J. B. Jeyaretnam
Singapore
“And even if he did not know, as the Court of Appeal said, he was wilfully blind to that fact. This cannot be a defence because you cannot prove knowledge on the part of the accused. But what the court can do is to look at all the circumstances of the case and then conclude that it is beyond reasonable doubt that he had that knowledge.”
“Sir, as I now understand it, the payment to Mr Olds was compensation or gratuity, and not salary for the year 2000. If it was gratuity or compensation, may I ask whether there was any term in the contract of employment with him for the payment of gratuity, how long was he employed for, and why did he leave?”
“Maybe there are other areas in which we can think of similar useful schemes so that those who are unable to upgrade themselves sufficiently can still have good employment. It is a complex problem. And I think all Ministries and economic agencies would have to think harder how to address this problem.”
“May I make it clear that I shall talk about the aspects of the case which should have been considered by the court. So, in that way, it might reflect on the court's decision. But I do want the Cabinet, when it comes to advising the President on the clemency petition that had been sent to him, to take these points into consideration.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with respect, I do not quite understand your restriction because, as I understand it, all court proceedings are now over. So there are no pending proceedings in court. The court is now functus officio. Mr Deputy Speaker: You did not listen to me carefully.”
“Mr Noris Ong Chin Guan asked the Minister for Manpower, given the current economic climate, will his Ministry consider encouraging local employers to give priority to employing Singaporeans who can perform equivalent jobs, including our healthy elderly, rather than to resort to engaging foreign employees too readily.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,058 lines we hold for J. B. Jeyaretnam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 82.
“I cannot find Low Thia Khiang's name in the Committee's Report as one of the members of any Committee. If we want to know what the vision should be, we should get down to the man in the street. We should ask him what is it that he values as a goal for the society. We may not agree with him but we at least give him a chance to speak. And that is what Mr Lee, I think, was trying to encourage when he urged an open society in 1964. Later in his speech, the Minister talks about the five key ideas and says every Singaporean matters. I say amen to that. If every Singaporean matters, then the views and opinions of Singaporeans should be sought publicly and openly, and this was never done. I would commend to the Government - I am sure they must have read it - an article that appeared in the UK magazine, The Economist, 17th April this year. The article is headed "Happiness is a Warm Vote". It reports on a survey carried out in Switzerland by two members of the University of Zurich. They asked the residents how satisfied they were with their life as a whole. The results apparently showed up some revealing things, and it showed that the people who were given more direct participation - they call it direct democracy - in shaping the policies of the country were much happier than those who were given less participation. It is not that in Switzerland that they are not given, but apparently direct democracy varies from one canton to another. In some cantons, they have more direct participation. And it was found that they were much happier than people in other cantons. The article ends, "A happy country it seems is one where politics is not just a spectator sport.”
“No, I am not. So it is not surprising that it should echo what we have heard all these years. I have not had the time to go through this Report from cover to cover. I have been away. But from what little I have read of it, I can find no mention of the term "an open society" as a desirable goal for Singapore, and yet this was the vision of our present Senior Minister when he was speaking in the Malaysian Parliament at the end of 1964. To him, an open society was absolutely essential for the progress of the nation, and yet today planning our vision for the next century, there is no mention of an open society as being an essential need for our nation. I have said that it abounds in platitudes. But may I first say a little bit about the way this Report has been brought about. The Minister, in his opening statement in moving the motion, said that the task of the Committee was to strengthen the heartware of Singapore and to develop a consensus on the kind of society which Singaporeans want for the future. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, how do we develop a consensus on the kind of society which Singaporeans want for the future? One would have thought one could only develop a consensus if we invited Singaporeans to enter into public discussions and debates on the values and goals of the society that they live in. One Nominated Member talked about public discussions that have gone into it. I cannot recall any public discussions on S21. Were there any meetings called for the public to attend and to take part in formulating what the goals and values of the society should be? Nothing at all. It is said that views of 6,000 people were sought, but I see that they included community leaders and others. An hon. Member: And Low Thia Khiang!”
“Sir, may I first congratulate whoever put together this Report on the attractive dressing up of the Report. We have become accustomed in Singapore to the public relations job that the Government is so competent at. But that is about all that I can find to commend in this Report. I am sorry if I take a view which is at odds with almost all the other speakers. But I have to say what I feel about this Report. Sir, this Report abounds in platitudes and it echoes what we have heard from our leaders in the Government all these years. That is not surprising if one looks at the members of the various committees. The co-chairmen are all members of the ruling party except for two who are nominated by the ruling party. It is no wonder that ---”
“Talking about Kosovo, the Prime Minister prefaced his observations by saying "however reprehensible ethnic cleansing may be". May I ask him whether he condones what is going on in Kosovo today, the driving out of the Albanians by the Kosovian military?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I, by way of clarification, ask the Prime Minister a question?”
