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 13 of 82.
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this House, recognizing that in a true democratic society, every citizen should have the basic right to comment on and criticise the conduct of public officials in the discharge of their public functions and duties, resolves that a Commission be appointed to examine and recommend what changes should be made to the law of defamation to give every citizen this basic right to exercise without fear. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this motion that I am tabling this evening is a logical follow-up to the last motion that I tabled and which was debated some four months ago on the removal of fear in Singapore. And I dare say that Members, feeling perhaps exhausted after a long day and not only just the long day but the week, will say to themselves, "Are we going to have another tedious hour from Mr Jeyaretnam?" It is probably for that reason that our faithful Singapore press did not report anything of what I said at the last motion. They find it tedious to bore their readers and that is probably why nothing was said about what I said in Parliament two days ago. But I am not going to bother about what the Singapore press has to say. This motion, Mr Deputy Speaker, moves the focus to this House. May I make that clear. The previous motion was examining the role of the people in our society, particularly their role in the participation in decision-making. But this motion now proposes to examine the role of Parliament in such a society. I will explain what I mean as I go on.”
“May I just ask the Minister one more question? Does he not agree that there is no provision in the Act for an employee whose services are terminated with the requisite notice of one month to appeal to the Ministry? He is not aware of that.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, let me assure you that I am going to be very brief. I just have one question for the Minister. Isn't this talk about raising the retirement age for employees in the private sector academic so long as the Employment Act allows an employer to terminate the services of any employee by just giving him one month's notice? I can see that this makes a profound change perhaps for the civil servants who have security of tenure under the Constitution. But for the private sector, is this not purely academic?”
“I would like my vote to be recorded as dissenting, opposing the Bill, and I would like to know from Mr Low whether he would oppose the Bill.”
“I have another question. Is the Minister aware that, in some cases I know personally, a lot of compulsion is brought on litigants and even in criminal cases to either plead guilty or settle the cases?”
“If the number of cases has been reduced, then what is the compelling need for this amendment? Are our judges overworked with appeals at the moment? May I ask all the questions so that Prof. Jayakumar does not have to jump up every few minutes. May I point out to him, by way of clarification, that I was not relying on the Malaysian Court for the proposition that public interest is a matter for the courts. I am sure he is aware of the decisions in the House of Lords, on appeals from Scotland and England, that public interest is eminently a matter that should be left to the courts, and he mentioned Christopher Bridges' case. I stand corrected of course, but the Court of Appeal there said that the question of public interest was a matter for the courts. It did. So there we have it, supporting what I said that it should be a matter for the courts and not for the Public Prosecutor. Finally, may I ask the Minister whether it is the speedy administration of justice that is important in society? It is important. Or is it the perception in the public mind that every citizen will get the justice that is satisfactory and of which he can feel satisfied? Which is more important - the perception of justice by the public at large or the speedy administration of justice?”
“Yes, all right. Mr Speaker, Sir, I accept your ruling.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I raise a number of points with the Minister by way of clarification? As I listened to his reply, I noted that he was saying that the number of cases had decreased tremendously, not only by the transfer of the cases above $50,000 to the Subordinate Courts by the amendment made last year, but as a result of the mediation process introduced in this country. I am all for it. But to say that we have mediation and we do not need appeals seems to me to miss the point altogether. If that is true ---”
“May I say those men have now been made bankrupt.”
“" That was an error. A total error. They had adjourned their decision and gave their judgment. But they overlooked the evidence the men had given. Yet, in their own affidavit of evidence filed, in the hearing before the Judicial Commissioner, every single accused had started his affidavit by saying, "I am totally innocent of this crime. I was never there. I knew nothing about this. I deny the charge right from the start." So the evidence was there and yet the Court of Appeal missed that evidence. If there had been a further appeal available to the three men, they could have gone up to the appellate court. But that was not possible.”
