider applying the same provision to bar waitresses.”
“A supplementary question, Sir. In view of the high figure of first-class bar licences issued by the Government, will the Minister consider imposing a moratorium on the issue of bar licences, as I have been informed that young bar waitresses, who are engaged to sit with the customers, also take on other assignments? In view of my information, this practice will bring about a very adverse moral effect on our young population. So I would like to ask the Minister to consider my request to impose a moratorium on the issue of bar licences.”
“Just now the Parliamentary Secretary has said that there is a shortage of funds in his Ministry. But I have been informed that there is an excess of funds of over a million dollars. I do not know whether that is true.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand to be corrected if I am wrong. I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health say that he has difficulty in recruiting labour force to eradicate the mosquito menace. I think he should refer this matter to the Ministry of Labour. I am sure he can get thousands of workers to eradicate the mosquito menace. Why does he not take this step?”
“While it is praiseworthy for it to find all means of obtaining more revenue, I think there is a limit to which a responsible government, especially one which subscribes to the principle of socialism, can afford to promote gambling in order to bring in more revenue. I am not objecting to this proposed Bill for the sake of objecting, but a lottery, while giving rise to expectations of a sudden windfall, may in the end leave the poor poorer and the rich richer, because a lottery is a game of chance, and the more tickets you buy the greater are the chances of winning the jackpot. The poor may strain their meagre resources, like the public daily-rated employees to whom the Minister for Finance has refused to give even one cent. They may be tempted to buy and you make them poorer. So the poor may strain their meagre resources to buy for themselves such chances as are possible of winning the jackpot, but they will not be able to compete with the rich who are in a position to buy many more chances of winning the jackpot and who, furthermore, are in a position to afford it. Because of all the considerations which I have mentioned, I strongly oppose the discussion of this Bill by this House on a Certificate of Urgency.”
“Oh no, no. Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Government wishes to legislate on the proposed Social Welfare Lottery, it would appear that its objection to the running of an illegal lottery by private individuals or syndicates is based not so much on principle as on the fact that it is deprived of certain revenues, in which case it is inconsistent for it to treat those persons who are convicted of running illegal lotteries and games of chance as criminals, because their offence is not the crime of running a lottery or games of chance but the withholding from Government of certain revenues which they have collected as profit. If the Government deems it necessary to issue a Certificate of Urgency in respect of the Bill on the proposed Social Welfare Lottery, then it should make it a matter of urgency to remove the offence of running illegal lotteries or games of chance from the Criminal Ordinance or the Revenue Ordinance. Mr Speaker, Sir, the more I think of this, the more I come to the conclusion that the Government has issued this Certificate of Urgency because it realises that the proposed Social Welfare Lottery will be a financial success. But I will say this - and I will prove it to the Minister for Finance - that there will be 20,000 to 30,000 unhappy families on the day of the drawing. I have been given to understand that the million-dollar sweepstake lottery organised by the Singapore Turf Club has met with a response exceeding the expectations of the organisers. I am quite sure that the Government has issued this Certificate of Urgency in order to cash in on the bonanza.”
“He will say it is because Singaporeans go to Johore to buy lottery tickets. Is that a valid argument? Are you going to tell me that because we cannot eradicate gangsters so we must legislate and give them a licence so that they can go openly to members of the public and extort money from them? Is this going to be the reply to my criticism?”
“That is why I say it does not matter under what name it is called! It is raising money. A rose by any name smells just as sweet. I am sure it is not the intention of the Government of Singapore to rush the proposed Bill through this House in order to forestall the marshalling of public opinion against its passage. I say this with confidence because the Government subscribes to the practice and doctrine of socialism. Mr Speaker, Sir, the essence of democratic socialism is that there should be, as far as possible, an equal distribution of wealth, and one way of achieving such an equal distribution is by minimising the possible range of income. In this society where a person is allowed to enjoy an unearned income, that is, income from a lottery which is not given to him because of his work or occupation but because of the windfall from the lottery there is a basic contradiction between the concept of sponsoring a lottery to raise funds for social objectives and the concept of promoting any measure that would enable a person to enjoy an unearned income. In Singapore as it is, we have quite a number of lotteries and games of chance where a person is given the means to obtain such an unearned income. We have, for example, horse racing, the illegal four digits, the Chap Ji Kee. And I know that the only argument that the Minister for Finance can put is, "Oh, because we cannot stamp this out, we cannot control this illegal gambling, so we must make it legal." That would be the answer.”