“What is the point of saying that everyone has rights when he is not told of his rights and that he can exercise them?”
“For the benefit of the Minister, I am aware of those publications. But my question again is this: is the Minister saying that a person arrested by the police has no right whatsoever and that the police officers can deal with him in any manner they choose?”
“May I ask the Minister what good is it if the citizen himself does not know what his rights are and what is permitted in the questioning of him by the police officers? What is the good of having any doctrine locked away in the bosom of the police officers?”
“Does the Minister realise that if you have laws and they are not enforced by the enforcement agencies, it only leads to disrespect for the law?”
“Perhaps the Minister did not understand the import of my question. If it is felt that you cannot control it, then is the Ministry considering legalising prostitution and containing it to just one or two areas in Singapore and keeping a strict watch on the premises which indulge in this?”
“Are we to understand that this pragmatic view that the Minister says his Ministry has adopted is that this is something that we cannot do anything about? So is the Ministry considering amending the laws in the Women's Charter?”
“Would the Minister tell us what checks are made to see that hotels do not allow any prostitution in their premises?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister whether the strict offences created under Part X of the Women's Charter for the suppression of prostitution and living on immoral earnings are strictly enforced or not?”
“I do not understand. FIRES AND HAZE FROM INDONESIA 11. Mr Simon S. C. Tay asked the Minister for the Environment why the fires and haze from Indonesia persist to affect Singapore and what improvements can be expected from recent discussions within ASEAN.”
“What is the great objection to maintaining a Members' Register?”
“May I ask the Minister a question? I am here to ask questions.”
“How is the public to know? May I ask the Minister ---”
“Would the Minister please answer my question?”
“Would the Minister agree that in a democracy, which Singapore claims it is, it is the people who are at the top, they are the masters, and the Government should be made transparent to them?”
“Are we to understand from the Minister that the Government's definition of "transparency" is acting as an honest Government but not making it known to the public at large that they are seen to be acting as an honest Government?”
“May I ask the Minister whether transparency is one of the essential attributes of an honest government and this Government wastes no time in talking about being a good honest Government?”
“I am thankful to the Minister for the lengthy reply he has given, but I regret it does not really answer my question. Would he set out specifically what is this administration for which $10 appears to be the just punishment?”
“May I ask the Minister about the administrative charge of $10? Could he enlighten the House as to what is it for that this administrative charge is levied? Is it for sending a notice to the owner of the car?”
“Would the Minister please answer my question? Was he or was he not advocating the use of Mandarin, particularly for students to take their examinations in Mandarin? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I have already told this House the words that he had used, not advocating the use of Mandarin, but he accused the Government of exterminating, wiping out, killing Chinese language, culture and education. ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1999 TO 31ST MARCH, 2000 Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [5th Allotted Day]. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Head I -”
“May I tell the Minister of State that my question is directed particularly at detention under the Internal Security Act. Is the Minister aware that for altering the passport he could be prosecuted under the Penal Code or the Passports Act, similarly, for evading National Service under the National Enlistment Act? What is the offence for which the ISD wish to question him under the Internal Security Act? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I think the answer makes it very clear. The ISD would like to question him over his inflammatory remarks made in 1976 during the general election. Mr Jeyaretnam: Would the Minister tell us what were these inflammatory speeches? Were they not what the present Government is advocating, ie, he was calling for greater use of Mandarin and, particularly, for students at Nanyang University to take their examinations in Mandarin, and not in English? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I think Mr Jeyaretnam is being very simplistic. In fact, in an exchange with Mr Chua Sian Chin, then Minister for Home Affairs in 1983, and also in a written reply in 1982, they set out what Mr Ho Juan Thai had said. He had said that Government was out to exterminate, kill, wipe out, Chinese culture, language and education and asked for the Chinese people to stand up. These were very inflammatory remarks made during the general election to a big crowd of people on four occasions.”
