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 18 of 82.
“People are moved by political decisions that are made by the Government. They do not remain cold and impassive to a decision made by the Government. Some are moved very deeply by a decision of the Government. Is that wrong? Is that to be dismissed as simply that they are emotional? So I cannot understand this justification that a videotape which tries to bring to the citizens any issues that concern them, and politics is simply nothing but discussion of issues that concern the people, that it is emotional. Politics concerns the body politic. It covers everyone. So if there is any issue that concerns them, then it is politics. And so I cannot accept the attempt made to justify the ban on the ground that people may be moved. Secondly, what is forgotten is that our citizens have to be educated on issues, and a videotape or a film is perhaps the most effective way to educate our citizens on political issues. It is quite clear that our Government in Singapore has no intention and has no wish to educate our citizens politically. All they are concerned with is to drive home to our citizens their message, their goals, regardless of whether it is good for Singaporeans or not. And as a result of all these, for the last 30 years, this drone of Government propaganda is churned out over the TV every night, churned out over the radio, and our people have become resigned, as the former Deputy Prime Minister of this Government said, to hearing nothing else but PAP propaganda, and they are unable to make any judgement on whether what the PAP proposes is good for the society or not. That clearly is what the PAP wants. There is no question about it. The second justification made by the Minister is that there is already an arena for serious political discussion.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my concern, of course, is with that part of the Bill that seeks to shut out any film of a political activity in Singapore. I have no quarrel with the amendments proposed to punish exhibitors of pornographic films, and particularly child pornography. I wonder, Mr Speaker, Sir, how many people outside this House were aware, before the House sat today, that this Government intends to categorise a political activity, and that is, making a film on political issues, and thereby educating our citizens into greater awareness, with obscenity and lewdness. I find this totally inexplicable, that the Government should try and lump a particular form of political activity with obscenity and lewd films. And that is made clear, if you look at one of these clauses, that is, clause 11, which seeks to amend section 35(1) of the Films Act. And the amendment is that instead of the word "lewd", you insert "a party political film". So a party political film would appear to be in the minds of the Government to be the same as a lewd film. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to repeat what has been said before. I am not going to go over the definitions in this Bill. To me, it is not just a question of amending the definitions and curtailing the impact of this total ban on a form of political activity in Singapore. The whole thing is totally unnecessary, with or without any amendment, and any amendment is not going to make it any better. The Minister, in introducing the Bill and in attempting to justify the ban, says a video-tape which contains issues that concern Singaporeans may be emotional and perhaps move them to action. What the Minister forgets, and the PAP forgets, is that politics is an emotional matter.”
“May I ask whether Singapore Airlines had been asked to give the Government, because it is a Government company, an explanation as to how this revision of the first contract came about?”
“May I ask whether the Minister is really not aware of the reports that had appeared of the judicial investigation in Lebanon against officers of the Middle East Airlines?”
“Is the Minister not aware that there is a judicial investigation in Lebanon over this whole contract between the Middle East Airlines and Singapore Airlines and there is the possibility that officers there may be charged with corruption? Secondly, would the Minister explain how is it that the original contract was revised so substantially to bring down the prices and charges made by Singapore Airlines in the original contract? Was Singapore Airlines overpricing itself in the first contract?”
“May I know from the Minister of State, in view of his answer, are we to understand that the Government will condone companies giving bribes to foreign companies or organisations to secure contracts and let the directors go scot-free every time this happens? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the Government's position on corruption is very clear. The Government's stand on corruption is very tough. We have in fact fared very well internationally in terms of this criterion. So there is no question of letting people off if they are corrupt. But, like I said, in any particular case, the Public Prosecutor would have to consider all the factors and decide first whether or not to prosecute and, if so, who to prosecute. SINGAPORE AIRLINES LTD (Offer of inducement/gratification to official of Middle East Airlines) 15. Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Finance whether the Singapore Airlines Ltd had offered any inducement or gratification to any official of the Middle East Airlines for the leasing of SIA planes to the airlines.”
“May I know whether Parliament should not be told what are these facts upon which the Public Prosecutor made this decision? May I also ask whether any attempt will be made to recover the $8.3 million that was lost to the company as a result of the directors giving the monies away in bribes? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the decision of the Public Prosecutor in individual cases should not be the subject of Parliamentary scrutiny. As I mentioned just now, in every case, depending on the merits of the case, the Public Prosecutor has to decide based on the law, the facts of the case, the reports of the agency, the available evidence and the public interests involved. I think that is the assurance that we have - that the Public Prosecutor would exercise his discretion judiciously, carefully and indeed wisely.”
“The Minister of State can be assured that I know that it is the Public Prosecutor's decision. But may we know why was it not thought necessary to prosecute the Managing Director and at least one other director who would appear to have been actively involved in giving this bribe to Mr Cornelius van der Horst? Is the Minister aware that, under section 6(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is the person who should be prosecuted? I know the Interpretation Act says "person" includes "companies". But may we know why these directors are being let off? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Like I said in my answer, under the Constitution, the discretion to prosecute lies with the Public Prosecutor. So he has considered all the facts of the case, including, like I said in my answer, the fact that the directors did not act for their own personal gain. Having considered all these factors, he has decided to prosecute only the company.”
“Is the Minister aware that in the Supplementary Estimates that are to be debated this afternoon, the Government was able to find something like $400 million from other Ministries to meet the shortfall in defence?”
“May I ask the Minister of State: was it not possible to find savings from the other Ministries to meet this increased cost, rather than pass the increase on to users of these polyclinics?”