“May I illustrate, if I have the time, Mr Speaker, Sir, why I think a two-tier appeal is necessary by referring to a case in Singapore where I think a possible miscarriage of justice was done to the litigants by the absence of a further appeal from the Court of Appeal. And this was the case of the three accused persons which I referred to in my motion on the appointment of a commission to look into the investigation of criminal cases. These three men were charged with murder when they should not have been charged. They were not even at the scene and the murder was committed by someone else as was proved later, and that man was convicted after the three men were acquitted. And that came about because the defence sought strenuously to bring that other man to justice. That is the criminal side of it. When the men took their action to the High Court for damages, because they had spent three years in jail, the Judicial Commissioner dismissed the case without answering the question which was posed to him. He was asked to answer how is it that three innocent men could confess to such a gruesome crime as murder when they knew, at the end of it, they would be hanged. He did not answer the question. They took it up to the Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal was troubled with this question. The Court of Appeal felt that the presumption of innocence was very strong. The three men had been acquitted and someone else had been convicted. They felt there was this strong presumption of innocence in favour of the accused who were claiming for damages for malicious prosecution. But the Court of Appeal said in its judgment, "But we can find no evidence that they gave evidence before the Judicial Commissioner that they were innocent and that they were not there at the scene of the crime.”
“The right of appeal, as I have said, is an inherent part of the judicial system, and is a matter of great public interest. It should only be left to the legislature what limits should be put to it and not left entirely to the Chief Justice or the President. A very valuable point was taken by Mr Simon Tay that under the amendment if a decision to change the limit is taken by the President or the Chief Justice, it cannot be questioned in this House. I would ask the Minister not to move the Second Reading of the Bill but that it be referred to a Select Committee. At least then we will have the views of the public as to what they feel about the rights of appeal being restricted so severely. May I say a few words about the present system of appeals in Singapore. At the moment, as I indicated, we only have a one tier appeal except where in civil cases, decisions go up from the District Court to the High Court. Then there is another tier of appeal to the Court of Appeal. I think it is time we thought of introducing a further tier of appeal, a two-tier appeal, which as I said, is in place in most of the other countries, certainly in the Commonwealth countries and the United Kingdom. And in the United States, you will find that they have more than a two-tier system of appeal. They have three tiers and there may, in some cases, be a four-tier. I know criticism has been made particularly about the death row inmates in the United States. I agree that a person should not be left 10 - 12 years waiting to know whether he is going to be executed or not.”
“This amendment seeks to remove that question from the realm of the court to the Public Prosecutor, contrary to the decisions from other jurisdictions. We seem to be stepping out of line with the jurisdictions in other countries. I suppose then it can be said that we are unique, we are different, we do not follow what other countries do. Is that what we want? Or are we concerned with whether our present system serves justice or not? I had proposed previously that under section 60 at least the right to take the matter up to the Court of Appeal should be left to the Court of Appeal itself and that litigants or the Public Prosecutor should make the application to the Court of Appeal and not to the judge who heard it. This was done by Malaysia many, many years ago. They substituted the decision of the judge with the decision of the Court of Appeal, requiring an application to be made to the Court of Appeal. What is wrong with that, instead of giving the Public Prosecutor greater rights? Reference was made to the right of the Public Prosecutor in the United Kingdom. As has been pointed out, in the United Kingdom, the Public Prosecutor has no right of appeal against the acquittal of any accused person by a court. But here in Singapore we do, and it is there that he takes up the questions to the Court of Appeal. In the United Kingdom, it is purely a question of law which would not affect the decision in a particular case. It is to govern the courts in any future cases coming before them involving that point of law. I must also say a few words about the amendment proposed by clause 3 on the amendment of section 34 to add a new sub-section. This is again, may I say, very unsatisfactory.”