“I am asking for them as well. ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1999 TO 31ST MARCH, 2000 Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [4th Allotted Day]. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Head T -”
“Could you tell us? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Yes. If Mr Jeyaretnam were to look up the press reports during that time, those indeed were heady days. And as I have said, yes, there were processions, demonstrations and there was a violent clash. There were other people who were also expelled. But the fact that Mr Jeyaretnam keeps taking up this case, particularly Abdul Razak, that is why I have asked that question. Why not the other people who had been expelled?”
“May I ask him to answer my question whether there were any riots and whether anyone was prosecuted? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: As I said, Sir, it is all in the record, the processions, demonstrations and ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with respect, he has asked me a question and I am trying to answer, and you tell me that I should not answer it. Then you should tell him, Mr Speaker, with respect, not to ask me any questions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister keeps asking me and you say that I should not answer. May I say, again, it is a question of justice and fairness as between persons who are concerned. Why is this man singled out?”
“May I ask the Minister again whether anyone else has had the Order revoked? There were about five or six persons who had Prohibition Orders made against them and was Chan Kian Hin also not a Malaysian at that time? He was not a Singaporean. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, before I answer the question, perhaps Mr Jeyaretnam should also answer this point. What is his interest in the matter? Is he beholden to anybody? He has asked about the other foreigners who were also expelled. Yes, there were four of them, all foreigners, including Chan Kian Hin. But unlike Chan Kian Hin, the other three did not have families who were Singaporeans.”
“May I know from the Minister, he keeps saying about riots and fights, whether there were any riots at all during that period? Was anyone prosecuted for rioting? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, on Mr Jeyaretnam's earlier point, parliamentary time is precious. As Mr Jeyaretnam is an NCMP, he is accountable to this House and indeed to Singaporeans for the questions that he asks. He has asked very pointed questions about foreigners who had been expelled. It is right for me to ask that question. The record is very clear, Sir. If you go back to the record, you will see that those were heady days when there were student protests, demonstrations, processions involving students from the four tertiary institutions at that time. There was indeed a violent clash with the police at the City Hall.”
“He has asked me what is my interest. It is a matter of justice. I am answering him.”
“As I said the last time, why is he championing the cause of a foreigner who has shown himself to be anti-Singapore? Mr Jeyaretnam: May I, again, remind the Minister that I am not here to answer questions. I have said this before. It is simply a matter of justice as between person and person.”
“As I understood from the Minister when I last raised the question, their crime was agitation for greater academic freedom and I was told that they were also creating fights. If that is the reason, why was it found possible to revoke the Order against Mr Chan just because he made an appeal and showed his repentance when the others have not had the Orders revoked? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, in our exchange in the last debate, I made it very clear that it was not just a case of students agitating just for academic freedom. They played leading roles in the organisation of demonstrations, processions and even a violent clash. This is part of the same story because, as I have mentioned just now, the communists were using the students. There was a plan to exploit the student unrest by uniting the various protest movements, intensifying illegal street processions and demonstrations and provoking a situation that would undermine law and order. These led to the formation of the students' national action front - which the Government saw, at that time, to be a dangerous development because it was dominated by left wing and pro-communist elements from the Nanyang University and the Chinese Middle Schools. Hence, the Government had to nip the situation in the bud, act decisively and four foreign students were expelled. Again, as I have said, every case must be decided on its own merits and facts. Here, Chan Kian Hin had made an individual appeal, where he had stated very clearly his repentance for his past actions and his father, who was a Singaporean, also appealed. If Mr Jeyaretnam is still championing the cause of Chan Kian Hin, who is now dead, and in his question, he also talked about Abdul Razak, I think we should know what interest he has got in the matter.”
“May I take this opportunity of seeking your indulgence just to question the Minister on two points he has not answered. The first point relates to my asking the Minister to review whether he will repeal the Act against naming offenders who are below 16 years old. The second point I raised was a sentiment shared by Mr Sin Boon Ann, ie, we would like to see more police presence. It is granted that the NPC would allow for better quality investigation, but my question is: are we getting more police presence and has NPC resulted in less crime cases than in the old Neighbourhood Police Post system?”