“May I say to the Minister of State that I was not asking about retrenchment, but about workers whose services are terminated and the law, as I know it, does not require the employer to give any reasons. If he does not like the man's face, he can terminate his services by giving him a month's notice. So what is the protection? Why do we not have an Unfair Termination Board?”
“Does the Minister of State appreciate that the present laws in Singapore and the practices followed by his Ministry leave the worker entirely on the charity of the employer as to how much compensation he is to be paid? The Minister of State says that it will not protect the workers to legislate for payment of compensation for workers who have been employed for 10 years or more. Why will it not? May I ask the Minister of State when will this Government bring in an Unfair Termination Act so that an employee who feels that his services have been terminated unfairly may have it referred and reviewed by a board, quite outside the Ministry, who will then decide what compensation is to be paid to the employee?”
“Again, that is not the answer. I cannot see that taking us very far. It is just that you are not grasping the whole point of the message. And that is to give a message from this House to the people who are facing economic problems and difficulties. They have heard ad nauseam how well the PAP has managed Singapore. They have heard ad nauseam about the GDP growth, but that is not what they want to hear now. What they want to hear now is this: "What are you going to do for us in our present situation? How are you going to help us?" And I have suggested that even if it is a little, even if it is a gesture, that you set up an unemployment workers' benefit fund. What is wrong with that? Then at least the people will see that there is some sincerity, some determination to help them. May I know what steps the Government is going to take to help those who are thrown out of jobs and perhaps do not have any savings, other than to preach and to sermonize and say, "It's just hard luck. It is an economic downturn. You wait for the economy to pick up and then you'll be all right." May I know what message you have? I have a message, ie, do something, set up a little fund from the reductions that you voluntarily give up and help these people.”
“Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Prime Minister. We have had it again from the horse's mouth. The Government's answer to these people would appear to be, "It's just tough luck, old man. Tough luck, old chap. Hard times, you just have to put up with it. We hope we will be able to get you round to good times. But at the moment, you just stay in your little hole and suffer. Whereas we are all right. We are not going to do anything to alleviate your suffering." BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, perhaps Mr Jeyaretnam might suggest to the House any other country in the region where we might be better off than in Singapore.”
“The same MP who complains about the nanny government is also the one who says, how about coming to do something straightaway.”
“Yes, that is very funny, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Deputy Speaker, it just shows how the whole of the import of this motion is lost. It is just evasive, because that is all that the Members of the ruling party are capable of, evade and nothing else, not capable of any reasoned answers. The Deputy Prime Minister says the answer is to try and get out of it. What is your message? What is your message to those who have lost their jobs and who find that they cannot make their ends meet? They have no savings at all. What is your message to them? The Deputy Prime Minister says we have got to rally Singaporeans. But what is your message to these people? BG Lee Hsien Loong: The message is very simple. We have been broadcasting it for years except that Mr Jeyaretnam has not heard it. It is that life is uncertain, the international economy is uncertain. No job has security. Ministers do not have job security. If you are in a job which pays well today, you cannot be sure that it will be there for the rest of your working career. You must be prepared for an upset, you must be prepared for something which is unexpected, and the way to prepare for it is to train, to gain skills, to have something valuable which you can contribute to. So when you lose one job, you can get into another one, and to put aside and save for a rainy day, instead of saying, "I will spend this. The Government will provide." And that is what we have done. We have retrenchments. Can we avoid it? Yes, by not having disk drive companies, by not going regional, by going back to farming in your backyard and planting potatoes and tapioca. That is possible. But if you want to plug into the world economy, then you must be prepared to see the ups and the downs, and you must provide for these downs when they come.”
“I am afraid the Deputy Prime Minister does not see the import of my motion and, that is, action now in the midst of a crisis, not action in the year 2001 when we will see whether we need to take a reduction in our salaries. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have explained what we are doing, which is to suspend the adjustment which is due this year, and we will watch the situation and decide what happens next year. The test of the policy is not whether you have done a histrionic gesture and the Prime Minister has taken the lead and he has volunteered; and then his Deputy Prime Ministers volunteer; his Cabinet Ministers volunteer, and the MPs do, and even NCMPs hasten not to be last. The test is who gets into a bigger hole and who has avoided the hole and got out faster. In 1985, he moved a motion to cut salaries. We turned it down. But we did not stay in the hole. We got out of the hole, which is why we have had 12 years of growth since then until this regional problem came. That is the test of good government, identification with the people and the competence of the team in charge. The import of Mr Jeyaretnam's motion is that we will make voluntary cuts. He says it is not a political gimmick. What is it? If he wants to make a voluntary cut in his NCMP's allowance, he can do it. Why does he have to tell the whole world? Why does he have to wait for the whole world? Why does he care whether anybody else makes voluntary contributions or otherwise? There is a Malay saying that when a turtle lays eggs, it lays 100 and nobody hears about it. When a chicken lays eggs, the whole village is awakened by the cackling of the hen.”
“Have you ascertained now, because they have gone down? BG Lee Hsien Loong: As I have just explained, the latest data we have are 1996 salaries reported to the IRAS in 1997, and declared in 1998. So in 1997, I imagine that wages would have gone down some, because the crisis started in mid-year. In 1998, it would go down some more. So correspondingly in 1999, Government's salaries will go down, and in the year 2000 also. It follows. So there is no magic to this. If you have a formula and the peg, you have to follow up and you have to follow down. So I do not see what the difficulty is.”
“Well, I am not withdrawing. I said this was to be expected.”