“And one way to gauge public feeling on this matter of the Government sponsor ing a lottery is to let the Bill be dealt with by this House in the normal manner. By introducing such a Bill on a Certificate of Urgency, the Government is, in effect, preventing Members in this House from discharging their obligations to their respective constituencies. It is impossible for them to ascertain the feelings of their constituents towards the Social Welfare Lottery Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir ----”
“Never mind. It is the raising of funds by means of a lottery. We are all aware that only the poor people will contribute towards buying these lottery tickets, and you will find that 20,000 to 30,000 housewives will buy lottery tickets and they will curtail their expenditure on marketing and food. What happens is this, Mr Speaker, Sir. When the husband comes home, he will find that variety in the food on the table is missing, and the so-called Sweep ticket, instead of assisting the poor, I am afraid is going to bring about unhappiness in all the families. Mr Speaker, Sir, you will agree that if you take money from the rich and give it to the poor, that is a credit. But here, we are taking money from the poor and giving it to the poor. I do not see any credit. But some of you may take the cynical view that I am criticising for the sake of opposing. This is not so. Because it is the man who has interests in the Party will only criticise. A number of my constituents who are unhappy and who object to the Government sponsoring a lottery may be misunderstood that they are only voicing their apprehension in order to defend their own illegal livelihood. But before any of you come to the wrong conclusion that such persons are objecting to the idea of the Government sponsoring a lottery with an ulterior motive, I wish to impress upon you that these persons are responsible and respectable citizens who are engaged in making an honest living and are also members of civic organisations. It is for these reasons that I am of the firm opinion that this Bill relating to the proposed Social Welfare Lottery, or whatever name it may be called, should be exposed to a thorough public debate, but not on a Certificate of Urgency as if we are facing an immediate invasion from our neighbours.”
“Even if it is not a Bill but an amendment to the Betting and Sweepstake Duties Ordinance, I think it still runs counter to the belief that the P.A.P. professes and believes in socialism. Mr Speaker, Sir, I fail to see the need for the Government to introduce this Bill on a Certificate of Urgency. This method of a Government-sponsored lottery, even though it is for a praiseworthy cause, is a rather controversial topic. I am not speaking here only as the Secretary-General of the N.T.U.C., but also as the Member for Bras Basah Constituency. You may be aware of the view of the N.T.U.C. in relation to any form of gambling, that it does not, in principle, support the idea of the Government of Singapore sponsoring a lottery. As you may also be aware, I have recently conducted a series of house-to-house visits in my constituency. In the course of such visits, I have been given to understand by a substantial number of my constituents that they are not very happy over the question of Government sponsoring a lottery. What will happen is this. On the day of the drawing of this so-called welfare lottery, you will -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree it is not a Bill”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very astonished to know that the Minister for Finance intends to introduce this Bill on a Certificate of Urgency. It is as if Singapore is facing an immediate invasion that such a Bill must be passed in this Parliament with such an urgency. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not believe that any government in the world which professes and believes in socialism will promote gambling. Mr Lim Kim San: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. This is not a Bill to promote gambling. It is a Bill to give me power to exempt duty on sweepstakes run by the Club with a certain objective.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am inclined to agree with the Member for Choa Chu Kang that the provision of basic amenities for the rural areas is more urgent than that for the urban areas. I think the Minister is a little unfair when he says that even when we provide lights, the Member for Choa Chu Kang does not like it, and when we do not provide lights, he also does not like it. I think that is not the point of complaint of the Member. He simply said that the $30,000 which the Government wants to make use of to develop MacRitchie Reservoir, could be better utilised to develop the rural areas or places mostly populated by poor people who are in need of amenities. I remember at our last sitting the Member for Delta also shared the same feeling that whenever a fountain is built, it is built in the bourgeois area, say, in a place like Tanglin which is well provided. There is no necessity at all to build another fountain. That is all, Sir.”
“Mr Speaker, can I contribute something towards -”
“But when the parking bay in front of the shop is being occupied by a motorist who parks his car there, how can the shopkeeper make use of it to load and unload the goods from the lorry? An hon. Member: Hear, hear!”
“If the Department concerned does provide a parking bay for loading and unloading, say, about 50 feet away from a shop which requires this facility, then it does not serve the purpose of the shopkeeper. What I am asking is this: if a shopkeeper has made an application to convert the parking bay in front of his shop for his real need of loading and unloading, will the Government consider his application?”
“A supplementary question. Mr Speaker, Sir, from the answer given to me just now by the Parliamentary Secretary, the Government is only catering for the needs of the motorist. Will the Government also consider catering for the needs of the shopkeeper who is doing business connected with loading and unloading if, in front of his shop, there is a parking bay which is occupied by a motorist who parks his car there, and this brings about difficulties in loading and unloading? Mr Ho Cheng Choon: Mr Speaker, Sir, the question raised by the hon. Member for Bras Basah is whether we can provide parking lots for loading and unloading in front of shophouses. In fact, in every busy business centre when a parking scheme is introduced, there are one or two parking lots reserved for loading and unloading. As I have just mentioned, we cannot reserve a parking lot for every shopkeeper for loading and unloading. In drawing up the lines in one street, we can only provide one or two parking lots for loading and unloading where there is a need for them.”