“Sir, Members have been listening to speeches about keeping the community safe from the offenders in our midst. May I make a plea for the offenders, those who are arrested by the police. Fortunately, it is still the cornerstone of our legal system that everyone is presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty. Was it last year that I gave the instance of three persons who were completely innocent but were arrested on a murder charge and only to be acquitted some 39 months later? I spoke about the long, long hours of questioning and denial of food to them. It is not just them. It is their families who also suffer. At the moment, the police rule is that members of families may not visit persons who are arrested until the police have carried out their investigations. This may stretch to several days, if not weeks. This shows a complete lack of empathy for the families of those who have been arrested. May I ask whether any steps are being considered by the Ministry to lay down guidelines for the questioning and treatment of offenders in police custody and, particularly, on the question of allowing visits from members of families to see these persons who have been arrested. They suffer very much when they are not told even on what charge a member of the family has been arrested and they are not allowed to see the member. I asked this last year after I mentioned the case of the three men. They are not the only ones who confessed to crimes which were never committed. So may we know whether the Ministry is contemplating laying down guidelines for the treatment, particularly questioning of and visits by family members to persons under police custody. Mr Chng Hee Kok: Sir, I was not able to catch your eye when the Minister has replied.”
“The Ministers have trotted out the praise given by rating agencies outside of the justice that is meted out in Singapore. But what is forgotten is that these agencies are concerned with commercial cases and how disputes in the commercial sector are dealt with. The Chairman: Order. Mr Jeyaretnam, you have used up the time allocated to you.”
“From that, an accused person, if he is not satisfied, not happy with the decision, has at the moment, for all practical purposes, an appeal only to a single judge. He has no further appeals after that. 4.45 pm Sir, the single Judge who hears the appeal may not be someone who has practised or sat in the criminal courts, and a number of lawyers have felt that there should be a further appeal given as of right in the more serious criminal cases to the Court of Criminal Appeal. It may be felt that to allow every accused person who is convicted a right of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal would overload the Court of Criminal Appeal. But if that is the concern, some restriction could be placed on it by limiting appeals to the Court of Criminal Appeal to the more serious cases, where the sentence of imprisonment is quite heavy, and the man is incarcerated as a result of his conviction for a very long period of time in the prison. I would also urge the consideration of a separate panel in the Court of Criminal Appeal to hear criminal appeals. In the United Kingdom, there is the Court of Criminal Appeal, and then there is the Court of Appeal. The Court of Criminal Appeal hears purely appeals in criminal cases. If it is felt that we cannot have two separate panels permanently, can consideration not be given to appointing ad hoc Judges to the panel of the Court hearing criminal appeals, so that they can deal with the appeal, and be paid on an ad hoc basis? Justice is a very important factor for the cohesion of the society and for the stability in the society. The citizen has to be, as I said, given complete and full confidence in our system of justice that is administered in Singapore.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head E of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. I have two amendments here and, with your leave, I propose to take them together. But may I say that the second amendment that I sent in has been re-worded. What I sent in was "Speeding up of time for hearing of cases". I suppose I should have said "Speeding the hearing of cases". Reduction of time would seem to suggest something quite different. If I may now come to the amendment. First of all, the Appellate System. I have, as Members are aware in this House, more than once raised the question of the appeals that are now available to our citizens from the decisions of a single judge or magistrate. I do not have to inform this House that for the average citizen to be totally satisfied that he has obtained justice in any court, it will be necessary that he should be allowed an appeal from that decision to a higher court and, if necessary, to a further court. At the moment, we seem to be restricting these appeals that are available to our citizens. Not very long ago, we restricted very drastically the appeals in civil cases, those heard in the Subordinate Courts. I think several Members, including myself, have expressed our concern and our unhappiness at this restriction. I would urge the Government to reconsider again the availability of appeals in Singapore. I am particularly concerned about the criminal appeals. A greater portion of the criminal cases, almost 90% of the criminal cases, are now heard and dealt with in the Subordinate Courts. The District Courts have the jurisdiction to pass very heavy sentences. I stand corrected, I think a District Court in some cases can pass a sentence up to 20 years of imprisonment. That is a very stiff heavy sentence.”
“But as a matter of principle, and I think even in practice, we want people from all the communities who master their cultural heritage, who are fluent in their own language as well as English, and who will be able to maintain that community in Singapore, not just as a Singaporean but perhaps with different ethnic features, but as a Singaporean who has got the heritage alive and continuing through him. 1.45 pm”
“Sir, may I seek clarification on the answers given by the Deputy Prime Minister? He speaks of each Minister having a role to play. But my question was: would he try and tell us exactly what duties are being performed by these Ministers? He mentions Mr Lim Boon Heng, NTUC Secretary-General. Is he doing trade union work in the Prime Minister's Office? Or is he doing work in the administration? I think the public would want to know that. Why is he being paid by the administration for trade union work? Secondly, he mentions about the Senior Minister giving advice to Ministers. Do Ministers still need a nanny after all these years? And do we still have to pay that amount for the occasional advice that is given? Could we have clear answers to these questions? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Lim Boon Heng is a full member of the Cabinet. His views on matters reflect not just his NTUC perspective but his judgment on the issues, and we have found this entirely valuable, and he makes a full contribution. As for the Senior Minister, the Member clearly believes that he is not worth his salary. I am not sure how many other Members in this House or how many other persons in Singapore would take that view. May I return, Mr Speaker, to a point which Mr Shanmugam raised which I did not address, which is whether we are only interested in the Chinese elite, or we also would like Malay and Indian elites as well. As a practical matter, it is most straightforward to maintain or to build up Chinese elite, because the numbers are there.”