“You will find out for yourself, if you do go round and mix with them. As I said, running through to form, he says, "Oh, the PAP Government has done all this, done all this, done all this." This is what we have heard ad nauseam. And the people of Singapore also know what the PAP Government has done all these years. Why do you not go and ask them what the PAP Government has done? The cost of living has gone up. Life has become more and more a struggle. Life is too regulated and controlled. Why do you not go and ask them instead of trying to score political capital in this House in front of the Members here? So I do not think that I need to waste any time with the first speaker's reply. It is nothing new. But may I ask him this? He says the PAP Government has provided all the savings that they can use during their hard times. What savings are there for the people during the hard times that lie ahead? Let us have some concrete proposals instead of words, words, words. Then we have the Nominated Member of Parliament, Mdm Claire Chiang. I was surprised that she took up cudgels on behalf of the Government. That was to be expected, Nominated MPs.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to detain our Members much too long from their dinners. Yes, it is long enough. They do not like to hear any proposals for taking a reduction in their salaries. Of course, they do not wish to hear that. They do not wish to hear anything about being setting an example. That is the last thing they want to hear. So, of course, the response, "Shut up! Mr Jeyaretnam, and keep quiet. We don't want to hear all these. It is painful to us that you ask us to set an example." May I say, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that this debate has run true to form. There is nothing that I have heard this afternoon in answer which I did not expect. I knew what was coming. It has run true to form. The Deputy Prime Minister says it is a rehash of my 1985 motion. What is his? If it is not a rehash of what we heard in 1985 from the then Minister of State - he has of course gone up the ladder, he is now a Cabinet Minister, and I see he is not replying - what is it, but a rehash. But before I reply to the Deputy Prime Minister, may I make a few responses to the others who have spoken. Again, as I said, this is nothing new. It is running true to form. The first speaker tries to dismiss it as mere politics, trying to make political capital. I think perhaps he would do well, if I may just say to him to go and speak to his own constituents and find out for himself, at first hand, whether it is political capital or whether it is something quite different. It is a call for him to identify himself with the people. I suggest he goes and speaks to his own constituents because I have heard this I cannot call them "my constituents" from the voters in Cheng San, when I go round, they know what I am talking about. It is not political capital.”
“The tone should be restraint and caution. We must take the crisis seriously but in our stride. We did not wish for this crisis, but it will draw us together. Let us work together as one people to tackle this challenge. Then we will sail through the storm safely, and emerge ahead once more. [Applause.]”
“On that basis, the average 24, which means the Staff 1 benchmark, has increased by 12.8%, and the 15P32, the Superscale G benchmark, has increased by 4.0%. If we subtract from these two figures the 4.5% NWC wage adjustment in July 1997, then this year's Staff 1 salary, which also carries with it Ministers' salaries, should go up by 8.1%, just to maintain 60% of average 24. And the Superscale G salary should come down by 0.4%. These adjustments would normally take place on 1st July. But this is an exceptional year. We still expect the economy to show positive growth, not negative growth or a recession. However, there are major uncertainties ahead. And if events take an unexpected turn, all bets are off. Therefore, the Government has decided to suspend this year's adjustment for the Staff 1 benchmark. In other words, the Staff 1 salary will be frozen this year, instead of increasing by 8.1% on 1st July. The 0.4% reduction in the Superscale G salary will proceed. This applies to both civil servants and political office holders. Other grades will be correspondingly adjusted. In effect salaries of all grades will be frozen or very slightly reduced this year. Promotions and normal increments will continue, and if there is an NWC adjustment this year, it will apply to all officers, including Ministers and MPs. Next year, when we have the IRAS figures for 1997 earnings, we will review the situation. Some employers have already decided to freeze their salaries for this year. Others who are still doing well will want to reward their workers. The NWC will deliberate on the guidelines which employers and workers will follow. But by suspending this year's salary adjustment for Ministers and civil servants, we will set the tone for the private sector as a whole.”
“They rise and fall automatically with private sector incomes, because they are pegged by a formula to salaries in the private sector, and they are revised every year. So Staff Grade 1 is set at 60% of the average of 24 people (the top four individuals from six professions: bankers, accountants, engineers, lawyers, local manufacturing companies and multi-national companies), ie, the average principal earned income of the top four in each of these six professions. And Staff Grade 1 is 60% of that, and we have said eventually it is to reach two-thirds of that over four years from1997. Superscale G is the average principal earned income of the 15th person who is aged 32 years old, belonging to the same six professions, because that is the point where a young civil servant should be reaching at that age and is making a critical comparison at a key point in his career. So compared with his cohort, 32 years old, let us get the people in these professions ranked at 15th. If you can make it to "G" by 32, you should be equal to them and deserve to be paid as well as them. There is a two-year lag in this formula, because we need two years to work the data. The 1998 adjustment this year is based on private sector incomes which were paid in 1996, and assessed by IRAS in 1997, and would be adjusted by the civil service for Ministers in 1998. But despite this two-year lag, the formula maintains the right relativities between Ministers' salaries and private sector earnings, whether the economy is up or down. So, for example, last year (1997), the benchmark declined, so the Ministers' salaries were cut by 7%. It happens automatically. This year the benchmark would be based on 1996 private sector earnings.”