“Or is our aim to try and do justice between subject and subject and between the subject and the Government? These are very important questions of principle and cannot be shrugged off or shelved by considerations of time or convenience. Many a judge has said that administrative convenience has no place in the system of justice. However inconvenient it may be, it must be the sole aim and object of justice to do justice even though it may be inconvenient. May I move on to the proposed repeal and re-enactment of section 60. This is again most unsatisfactory. I have raised this, not once, but two or three times in this House, after I returned to this House. The law as it now stands gives the Public Prosecutor the sole right without any hindrance to take up a question to the Court of Appeal. But the accused has to apply for leave and, as I have indicated, whether it reaches the Court of Appeal or not was left to the judge who heard the appeal and who quite clearly felt convinced of the rightness of his decisions. That itself was wrong in principle. Why should the Public Prosecutor be allowed to ride - I suppose I should not say his coach and six horses - his car through the courts? This Bill seeks to give him greater rights. I am sure the Minister is aware, and this comes from the pronouncements of the highest courts which have dealt with the question of Crown privilege. I am sure he is aware that the courts have decided again and again in England and Scotland that the question of public interest is not a matter for the Attorney-General or anyone else, but it is for the courts to determine after hearing both sides what is the public interest. So what is wrong about that? The courts are the persons who should decide what is in the public interest, not the Executive.”
“I cannot see that an appeal is going to help." So the decision is left entirely to the magistrate. May I illustrate this by what the Privy Council said, and I am sure the Minister is aware of this, in relation to applications that were made under section 60 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. There were two applications made under that, one to the Chief Justice and one to another judge of the High Court. They were criminal cases because section 60 applies only to criminal cases. And in both instances, the applications to refer questions to the Court of Appeal were turned down summarily. The Privy Council which, as I have said before, was then the highest court in the land, pronounced their unhappiness over the decisions of the two judges not to refer the questions to the Court of Appeal. The Privy Council was in no doubt that the questions sought to be referred were questions of public interest and they said they should have been referred. So there is the Privy Council commenting, not on magistrates' decisions, but on the decision of the Chief Justice and a judge of the High Court. So if they can make mistakes, what about magistrates? Are they not liable to fall into the same error? I would like to hear from the Minister the compelling reasons why this amendment is necessary at this stage. If it is speedy justice that we want, cases heard and disposed of immediately, perhaps we should try and take a leaf from what the Prime Minister in Pakistan is proposing to do. He is proposing to have cases heard immediately, appeal heard the next day, execution carried out within seven days. Is that what we want in Singapore - is that the whole aim and object of justice, that it should be speedily carried out and determined?”
“If they thought an appeal was frivolous, they could make an application to the High Court for security for cost to be increased, particularly if there is some evidence that the person appealing will not have the means to pay the costs at the end. So we have the mechanism to prevent frivolous and useless appeals going up to the High Court or to the Court of Appeal. The Minister was very brief in his introduction of this Bill and he says the Chief Justice had requested the amendments. May we know from the Minister whether it is because there are too many appeals and, if so, what is the present number of appeals that judges find difficult to cope with? As has been said before me, justice demands that even if it takes a little longer, that the person seeking justice should be accorded justice and be able to leave the court or tribunal with the feeling that justice has been done to him even though he may not agree with the decision. So what is the need? Is it because there are far too many appeals and we have not got enough judges, or we have not got enough court rooms and appeals are going to be lengthened out to two or three years? Already, I am unhappy at the haste with which cases are processed through the courts. So I am, and my Party is, very unhappy with the proposal that we now increase the threshold for appeal from the Subordinate Courts to $50,000. It is not good enough to say they can still appeal because they can seek the leave of the magistrate. Magistrates are human and, like any other human being. More so because they are judicial officers and they have to decide on the merits they must feel that they are right in their decision. They would be reluctant to grant any further appeal saying, "This question is very clear to me.”