“I see. Can I not just say one or two words on that amendment?”
“Sir, in moving this amendment, I am of course pursuing what I said in the Budget speech yesterday, and it was the cost of governing us, which I said the budget estimated at about $14 billion. I raised the question of the money spent in the Prime Minister's Office last year. But I do not think I got any answer. So I wonder whether we can get an answer this year. I see from the estimates that the expenditure on political manpower has increased by some $428,400. That is possibly because, last year, there was no provision for Senior Minister of State and Minister of State. At least the posts were not filled. I suppose, this year, it looks as though there is an intention to fill these posts. The result is that we would have about five Ministers, two Ministers of State, a Senior Parliamentary Secretary and two Political Secretaries. I do not intend to read the work programme of the Prime Minister's Office. But if one reads it, one is led to ask the question: do we really need four Ministers and two Ministers of State to administer this programme? So I would ask the Prime Minister if he would be good enough to tell us exactly the functions and duties of these various Ministers in his Department. What is it that they are overseeing? What is it that they are doing that deserve the salaries that they are paid? The public has a right to know what is it that they are getting for what they are paying. So I hope we will hear from the Prime Minister the functions and duties of the Ministers in his office. May I, if you will permit me and if there is time, say a little bit on the amendment moved by Mr Simon Tay?”
“All this is decided for us and we are told, "You, be careful, we are going to be attacked. So, we have got to be ready." Secondly is the amount proposed to be spent on education. That is only less than a quarter of our monies. And health, which is another important factor, takes up only about 1/25 of our monies, whereas defence and security take up a third. The Committee on Singapore's Competitiveness rightly stresses the role of education in our economic progress and it is not just the retraining of our workers, important as it is, ---”
“The Minister for Defence, replying partly to my call last year, spoke of the need for high technology and the need to spend the money on providing high technology. Well and good. But the question still remains unanswered. What is the threat that we are facing? Where is the threat coming from? And what form will the threat take that we need to spend 25% of our monies on defence? Is it that we wish or that we intend to impose a mentality in our citizens that they are under siege, that they are besieged by enemies outside and therefore we have to be prepared? That may have been the position years ago, in the 1950s or 1960s, but does that still continue that we are being besieged or surrounded by hostile neighbours? After all, we are members of several defence pacts under which the members are obliged to come to the defence of any country if it is attacked. There seems to be a paranoia about being attacked from outside. In the same way, I suppose, the Government and the PAP suffer from opposition parties. There is a paranoia about allowing opposition parties to function and perform their role in the society. I think one speaker in last year's debate asked the House to look at what happened to Kuwait. What happened to Kuwait? When Kuwait was attacked, the international community moved in. So we have the United Nations now and we should be backing the United Nations to see that they provide some security for the small countries. But most important is we have got to make a calculation on our spending and see whether it is cost effective. That is the most important thing. And again, I have been calling for a committee to study our defence needs and how much we need to spend on it. There has not been enough thought given to all this.”
“But I am not sure that every Singaporean will agree that our public service is of a very high quality. The running costs, we were told, amount to about $14 billion and 92% of this goes to the running costs of the Ministries. The manpower expenses, we are told, amount to $3 billion. That leaves about $11 billion for other expenditures. We do not know what these running costs are. Should we not have some breakdown of the running costs of the Government? Mr Speaker, Sir, we are a population of three million, or is it that we are approaching four million? Do we need to spend $14 billion, in running costs, in governing ourselves? I have, in the past, and I was here in 1981 to 1986, called several times for a committee to examine the running costs of governing us. But, again, it has fallen on deaf ears. But the imbalance is seen sharply, Mr Speaker, Sir, in the disproportionate allocations made to the Ministries. Of course, I go straight to defence. I may be the only speaker in this House who queries this expenditure on defence year in and year out. But may I assure the Minister that there are a great many people outside who want to know why we are spending so much on defence. Should we not be told clearly in simple terms instead of just general language about the need to be ready, why we need to spend 25% of our monies on defence? If you add to that the cost of policing us and the civil defence, it comes to almost 1/3 of our monies. Last year, Mr Speaker, Sir, I informed the House of the spending in various countries. I said that out of a total of 167 countries, only about 24 or 25 were spending more on defence expressed as a percentage in terms of their GDP. That was for 1996. I have not got any figures after that.”
