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 2 of 82.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I had not intended to speak on this Bill, but after hearing the Minister throw the terms "non-interference with domestic politics" and "objective reporting", I was very tempted to ask him whether he would try and define more clearly what interference in domestic politics is this all about, and what does he consider to be "objective reporting". And does he think or does the Ministry think that it accords with natural justice that a Minister of the Government should be the one to decide these questions? Is it not contrary to commonsense and rationality? One cannot be the judge and the prosecutor at the same time. If the Ministry must have this Bill, will it consider setting up what they have in other countries, ie, a press council - perhaps, in Singapore, a Press and Broadcasting Council - not just consisting of the Minister alone or anyone appointed by the Minister, but a council drawn from the publicity media and from other professional organisations, which will then decide whether any report in the papers, on TV or radio is objective or not objective, and whether it amounts to interference in domestic politics?”
“I want to ask one more question Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I shall be short when it comes to these things. It is not the first time I have raised this question of a Members' Register, and the answer I have got is, "Oh, the Prime Minister knows. He keeps it locked up in his heart, and that's good enough." Was it in the last National Day Rally speech by the Prime Minister or some other speech, the Prime Minister was saying that entering politics is the highest form of public service. I laughed when I saw that. And I posed a question and we have never had any reply to it. We keep constantly talking about how transparent Singapore is. Everything is transparent and yet nobody is to know the interests and the possessions of people who enter into politics and become Members of Parliament, and how they are doing. This is something which is observed in almost all countries. Why is it that we who make so much trumpet blowing about how transparent, how accountable we are, cannot have a Members' Register, showing exactly what the Members' interests are or the interests of their spouses are, so that we do know whether they come into politics because of public service or anything else?”
“But short of special measures, we will do everything we can. 2.15 pm”
“If anybody knows of women who happen not to be working but who meet these criteria, I hope they will put them up the next time Parliament invites nominations for NMPs, and the Special Select Committee will consider them seriously. But I should, overall, point out that this is a problem which is very unlikely to be easily solved. Even the European countries, which have tried very hard, have not succeeded in equalising the sex balance in Parliament. The British, which have a record 120 women in Parliament, who came in with the Labour Party this time, and some call them the "Blair babes", are worried that in the next Parliament, the number will go down again. Because if they look at the candidates who are coming up to stand for the next Parliament, less than a quarter of the candidates are women. So you already know from the candidates that you are not going to get enough. And they have studied other European countries - this is the British Equal Opportunities Commission - and they have found that quotas finally were the most effective way to get the numbers in. And now they are proposing to change the law to ensure that more women are represented in Parliament. In other words, to change the law to institute quotas, so that you make sure you have the women. And the Chairwoman of the Equal Opportunities Commission - I do not know why it is not the Chairman, but it is the Chairwoman - Julie Mellor said, "This new study backs up the Equal Opportunities Commission's view that the law must be changed so that political parties are in no doubt that they can use special measures to boost the number of women they select." This was from BBC News, Saturday, 10th March 2001, on the website. I am sure the Member would not recommend us to use special measures.”
“It took us many years to work out the White Paper. We now have the White Paper. We have worked out the NII. Therefore, the White Paper will need some revisions, which are presently being done. Let us see how these work out. Hopefully, they will work out well, and we will look at the problem again in about a term's time. As for women MPs and women statutory board members, I agree with Dr Jennifer Lee that we should have many more, if we can, on statutory boards and in Parliament. It is not easy, because we go on merit, and we have to look for the people and we have to look for individuals. If we went for a quota, of course, we can just fill the numbers. But if we can find more, we will gladly do so. And if the Member has some names, let us have them, and I promise her that they will receive more than cursory attention. As for NMPs being housewives or home-makers, there is no ambivalence about the NMP scheme. It is in the Constitution. We believe they have made valuable contributions. We have had NMPs, men and women, who have done good work and really outshone many of the Opposition MPs. And if we can find some more, capable men and women, we would like to do so. Under the Constitution, the nominees must be "persons who have rendered distinguished public service, or who have brought honour to the Republic, or who have distinguished themselves in the field of arts and letters, culture, the sciences, business, industry, the professions, social or community service, or the labour movement". It is a wide range of fields where you can distinguish yourself. It does not mean that you have to be presently working.”