“There are other ways than bringing legislation before Parliament to discourage appeals, and which are also to be regretted. Not very long ago, the Chief Justice, who hears Magistrates' appeals, said quite publicly at a hearing that he was going to discourage frivolous appeals by convicted persons who may have had long sentences of imprisonment or heavy fines, and he would discourage that, cut down the number of appeals by increasing the sentences. May I say that is a most unfortunate remark. And now what does the Government propose to do? As has been said by the speakers before me, it proposes to provide from now, with the passing of this Bill, and there is no question that it will become law, that a single magistrate be left to decide claims below $30,000. To the litigant, a claim of $15,000, $20,000 or $25,000 may mean a great lot to him. In that respect, this Bill is discriminatory. Mr Ravindran, I think, mentioned that, but I will go further and say this is totally discriminatory, and questions may be asked whether it does or does not violate the equality requirement in our Constitution. Why should you deny a litigant who has a claim of less than $50,000 any right of appeal from the decision of a single judge or magistrate? Why is it that only persons who have claims of more than $50,000 and $250,000 should have this right and not persons who have claims below the sum of $50,000? Of course, there should be a little restraint in the number of appeals to be allowed and the present limits are good enough. Again, as has been pointed out, there are other restraints by way of requiring appellants to provide security for costs. If the appeal is thought to be frivolous, the answer is to ask for further security and the opposing litigants can do just that.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say from the outset that I am most unhappy with the amendments proposed in this Bill. I do not support the Bill, and may I say that my Party does not support this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have to say in this House that justice lies at the heart of every human being. And he wants justice in his conduct of his daily life and in any action taken against him by the Government or the public prosecutor who is a member of the Executive. So, he must be given access to the Courts and to the highest Court, if necessary, if he feels that it is important enough to him. So he must have ready access. Secondly, on which I have expressed my dissatisfaction and the Party's dissatisfaction, although it does not come within the scope of this Bill, is the increasing cost of justice to the ordinary man. We have had cost increases several times and many a man feels now it is too expensive to go to the Courts. This is a very unfortunate and regrettable feeling if it is shared by a great majority of the community. As has been said here, Mr Speaker, Sir, the right of an appeal to test the decision of a single Judge has been with us for many, many years. It is an inherent part of the judicial system of many countries, almost every country I should have said, and not only do they provide a one tier appeal, they go on to provide a further appeal, a two tier appeal. We have seen recently with Malaysia setting up the Supreme Court of Malaysia to hear appeals from the Court of Appeal. And I shall be talking about this later. Instead of moving towards a two tier appeal system, we seem to be heading towards cutting out appeals altogether. Is that what we want in this country?”
“I am begging you, and I would ask the House to allow me to put the Party's proposals.”
“As it pleases you. But I am begging you to give me a little bit of time to put the Party's proposals.”
“But I would beg you, Sir, because I have got the Party's proposals for this House to consider.”
“May I just beg your permission to suggest the Party's proposals? Just give me three minutes. Mr Speaker: I am sorry. You are allowed only 30 minutes like everybody else. Please return to your seat.”
“May I ask the Minister of State whether the Ministry considers that rather than concentrating the courts in one area, it will serve the public if the Magistrates Courts are taken out to the various districts? Is he aware that way back in 1963 - and I know this personally as I was the Registrar of the Supreme Court then - there was this plan proposed that we should set up Magistrates Courts in the various districts so that the public are saved the trouble of having to come to Havelock Road or anywhere else to pay their fines or answer their charges? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: We have the best of both worlds. Because in terms of the necessity for the courts to be on one site, I think the site must be central and dignified. The Havelock Road campus will have that. In terms of reaching out to the community, we have got various other outreaches like the Small Claims Tribunals and Community Mediation Centres which are being built. Indeed, even in terms of making it convenient for Singaporeans to pay fines, the ATOM system was introduced two years ago where you can now pay fines through a machine. ACQUISITION OF COLOMBO COURT 8. Mr Shriniwas Rai asked the Minister for Law why the Land Office did not give prior notice to the tenants of Colombo Court of its plan to acquire the property.”
“What evidence did the Ministry have about syndicates exploiting taxi-drivers, and if they do have that, would they make it public so that we can see it?”