“A significant part of wages is now in the variable component, both public sector wages and also private sector wages. And as a matter of policy, we have kept the variable component separate from the fixed wages, so that employees will be psychologically prepared for it to go down as well as to go up, depending on economic conditions. We have not consolidated it. We have not built it in. We have kept it separate, and we have marked it separate, and every time we have increased the amount we have reminded people this is variable - it can go up, it can go down. It is a cushion which we can trim back, if necessary, without causing too much hardship to workers. In the public sector, the variable component makes up at least 20% of wages. Civil servants and ministers receive an Annual Variable Component of two months' salaries per year. They also receive a monthly Non-Pensionable Variable Payment (NPVP), which includes all the NWC adjustments since 1993. So if it becomes necessary for us to reduce wage costs, the public sector will do so by trimming the Annual Variable Component, which will not affect the monthly pay packet. And if we still need to trim by more, we can adjust the NPVP. We will know if it is necessary to trim the Annual Variable Component or the NPVP for Ministers and civil servants by the time the NWC makes its recommendations for the year. The Government will as usual decide on its NWC payment for civil servants and Ministers after that. It will then decide whether to trim the Annual Variable Component or NPVP. As Mdm Claire Chiang and also Mr Chiam pointed out, Ministers' and civil servants' salaries are not fixed.”
“And if they are paid more, then that would spiral through, and you will be back at your starting point but with an extra zero on your currencies and on your salaries. So overall, although the exchange rate of the Singapore dollar has gone down much less than our neighbour's, I am still confident that our exporters can compete. They have problems if they are working in the region. They have problems if they are in difficult businesses, like disk drives. But it is not because we are out of line and uncompetitive. Nevertheless, we should still watch our costs this year, to make sure that we do not stray out of line. One cost factor which we can control is Government rates and charges. As Dr Tony Tan said, the Government will be careful not to raise fees this year, except where it is essential. So, for example, as the crisis developed last year, JTC and HDB took steps to moderate or defer rental increases for its lessees and tenants. But the rise in PUB water tariffs, announced last year, to be phased in over three years, with another adjustment this year, will continue. Firstly, because water is a vital strategic resource. And secondly, because the impact of the increase in water rates on lower income households will be fully offset by the Government rebates for utility bills. So we have to proceed, and we have seen to it that we are proceeding in a way which does not hurt the lower income groups. Another key cost factor is wages. In the 1985 recession, when wage costs became too high, we had to cut employers' CPF contributions by 15% points, from 25% down to 10%. But we learnt from that experience the importance of wage flexibility. So we have used the good years since 1985 to build up the flexi-wage system, precisely to meet a situation like this one.”
“Growth is going to be slower. Companies will make less profits. Workers will receive smaller bonuses. Some will be retrenched. The Government budget will be tighter, leaving a smaller surplus available for asset enhancement. Luckily we are competitive, compared to other countries. Unlike in 1985, our costs are not out of line. If you measure exchange rates against the US dollar, the baht, the ringgit, the rupiah and the won have all gone down much more than the Singapore dollar. This had made these countries cheaper than us, in a way, more competitive than us. But the effect is smaller than these numbers suggest, because, firstly, these countries have not been able to increase their exports sharply. They lack trade financing (which our multilateral trade guarantee proposal is meant to deal with). And also the lower exchange rates have been offset by very high interest rates and a credit crunch. So they are unable to export and therefore our exports are maintaining market share. Secondly, we export a different mix of products than the countries do. We are higher end, more technology intensive. They are still mostly in the textiles and garments. So the competition is less. There is some overlap in electronics, in disk drives, which has been affecting us. But it is a partial overlap. Thirdly, over time high inflation will erode the cost advantage of their sharp depreciation of their currencies. Already this is happening in Indonesia. Between December and January, the inflation was 7% in one month in consumer prices. In fact, the risk is hyperinflation. So although the cost may have gone down temporarily, it is not an advantage which can be sustained because workers need to be fed, need to live. If they cannot eat, they may riot.”
“If Indonesia stabilises after the elections in March, the rupiah recovers its value, companies can service their debt, workers have their jobs and can earn a living and buy food and essentials, then the situation in the region will gradually return to normal. But if Indonesia's economic problems continue, and there is high unemployment, inflation, food shortages, and people cannot afford to buy oil or flour or milk powder for their babies, or sugar or medicines, then we too will feel the effects. Nobody can predict how events are going to unfold over the next year. What are our priorities now? I would put three: First, to rally Singaporeans to be prepared for rough weather, to keep Singapore on an even keel despite the storm. Second, to help to restore stability and growth in the region, within the limits of our capabilities, eg, through our active diplomacy, discussing the matter, lobbying, suggesting proposals to other countries, through visits, as the Prime Minister has visited Indonesia three times, and Malaysia recently. Third, to prepare ourselves for the longer term and strengthen our competitiveness, so that when the region starts growing again, we will be well poised to prosper for the region. So despite the uncertainty, despite the mood of gloom and despondency, Mr Peter Seah published his report on financial services, and the Government has responded, accepting nearly all its recommendations, not to deal with this year's growth rate for the financial sector or the GDP, but to position us for the medium term when the region recovers for us to have all the pre-conditions in place, engine already running, step on the accelerator and you are off. We have got to work together as one country on these urgent tasks. It is not going to be an easy year.”
“I say Singaporeans will have to tighten their belts. I am saying that. BG Lee Hsien Loong: For example, in the 1985 recession, there was a CPF cut and it applied to everybody. If Mr Jeyaretnam had suggested that everybody in Singapore should have wages cut by 25%, then we could have a serious debate. We would disagree with him that this was necessary, but it would not be an absurd proposition. But how does cutting political salaries help us to tackle the regional crisis? Indeed, Mr Jeyaretnam, in moving the motion, concedes that it would not, but presses on in characteristic fashion nevertheless. We must focus on the real problems. The crisis has not hit us directly. But we will still suffer the side effects of the region's problems. Trade and tourism are down. Uncertainties in Indonesia and other countries will affect the whole region. Loss of confidence affects our stock market, and also our exchange rate, although less than other countries. There may also be direct spillovers to us if there are more serious problems. For example, the latest Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) Report on Singapore speaks of the possibility of a "population exodus that could result in thousands of economic refugees with little money or marketable skills seeking food and shelter in Singapore". It is an alarmist prospect. It may not happen, but you cannot tell what may happen. The crisis is far from over. Nobody predicted the last eight months of turbulence. Not the IMF, not the World Bank, not the pundits, neither the countries and the Government, not even the hedge funds.”