“We are prepared to consider with open minds an entirely new system if this is finally shown to us to be necessary for the long-term viability and survival of Singapore as a nation. Organised labour has no fear of incentives; it only fears exploitation. We ask that the ambiguities of the present situation be removed by a clear statement of purpose and policy by the Government on its part. We, on our part, state categorically that our purpose and policy is simply to secure for all workers in Singapore conditions of labour which a man can accept with dignity, and a sufficient wage in exchange for a fair week's work, to support him and his family in modest but reasonable circumstances. 7.20 p.m.”
“They also introduced improved incentive bonuses in order to ensure faster working of cargoes. These are improved measures to replace malingering and so on, which the Government are not doing in their various departments. To crown it all, bonuses were paid on the instructions of the Prime Minister on an instalment basis. Today users of the Port praise its efficiency. Surely, Sir, it is difficult for us who belong to the trade union movement to believe after this glowing example in the Port of Singapore Authority that the Minister for Finance and my other colleagues sincerely mean what they say when they speak of contract labour. What happened in the Port Authority was, in fact, an objective appraisal of the problem and an objective solution, worked out in conjunction with the National Trades Union Congress representing the workers. From this example, Sir, the workers of Singapore cannot, for a moment, believe that the suggestions now put forward and being implemented in the case of the public daily-rated employees are anything but an intellectual aberration. As a Member of a Government dedicated to the realisation of a more just and equal society, I call upon my colleagues to discontinue advocating this practice of contract labour - unfortunately, the Minister for Finance is not here - and recognise clearly the problem affecting the daily-rated workers in Singapore which is simply to secure a living wage for a proper day's work. I ask them that, just as in the case of the Port Authority, they demonstrate their sincerity by entering into discussions with the N.T.U.C. immediately to find equitable and lasting solutions to our current problems.”
“I have felt myself compelled today, Sir, to make these comments because my colleagues and I in the N.T.U.C. have observed a disquieting and increasing tendency on the part of some Members of this Government to suggest that the solution to our problems today here in Singapore is to discard those ideals in which we have believed for so long because of the compulsions of our new situation. We find ourselves the more puzzled because these utterances in support of contract labour are so completely at variance with the precepts and ideals as we know them of the Prime Minister. I refer to his recommendations in the case of the 9,000 daily-rated workers in the Port of Singapore Authority, where for many years the workers struggled to remove the contract labour system and its attendant malpractices. Members of this House will recall that following the decasualisation of labour in the Port of Singapore Authority, there continued to be serious allegations of malingering, accumulation of work, and improper overtime practices. There were also allegations of other types of restrictive practices. One would have expected that the Government would be tempted to return to contract labour. Sir, I am not saying that the trade union is jealous of the Port of Singapore Authority workers. They have removed the malpractices of contract labour and they still have malpractices of overtime and all that. I am not asking the Government to introduce, but I am only quoting as an example, because I am afraid that the newspapers might misquote me tomorrow and say that the Secretary-General of the N.T.U.C. also prefers to introduce contract labour into the Port of Singapore Authority. The hours of work of the workmen were streamlined. They introduced a shift system with an element of shift allowances.”
“The Commission vigorously decried the evils of contract labour in Singapore and specifically drew attention to the following features emphasising: (i) the irregularity of employment; (ii) the insecurity of payment of wages and often underpayment in relation to established industrial wage pattern; (iii) the evasion of benefits under the Labour Ordinance; (iv) the absence of hospital benefits; (v) the evasion of Provident Fund contributions; and (vi) the inadequate provision of safeguards against accidents and hazards. Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding this indictment, there appears to be a growing tendency in our Government departments to utilise contract labour. I would cite as examples the Ministry of Law and National Development. Very unfortunately the present Minister is not the person who is responsible for that, but nevertheless it is now his portfolio. So he has got to carry the baby. The P.W.D. Workshop Section - repairs of rubbish pails, cleansing carts, welding of nightsoil pails, buckets, refuse bins and repairs of tools used by daily-rated workmen - all this work which has been normally done by the daily-rated workers is now being farmed out to the contractors. Another instance is the Marine Workshop, such as the building of seawalls, buoys and signal light posts in the sea. In the rural sector, the cutting of grass. All this has been given to the contractors. Sir, there are so many examples of Government using contract labour to replace the regular work force, but I do not like to go on and on. But I would ask the Minister for Law and National Development to study the present situation, which is a grave injustice not only to the existing organised workers but also to those who are being exploited by the contractors.”