“Does the Ministry accept that a taxi-driver who is allowed to own his own taxi and to use it as he likes is running a road business of his own? He owns the taxi at the end. So what is wrong with that? Why is the Government so keen to kill all individual businesses that everyone should go into a company? Secondly, about these sessions that I have heard, are taxi-drivers allowed to attend public meetings and voice their grievances not only about their conditions but about the conditions that exist in Singapore for everyone?”
“Is that not what the companies are doing? They are hiring the taxis to the drivers. Yes. Are the drivers not paying a hiring charge to the companies? So what is the difference? The second is, the Minister says the Ministry found out a syndicate was controlling and exploiting the drivers. Would you rather have the companies exploit the drivers? May I ask: is one of the reasons for not granting licences to individuals to try and stop taxi drivers from expressing their opinion about the Government because I have been told more than once that one of the NTUC rules is that they should stop criticising the Government?”
“As I understand the Minister, there are two reasons underlying the Ministry's decision. One is that those to whom licences were issued, individuals, ie, to operate taxis, hire them out.”
“We get this answer every time, Mr Speaker, Sir. The prices in Singapore are very, very affordable. But does the Ministry realise that even a small payment can be a burden on families which cannot even find enough to live on?”
“Is it not the Ministry's intention then to force people who can afford to pay taxi fares to travel on buses?”
“I am indebted to the Minister for his explanation. But the question still remains. As I understand the Minister, the purpose was to try and keep mainly users of private cars from roads which get congested in the mornings and evenings. But is it not the intention that they should switch to public service vehicles rather than use their cars, and are taxis not public service vehicles, no less than buses?”
“Is that desirable in a society where people should decide for themselves?”
“The question is this: Singapore citizens seem to be living under one compulsion or another all their lives.”
“This is becoming a fact of life in Singapore which is what we are against, and I support everything that has been said by my Party Member for Hougang.”
“Have you made any attempt to find out why they have not bothered? That is my question. Could you please try and answer the question?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Senior Minister of State whether any attempt has been made to find out why doctors have failed to vote in the past? Has any study or census been taken? They may have very good reasons. Maybe they think that the Medical Council is not effective enough for them.”
“Would the Minister answer the question? Is that interference or not, if the United Nations goes in to stop any violation of human rights?”
“Is the Minister aware that the UN also interferes when there is a large scale suppression of human rights and even killings? Is he not aware of that?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I assure the Minister that I have not been misinformed. He says that it is ASEAN's policy of non-interference. May I ask him, if you are providing economic or humanitarian aid to another country, does it not also amount to involvement in the country's affairs?”
“They supported on-going work to recapitalise and restructure the financial and corporate sectors, attract private capital back into the region, and strengthen the international financial architecture. Specifically, the Leaders agreed that an expanded G22 forum should co-ordinate efforts to strengthen the international financial system. They instructed their Finance Ministers to develop related proposals for implementation. They proposed a taskforce to examine the scope for strengthening prudential regulation of financial institutions, promoting safe and sustainable capital flows. They called for work on improving crisis management, including orderly debt workout arrangements with the private sector. The US$30 billion financial package proposed by Japan, the multi lateral initiative announced by Japan and the US in conjunction with the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank, the Australian Economic Governance capacity building initiative, and Singapore's initiative to provide technical assistance programmes at the IMF-Singapore Regional Training Institute will also contribute to the region's recovery. Looking ahead, the KL Summit also endorsed programmes to strengthen the basis for sustained growth of the region, in the areas of human resources development, small and medium-sized enterprises, electronic commerce, economic infrastructure, and science and technology industry cooperation. Overall, the Kuala Lumpur APEC Summit will contribute to the recovery of the region, and to building a prosperous and dynamic APEC community. Mr Simon Tay: May I ask the Minister whether the failure to agree on the early voluntary liberalisation scheme would have a negative impact on the otherwise positive agenda he has given us?”