“Earlier, I thought there were some sincere and genuine reasons on the part of the NCMP to table this motion. May I say to him that over the last 40 years, the first group of PAP leaders and those in the Government had done what he has proposed. They had exactly done what he is proposing today, ie, doing the right thing and identifying ourselves with the people, but not by way of moving a motion designed to score a political point. What the PAP has done, which I thought I must say, so that it could be of some use to Mr Jeyaretnam is that”
“I am proposing that the saving resulting from this voluntary cut-back in the salaries be paid into an unemployment benefit fund for workers who are thrown out of employment or into a needy welfare fund, so that some use is made of the savings, so that the sacrifice, if it is a sacrifice, of the Ministers is put to good use to alleviate the hardship of people who need help. That is my proposal. Let it be paid into an unemployment benefit fund or a needy fund. Will the Government accept that? As I said in the 1985 motion, whatever the outcome, I propose to do what I say. If the Government does not set up an unemployment benefit fund, then I have to see into what fund the reduction in my allowance by 25% may be put to. But I hope the Government will be able to find this channel for me and say, "Look, we are setting up an unemployment benefit fund, Mr Jeyaretnam. Here you are, you can pay your 25% reduction into this fund." If, as I say, the Government proposes not to do anything of that sort, then I have to try and see how my saving can be used in any way and show my identification with the voters in Cheng San and elsewhere in Singapore. Question proposed. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M): Sir, I will be brief. The Member has asked that we in this House do the right thing and that this motion rests also on the need for us to identify ourselves with the people of Singapore, with the voters, because we are all representatives of the people. Sir, I did not realise that the Member would really stand up here this evening to talk about possible miseries and difficulties of the people in Singapore only to score some political points.”
“We have got to somehow get across the message to the people that we do care about them in their situation, that we do know of their difficulties and their problems and to show our appreciation and our knowledge, we would ourselves identify with them in their hardships. But as I said, I cannot see the 25% reduction in salaries for Ministers is going to impose any hardship on them. So it is, as I said, simply a question of doing the right thing, and I am sure that Members here would like to be seen as doing the right thing and identifying themselves with the people. May I assure the Members of the People's Action Party, who are here from Cheng San, that the voters of Cheng San will be watching very closely as to what their elected Members are going to do. Here is an opportunity. Here is a wonderful opportunity for them to show themselves as identifying themselves with the people. We will have to wait and see. I see Mr Zainul Abidin is trying to get on to his feet. But hold on for a while. So here is a wonderful opportunity. Are we going to seize this opportunity and show our oneness? That is it - show our oneness with the people, not that we are a people who are set apart from them, not telling them, as it were, "we are all right, Jack, it's your problem." We have got to show them that we consider their problem our problem and we are prepared to identify ourselves with them. What I am proposing is not just a cut-back and the money remaining with the Consolidated Fund.”
“My Party responded to that announcement and expressed its disappointment that whilst the Government was prepared or getting ready to cut back on expenditure for the people, there was no suggestion or proposal that there would be a cut back on the Ministers' salaries or the allowances paid to the Members. There was no response from the Deputy Prime Minister on that. But we had a response from the Minister without Portfolio and his reply was that any saving by reduction in the salaries was not going to help. That it is negligible. We do not know what the saving will be. We have got to tot it up and see what the saving will be and see whether it is so negligible that it is not worth implementing it. I am sure it is not that negligible. As I said earlier, I shall be reverting to this topic, and that is, the salaries drawn by our Ministers are way beyond anything drawn by ministers outside so that any saving by reducing their salaries by 25% is not going to be that negligible. Of course, it may not run into billions of dollars. But I am sure it should run into one or two million dollars at least. But the point is not whether it is going to be of any help. That is to overlook and to ignore the other point and, that is, the identification of us and the Ministers equally with the people. That is the point that has to be met squarely. We have seen the PAP's slogan "More Good Years" and we said in our press release that it would appear to be that it was always more good years for the Ministers and people in high places whatever the economic situation in the country is.”
“But we have got to deal with the situation as we now see it, and not just tell our people, "Well, it is all right. Don't worry. We will be okay in 6 months' time." They want to know what is being done for them at the moment and how they are going to be helped. Apart from this downturn in business leading to loss of jobs, parallel to it is the rise in the cost of living. Since the last elections, price of almost everything has gone up. I mentioned this when I asked for a Parliamentary committee on prices. Transport, education, health, everything is going up. And only very recently, there was the announcement of the polyclinic charges going up. I had a question for the Minister for Health to ask him by how much had the cost increased. But my question was not reached. So I am not able to deal with the increase in the cost and how much is being collected by way of the increase in the charges. Again, I meet people from time to time who tell me of the heavy cost of health care and particularly for the older citizens who need more health care than the young ones. And they say, "We try and avoid going to the doctors as long as possible. We try and avoid seeking medical treatment because of the cost involved." I do not want to labour this. I am saying that it must be quite clear to all of us that life is going to be very hard for 60% of our citizens in Singapore. The Deputy Prime Minister announced on 19th January this year, that there would be a cut back in the expenditure because the Government expected a fall in the revenue. It feels that it would not be able to collect enough. He announced that the Government proposed to cut back on the expenditure except on defence and education.”