“We seem to take no account of that when it comes to a crisis. The Minister says that we must not succumb to the lure of welfarism because, once we succumb, it will be impossible to reverse it. May I assure the Minister, and I am sure the Government knows, that Singaporeans are not asking for welfarism. I do not think Singaporeans want welfarism in the sense that it has been understood as paying them for nothing. But these people have been thrown out of jobs through no fault of their own. It has been forced on them. They have been forced to take pay cuts, again, through no fault of theirs. So is it welfarism to see that they are helped? Is it welfarism to see that their children's education does not suffer? We keep talking about our only resource, our people. And is not education the best investment in that resource, if it is our only resource? So I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it is not welfarism that we are asking for, but a recognition of the contribution made by our workers and adequate caring for them in their times of trouble. May I propose that the Government consider very seriously giving a cash allowance to families who are in need during the period of the crisis? We called for this cash allowance to families in need a long time ago but nothing has been done. I must move on, Mr Speaker, Sir. I said it is also an imbalanced Budget. Although the revenue has gone down by 11.4%, I see the operating expenditure has gone up by 2% over 1998. And I recall that the Minister, speaking last year in this House, said that the Government intended to keep a tight lid on expenditure, and this year, he again speaks about the aim of keeping the public sector lean and trim whilst maintaining a high quality of public service. I do not want to run down the public service. It is good.”
“We also called for a suspension of the GST, or at least an exemption for the basic necessities. That, again, has fallen on deaf ears. But may I ask the Government how does it think these 82,400 people, who were unemployed as at 31st December, are going to pay for their food, their children's education and healthcare. Talking about healthcare, I see that the revenue for the Ministry has gone up by $2,066,000 whilst running costs have come down by almost $18 million and the other operating costs have come down by $25 million. But the charges made to our citizens for attending outpatient centres and clinics and cost of medicines would appear to remain the same. Should they not be given some relief from the high costs of healthcare? There is also the children's education. I know there are various funds. But we have called for free education for children of low income families, at least at the primary and secondary levels. Why is that not possible if our aim is to create a knowledge-based economy? If that is the purpose, then we should be spending money on providing education for all. We should be aiming for an egalitarian society, not a society where there are few elitists and the rest are left out. How are they going to pay for their transport costs and public transport is not cheap? The Minister says that the duration of unemployment in 1998 was about 8.9 weeks. How long have they been unemployed now? We were told some time ago that they had savings only to last them for about three months and for some, up to six months. This Budget, like the previous Budgets, does very little for our citizens who will suffer most in this economic crisis. Yet it is those people who have been contributing to our economic progress.”
“Speaking in last year's budget, Mr Speaker, Sir, I said that the Budget was disappointing. I am afraid I have the word again for it this year. It is not only disappointing but it is imbalanced in the allocations made to the various Ministries. Why is it disappointing? A writer in the Straits Times, the Government media, reporting on the Budget said it was a Budget for the man-in-the-street. I do not know how he came to that conclusion, and he also called it a "Singapore vintage". Again, I was puzzled by this. It looked to me it was certainly a PAP vintage Budget but hardly a Singapore vintage Budget, in the sense that Singaporeans would all be very happy and overjoyed with the Budget. He perhaps called it a Budget for the man-in-the-street because of what the Straits Times in another article hailed as the "goodies" for the heartlanders, the people who dwell in HDB apartments. I should not look at a gift horse in the mouth. My Party, of course, welcomes the relief that is being given and we would like to say `thank you'. But may I say that even that might appear to be given grudgingly because the Minister says they would not get the benefit of the 10% income tax rebate that 35% of the population will be receiving. But, as I have said, let us not be stinting in thanking the Government for this. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say it is small fare. The rebates on utilities are offset by the increase in the water-borne fees and the conservation tax to take effect from 1st July. So the Government would appear to be taking away with one hand what it gives with the other hand. In last year's debate, my Party called for a suspension of the water conservation tax. Clearly, that has not merited any consideration with the Government.”