“Sir, has the Minister of State overlooked that the question relates to dismissed workers. I raised this sometime ago. What is the Government's policy when the workers are made illegal by the company dismissing them before their time is up and who have claims against the company for back pay or for other payments? Does the Government allow them to stay in Singapore to pursue their claims and recover what they can recover from the company or are they sent packing home? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, this area has also been looked at. MOM has also looked into processing the claims more expeditiously. They have strengthened their conciliation processes, so that it now takes a shorter time for these claims to be considered. And if the workers are still not happy, they can go for adjudication before the Labour Court. In the event that the worker still wants to take his claim to the civil court, he will be given enough time to file his claim in Singapore and instruct counsel. ASIA PACIFIC ECONOMIC COOPERATION SUMMIT IN MALAYSIA (Outcome) 7. Mr Simon S C Tay asked the Minister for Trade and Industry how the outcome of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Malaysia will affect the region's recovery and further development. The Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Lee Yock Suan): Mr Speaker, Sir, APEC has taken a useful step forward in Kuala Lumpur to revive the crisis-hit economies of East Asia. Leaders at the Summit committed to pursue a cooperative growth strategy to put the region back on a recovery path. They urged individual member economies to play their part by adopting growth-oriented, prudent macro economic policies.”
“May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, in view of what he has just said, is it the Government's policy now to discourage people from upgrading, people who want to move from a 3-room flat to a 4-room flat if they think that the 3-room flat is inadequate? Is that the policy now?”
“If a person sells his first direct purchase HDB flat and buys a resale flat in the open market, he does not pay the resale levy. This is an important point. The resale levy is applicable only for lessees who have already enjoyed the first Government subsidy (either through the purchase of new HDB flats or the purchase of resale flats using the CPF housing grant) and intend to purchase another flat directly from HDB. In other words, he intends to take a second bite of the subsidy cherry. The objective of the resale levy is to ensure that the second housing subsidy is smaller than the first housing subsidy, which is something I am sure all Members will agree. The Government understands the needs of 3-room flat dwellers to upgrade to a bigger flat. Thus, it has structured the resale levy such that a lessee who sells a smaller flat, such as a 2-room or 3-room flat, pays a lower levy. Conversely, the levy imposed on the sale of a larger flat, like a 5-room or Executive flat, is higher than the 3-room or 4-room flat. The resale levy has effectively helped HDB to manage the demand for new flats from upgraders. As the objective to reduce the amount of subsidy for purchase of second flat from HDB is still valid, my Ministry does not see a need to review the resale levy now.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I was not asking for figures in the annual statement of the HDB. I am asking whether it would not be a good thing if the HDB publishes its cost for every development and say at what prices they are going to sell the apartments. Mr Koo Tsai Kee: Sir, the development cost of each individual block is not published but if the Member wishes to know the development cost of a particular block or precinct, he is welcome to file a Question in Parliament. The reason why we do not publish these figures is that every precinct has different characteristics. New precincts have got markets and roads at different stages of construction. But the selling prices of new flats are published and made known to the people who are asked to select the flats. But these figures are not state secrets. If he wants to know the development cost we will let him know. But we incurred a great loss because of the total development cost. I think Members confuse development cost with construction cost. Over the last one year, construction cost has indeed gone down, but the land cost has not gone down that much. If you talk about flats built today, ie, ready for selection and to go in for occupation , they were bought by the Government several years back. At that time, the land cost was very expensive and the construction cost was equally high. HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD RESALE FLATS (Review of levy) 3. Dr S. Vasoo asked the Minister for National Development if he will review the levy imposed on various types of Housing and Development Board resale flats in view of the current economic situation. Mr Koo Tsai Kee (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to clarify that the resale levy is not imposed on HDB resale flats.”
“Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary - and we have heard this before - talks about heavily subsidising HDB flats. Does the HDB publish, every time they embark upon a construction, the cost to the HDB of the construction of that particular estate or block?”