“I do not know why I could not have had the figures to release to the Members at this particular moment. It cannot be an official secret. But be that as it may, there are many who have lost their jobs and there will be very, very many more who might lose their jobs, maybe not in the same degree or level as the people in Indonesia and in other countries who may lose their jobs. But there will be people who will suffer, who may be thrown out of employment. What are we going to say to them? Then there is the problem of re-employment for these people. I have come across several people, especially those who are over 40 or 45 years, who have told me that it is virtually impossible to get another job and yet, we hear from time to time, "Oh, re-employment is quite easy." But we never have the figures as to how many of them have been re-employed and within what period of time. Only last week or so, we saw in the papers that 62% of our workers or the less well-to-do in our society have savings which will tide them over only for three months at the most. This was an independent survey that was carried out and is not something that I am just plucking out of my head. But it may very well be that 10% or even 20% may not have enough savings to tide them over even for one month. But 62% have savings which can only tide them over for three months. Then there is the drop in the businesses. And we heard this afternoon from the Minister that there was a drop. I do not know what percentage he mentioned. So life is going to be much harder for most of our citizens. For at least 60% or 65% of our citizens, life is going to be much harder. We can only hope that it will not be a very long time, it will be fairly short, and that we could perhaps get back on the road.”
“That motion in 1985 was, not that I expected it to be accepted, not accepted, was dismissed ,and I expect this motion will probably suffer the same result. And I expect that the same jibes will be made, as the jibes have been made even in this present session of Parliament, that it is all publicity and it is all politics of envy. Whatever may be the result, whatever may be the jibes, will not deter me from doing what I think is right, because in the final analysis, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is doing the right thing by the people. That is the final analysis - doing the right thing. And the question that has to be answered is whether it is the right thing to do at this particular moment in our country's history for the leaders voluntarily to take a reduction in their salaries or allowances. I do not have to dwell at length on the reasons for this motion. I think Members are only too keenly aware and we have heard it in this House, and we have read about it, of the economic downturn that this country is facing and of the difficulties that our people will have in trying to make a living in this place. Of course, I am not talking about the people who draw huge salaries and have wealthy incomes. I am talking about our citizens who draw $1,500 and less. And may I remind the Members, as I did when I moved a motion on Ministers' salaries that 62% or so of our workers are earning less than $1,500 per month. They will find it very hard. It is not just them. There is the loss of jobs. We heard and read of people being laid off, retrenched. I thought I might be able to give Members the numbers that have been laid off since July last year. I wrote to the Ministry of Labour and I had been told I could not have it now. It would be released at the end of the month.”
“So when seeking their vote we were claiming to be one of them, to represent them in this House and to speak on their behalf on matters that affected them or their families. So that is the central point - that we identified ourselves to be with them in their problems and in their hardships when we went to seek their votes. And that must not be lost sight of once we are in the House. As I said, this is the people's House, not anyone else's. It is not the Government's House; it is the people's House. And we are here as people representing the people outside this House. May I make another observation, and that is, it was suggested in 1985 that my motion was a silly one because it was no cure for the ills the country was then facing. May I assure Members if that suggestion is going to be made again, that this is not being proposed as a cure for our economic ills. It is proposed simply and solely out of my conviction that we should try and identify ourselves with the people in everything. There are, of course, two differences between this motion and the motion that I moved in 1985. One is that whereas that motion sought to make the resolution a binding one on Ministers and Members of the House, this motion makes it a voluntary gesture, a decision to be made by each Member for himself or herself. It is not a resolution to bind all Members but leaving it entirely to the conscience or the political will of the Member concerned. And the other difference, of course, is that, and I shall be coming back to this, there is a huge difference now between the salaries that we were drawing in 1985, particularly Ministers, and the salaries we are drawing today in 1998.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this House resolves that, as representatives of the people, in order to show our solidarity with them in their hardships during the current financial uncertainty, we should voluntarily take a reduction of 25% in the salaries and allowances drawn by us as Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries and Members. Mr Speaker, Sir, Members present in this House and who were Members in 1985 may recall that I moved a similar motion in the 1985 recession. The Leader of the House recalled that immediately when I mentioned it to him when I met him at the Australian Day function. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 5.34 pm I could, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, read what I said then because a lot of what I said then is relevant to this motion as it was when I spoke in 1985. But I do not propose to read what I said then. I do not wish to burden Members who heard it once to hear it a second time. I said then, however, that I was quite sure that the then Leader of the House would have withdrawn the Whip to leave Members to vote according to their own conscience. But, of course, that was not the case. So I do not know whether it is too vain a hope now that the Whip has been withdrawn and that Members would vote according to their own conscience. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have said more than once that we in this House, I suppose excluding those who are here by nomination, by appointment, who have come into this House after going to the voters to be chosen, to be in this House as their representatives, are the people's voice. We are here as representatives and when we went to them to seek their vote, we were identifying ourselves - let me make that quite clear - with their problems, with their hopes and with their aspirations.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister by way of clarification? He mentions, really jibes, about my Party's concern that the whole thing is a discrimination against the poor. Will he not agree that the whole system of road pricing, ALS, or what have you, does not take into account the needs of the small tradesmen or persons whose jobs needs them to have a car to get around, which adds to their cost, reducing their income considerably whilst allowing those who are rich and wealthy to have unlimited access to our roads?”
“Well, it is centralised, all right, but it is far from democratic.' Earlier, the Minister for Information and the Arts, in moving his Bill, said, "I have very few appeals. I have very few objections." Perhaps, I should have read this to him then. Is it because our people have become resigned to all these controls and feel that they are just helpless in the face of power that is overwhelming?”