“May I just ask the Minister whether he is satisfied for himself that the Indonesian authorities are exerting all efforts to find out the cause of the accident? Or has it been superseded by the recent events in Indonesia?”
“For individuals who take up training courses to upgrade themselves through their unions or the self-help groups, they could also enjoy the training grant of 80% from the SDF. To encourage workers to undergo training and retraining, the Government has also given a tax relief of up to $2,000 of course fees for individuals pursuing courses on their own. Sir, I am therefore of the view that it is not necessary to use individual's CPF savings for education and skills upgrading courses. CPF savings should be reserved to meet their housing, medical and old age needs.”
“Applicants of the Public Assistance scheme who have been assessed as needing immediate financial assistance are automatically given the allowance without they having to apply for it. CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND (Use of savings for education/skills upgrading) 9. Dr Teo Ho Pin asked the Minister for Manpower whether his Ministry will consider allowing Singaporeans to use part of their Central Provident Fund savings (capped at $2,000 per year) for education or skills upgrading purposes. The Minister of State for Manpower (Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe) (for the Minister for Manpower): Sir, I would like to inform the House that the main objectives of CPF savings are for housing, medical and old age needs. CPF savings are also allowed to be used for selected purposes, including full-time studies in approved institutions of higher learning, which are the 2 local universities and 4 polytechnics. Sir, the CPF Education Scheme is a loan scheme and it is an exception made for full-time students because they have no income and are likely to have more difficulty paying for tuition fees with their own savings. Sir, workers who need to upgrade their skills today have many opportunities to do so with the support from their employers, the Skills Development Fund (SDF) and the Skills Redevelopment Programme (SRP). Training and upgrading courses organised by employers for their workers are funded by SDF up to 80% of the course fees. Sir, for employers who send their workers to enhance their employability and to be certified under the SRP, they are also eligible to claim for subsidy up to 70% of their absentee payroll, apart from the 80% subsidy from the SDF on course fees.”
“May I know the answer to a simple question and, that is, do the Police know that the wife goes regularly out of Singapore or not? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I think I have answered that question. INTERIM FINANCIAL SCHEME 8. Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh asked the Minister for Community Development how his Ministry publicises and administers the Interim Financial Scheme which was set up to help destitute families; and since its formation, how many Singaporeans have applied for assistance from the scheme. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Community Development (Mr Chan Soo Sen) (for the Minister for Community Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Interim Financial Assistance Scheme was implemented in September 1996 in response to a recommendation of the Inter-Ministry Committee on Dysfunctional Families, Juvenile Delinquency and Drug Abuse. The Scheme, as the name implies, is meant to provide interim financial aid to destitute and needy applicants of the Public Assistance (PA) allowance while their applications are being processed by the Ministry. If an applicant for Public Assistance is assessed to have immediate difficulties in meeting his/her daily needs and requires assistance while waiting for the outcome of the application, the Ministry will provide immediate financial assistance. So far, 41 cases have been assisted under the Scheme. The total amount disbursed was about $11,000. (The quantum given will depend on the applicant's family size and is pegged at 90% of the Public Assistance rates when it is approved.) Because this is an interim arrangement for those who already applied for the Public Assistance Scheme, there is no need to publicise it.”
“Considering that this man Phey Yew Kok has been out of the country for more than 20 years, and we hear the Minister saying that the Police has still not been able to find where he is, are we to understand that the Police are now abandoning the search because I cannot see any purpose? The second question is: are the Police aware or do they know if the wife of Mr Phey Yew Kok regularly takes trips out of Singapore or not? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, as to the first question, I have stated just now that he is still on the wanted list of Interpol. The case is therefore still alive. As to the second question, because the case is alive, it would not be prudent to divulge information on the operation procedures of the CPIB.”
“That is what the then Prime Minister said. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: In that case, I know who he is referring to. That would be Ho Yau Koon from whom Mr Teh Cheang Wan allegedly received gratification for assisting Ho to buy a piece of land. Ho Yau Koon passed away in Hong Kong in 1987.”