“Subsection (4) deals with a person who fails to comply with a notice issued under subsection (1) who shall be guilty of an offence which would suggest that a person who fails to comply with the notice shall be prosecuted in court. But subsection (1) merely requires the person on whom notice is served to produce the vehicle, and by subsection (4), if he does not produce the vehicle, then he may be prosecuted. Subsection (4) does not seem to apply to subsection (3) where the Registrar decides to remove any device or appurtenance fitted into the car. Is it not, again may I ask, right that a right of appeal should be given to the aggrieved person, not to the Minister or to any other higher officer, but to the court so that the decision of the Registrar may be challenged in the court? I said at the beginning that I was going to quote what a former Deputy Prime Minister of this Government had to say about the concentration of power. May I just read what he said, and this is none other than Dr Toh Chin Chye who was a former Deputy Prime Minister. And he was reported to have said: `Now everything is centralised and the computer databanks make it easier for more and more power to be concentrated. Anyone who applies for a job now has to fill in a form with a complete history. Everybody carries an identity card and everything is in the computer. I see that even people who take video tapes of people's weddings now have to get a licence. The amount of control is just fantastic. The danger is that we have no check on the use of power. [May I repeat that, Mr Speaker, Sir, "the danger is that we have no check on the use of power."] Yet, few people understand the significance of this. They are just resigned to it. It is called democratic centralism.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my concern again is with the concentration of power, and before I finish, I propose to read what a former Deputy Prime Minister of this Government had to say about this. I see under the new amendment, clause 3, new section 34B, "The Minister may prescribe road-user charges to be paid in connection with the user of any specified road." And then under the new section 34D, he is allowed to specify different charges for different time users. Article 143 of the Constitution enacts that no tax or levy may be imposed, except upon the authority of law. Of course, it may be argued that section 34B is the authority. But it is questionable whether this complies with that Article because the Minister would appear to be given a carte blanche as to what the charge or charges should be. If he is in a generous mood, he might reduce it. If he is not in a generous mood, he might just up it. Is it right that a Minister should be given the power to decide what tax or levy should be imposed on citizens in Singapore when under the Constitution the requirement is that it should first be authorised by a written law, that is, law passed by Parliament? Should not the prescribed road-user charges be first approved by Parliament before they are put into use or collected from road-users? Secondly, there is again this concentration of power in the Registrar as seen under the new section 34E, Mr Speaker, Sir, "The Registrar may remove any device or appurtenance which he considers to be fitted in contravention of any of the provisions of this Part or the rules made under this section." There would appear to be no recourse for any owner or driver against the decision of the Registrar or authorised officer.”
“21st century. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: When we make another overall review, we can consider whether some of these mechanisms should be made more formal. But what we really want is a mechanism which is speedy and practical. There are very few complaints today from the trade. As I have mentioned to the House, I myself have received very few complaints. We do not really want to make the process so complicated. Members will be amazed at the number of magazines and comic books that run through the hands of the censors. My guiding principle is that they should not increase their staff. In the old days, they would run through every video tape. It is not possible now. And when you can put the whole Encyclopedia Britannica into a few disks, trying to censor everything is impossible. We do it selectively and in a practical way. We have a practical mechanism in place. It is not broken. There is no need to fix it. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [BG George Yong-Boon Yeo]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment, read a Third time and passed. ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“Mr Speaker, may I ask the Minister by way of clarification? He assures us that there are advisory panels and the like. But does he not think that there is a big difference between having advisory panels and a board or a committee which makes the decision and which can hear representations from the people who wish to put out the publication? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Sir, the mechanism by which we bring in public opinion and allow for standards and benchmarks to shift from time to time was examined in great detail by Prof. Tommy Koh's Censorship Review Committee in 1992. They were on the whole very satisfied with the mechanism that we had in place. There may be an argument that sometime in the future we should formalise all these panels and committees in statute. As of now, this is not necessary. They have worked well and they have served us well. Maybe in a few years' time”
“But if there is a need to make further clarifications later, because the technology keeps on springing up new surprises, then we will make the necessary amendments later. But for the time being, there is no need to. On Dr Toh's question as to why there is a difference in the definition of "supply" here and in the Films Act, that is because the intrinsic media, as they are now, are different. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe I have covered all the points raised by Members. I would just like to make one further point by way of conclusion that, however hard we try, censorship will not seal us hermetically from the world outside. We know the challenges which the Internet poses to us and to the young. But there is also the postal service where you can put things in brown paper envelopes. There are fax machines and there is e-mail. In the end, what we are trying to do is to distinguish between different configurations of bits and bytes and say, "This configuration I disallow." It is not an easy task. It can only become more difficult in the future. But what we can do is from time to time to take certain symbolic stands to affirm what is objectionable, not because we can object completely to their existence, but to make a point to ourselves and to the young that we look up to certain standards and we do not try to legitimise everything which we are not able to control. That really underlies the philosophy of all our various attempts at censoring publications and films in Singapore.”
“You can find some really depraved materials involving incest, bestiality, the whole range which afflicts the human condition. We have not tried to identify these special categories either in the UPA or in the Films Act. Administratively, what we do is to communicate our concerns to the prosecutors. They would take the depravity of the pornographic material into account and I am sure the judges too will take this into account in their judgments and in the penalties that they mete out. Whether we should abolish the distinction between films, publications and broadcast, I have already explained earlier that while there may be a case for this in the electronic multimedia, in the practical world, we start from where we are and the problems that we face today, even though we are quite sure that in the future, the electronic media will be a source of many of the problems. What I envisage is that, from time to time, our various Acts will have to be updated and maybe at some point, they may have to be fused. But this must take place slowly and through a process of evolution. It is very difficult to attempt a comprehensive omnibus Bill encompassing all aspects. Dr Toh See Kiat asked whether e-mails and faxes are covered under publications. Yes, they are. And if they are broadcast, then they are also covered under the Singapore Broadcasting Act. Dr Toh also asked whether the Act covers Internet publications for which it is difficult to decide whether they are in intermediate form or final form. On electronic magazines or e-zines, they do. If you read the words carefully, under the various limbs, and under the various modes of transmission, they cover the whole gamut.”
“So they are roughly classified under objectionable materials. By definition, it is not possible for us to list all objectionable materials. They are listed as a class of materials. But what we have already objected to, we can certainly list them and that list should certainly be made public. Prof. Chin Tet Yung was concerned whether the evidence placed before a controller is open ended or whether there is a certain due process which allows the importer or the person who is disadvantaged to challenge it or to make appeals. I have already explained that the controller does not make the decision on his own. He is guided by internal guidelines and, in marginal cases, by committees of jurymen. And there is provision for appeal and I am further guided by a committee of appeal. Prof. Chin was also concerned about the Films (Amendment) Bill which has been postponed to the next sitting of Parliament. He reads into that Bill a special provision for child pornography and he asked why there is no special provision for child pornography in the Undesirable Publications Act. In fact, there is no special provision for child pornography in the Films Act about which we will have a debate later. The provision in that Bill is to provide special penalties for those who make use of children either to assist in the making of a film or in the distribution of a film which we consider to be objectionable. It does not cover the use of children acting in pornographic films. In fact, in both Acts, there is no intention to make a special definition of "child pornography". Pornography is pornography. It varies in gravity. It does not mean that just because it is child pornography, it must be worse than all other categories.”
“I have already explained earlier that every controller has a panel to advise him. Under the law, you can appeal to the Minister, and the Minister will first cause that appeal to be run through the advisory panel before he makes a final decision. Mr Simon Tay asked for consistent interpretation of the word "obscene" under this Bill and as it is written in the Penal Code. I am not a legal expert but the lawyers tell me that they are entirely consistent with the common law interpretation of what is obscene, and we go by it. And certainly in the implementation, there is no desire to have inconsistency between these two laws. I am sympathetic to Mr Tay's call for the process of determining what is objectionable and what is obscene to be made somewhat more formal. I think for a start I am not sure if it is already made known to members of the public, but the lists of members in the various panels and committees are freely available this evening, I will ask my officers to release them to the media, so that we know who are the individuals who are setting standards for us. Mr Tay also asked whether we could provide the lists of materials which are considered objectionable. These lists are made known to the trade and we make them freely available to the public. I will certainly consider posting them on the Internet as well. What is gazetted is gazetted. So that is clearly available in the public domain. What is objectionable is often not possible to determine beforehand. Take, for example, Playboy. We all know what Playboy is. So that is gazetted. It is banned. But there are any number of obscene magazines that are far worse than Playboy, which are not banned, because we have not come across them yet. We do not know what the titles are.”
“This is not the time for us to make a major review of censorship policies in Singapore. Various MPs have asked whether there are provisions to allow book importers to submit in advance samples of books, magazines or comics which they hope to import, so that they will not be caught afoul of the law. In fact, this is already done. This is already the practice. There already exists a close working relationship between the controllers and importers. They are called down for briefings regularly. We show them samples of what is at the margin, of what is acceptable and what is not. When they submit samples, administratively, within two weeks, a reply goes back to them. We will even allow submissions made in manuscript so that we can respond quickly. Our idea is not to place an additional hurdle on their trade, but to facilitate their work. This is not a problem. Whether our fees are excessive, no. They are just to cover administrative costs. Mr Shriniwas Rai asked whether it is possible to make objectionable language an explicit provision in the Bill. This is not necessary because in our determination of what should be prohibited, of what is obscene and objectionable, language is an integral part of the determination process. You cannot, when you are looking at the CD, video, reading a book, magazine or comic take the language out of it. The language is an integral part of it. It is part of the context and will always be taken into account. So I am more than happy to make this assurance to Mr Shriniwas Rai and to my colleagues in the House. Yes, it is certainly not our intention to tighten our standards so as to make it more difficult for artists and creative individuals to explore new possibilities. Are there checks against abuses?”
“We will study this in greater detail and if there is a need to, I will, by special exemption, exclude Internet Service Providers from the provisions of this Bill. On the question of what is "obscene" and what is "objectionable", Dr Toh See Kiat proposed a form of words. Mr Jeyaretnam takes objection to the existing definition of "objectionable". We can argue till the cows come home. We will never agree as to what constitutes "objectionable" and what constitutes "obscenity". Even we ourselves in different settings and on different days may hold different views. It depends so much on the context, on the mood, on the exigencies of the day. It is a futile exercise to try to codify so precisely that a computer can interpret it. It is not possible. In the end, it is a judgment by human beings, for it is quintessentially a human matter. And for this reason, we have established committees of jurymen who advise us and, in the main, we will go by their advice. And we accept that, from time to time, as members in the committees change, as the public mood changes, their views will also change and we creep along. I think that is the wisest approach to take. It is the method which will set us most at ease. If we as parents, as teachers, are uncomfortable, then we can have a debate in this House. We can write letters to the press. We can post messages to the various regulatory authorities. We can write to the Minister. We can see MPs. And all these things will be taken into account, as they have been sent to me from time to time, and then incremental changes are made. There is no need for dramatic moves or gestures. What we have inherited has served us well. Let us just modify it, tinker with it at the margins and move along.”