“However, since the term has been in customary usage, President Nathan said that she was also comfortable to be informally addressed as the First Lady by those who prefer to do so. Even though the Constitution does not provide for the position of the First Lady, and the President's wife holds no official appointment, she should continue to enjoy, and be accorded, the courtesies, decorum and respect befitting the spouse of the person occupying the highest Office of the land. As for the Elected Presidency, the constitutional position is quite clear. We do not have an Executive Presidency. We never had. We have an Elected President with custodial powers. And if the Member will read the Hansard, he will know exactly what the position is. Even if he reads the Constitution, the President does not have executive powers. He has custodial powers. Sir, Mr Simon Tay asked when we will entrench Article 5(2A) of the Constitution, and entrench the Elected Presidency. It is something which we have not forgotten. We have not done it yet, because, although 10 years have passed, we are still refining the precise provisions of the Elected Presidency. We settled the White Paper in 1999. Last year, we made amendments on the definition of "NII", which is a major amendment. So I think we have to let some time pass to see how these work out. We are now on the second Elected President, the third if you count Mr Wee Kim Wee. I think that if in five or 10 years' time, we have not made any further major changes to the structure, we will be ready to entrench it. But having just made the changes last year, let us see how the NII provisions work out. When we first went into this and first brought the provisions into effect, we did not understand all of the implications.”
“It is not pegged to the cost of living, still less is it pegged to the standard of living. In fact, I think there are very few countries in the world which peg pensions to the standard of living. And those which have done so have found it quite a problem. What we have done has been to revise salaries so that officers in service are paid properly, including full CPF in most cases now, and it is for them with their CPF to provide for their post-retirement pension needs. For those who retired early, we have, from time to time, made ex gratia payments to them, as the Singapore economy has prospered and as our surpluses have accumulated. We did so in 1996 when the Government awarded ex gratia payments of between 6-13 1/2 months of pension to those who retired before 1st January 1982, which was before salaries were substantially revised. And we did the same again last year, in August, when the Prime Minister, in his National Day Rally Speech, declared another ex gratia pay of about $16 million to retired MPs, office holders and pensioners. Sir, I think they have been looked after. Now, can I take the question from Mr Jeyaretnam on the First Lady, because it is important to clear the matter? The First Lady is not a position enshrined in the Singapore Constitution. It is a courtesy term that has been customarily used for the wife of the President, including previous Presidents, before the Elected Presidency was created. When President Nathan assumed office, he indicated that his wife would prefer to be addressed as Mrs Nathan, so as not to create the impression that she is holding an official position.”
“I can understand the NMP's perspective, because collective bargaining is one of the traditional roles of trade unions, and that is what unions exist for - to push for a better deal from your employer. But today's employment environment has changed. Union members are better educated, the labour market is tight, and for both businesses and Government, flexibility is crucial, to enable them to reorganise and adapt to rapidly changing business conditions. Trade unions still play a crucial role in organising workers and looking after their welfare, but collective bargaining is often no longer their main priority. Collective bargaining will remain the best way to look after the interests of the less skilled, but not so of the better educated. As the current arrangements in the civil service are working well, I think we should not change them without careful study. But we will look at it from time to time. As for pensions, Mr Thomas Thomas knows the position. We calculate pensions based on an officer's last drawn salary. Our philosophy has been, first, that pension is not indexed to cost of living. It is what you retired with in fixed dollar sums, and the Government will try to keep the inflation rate low. Secondly, it is pegged to what you earned when you were in service - last three years' average of drawn pay, rather than continuing to rise either with the salaries in the general economy or with civil service salaries. Had we not done that, I think we would have imposed a heavy burden on future governments, and it would have become a burden, which would have become increasingly difficult to bear, as the population grows older, and as the population of pensioners increases. Therefore, we chose this. It is not indexed.”
“As I told Parliament in 1997, although officers in the other grades of appointments are not covered under the Industrial Relations Act for the purposes of collective bargaining, the civil service has allowed all officers, including those in Division I, to join unions, unless they are in the uniformed services, or if they are members of personnel boards with personnel responsibilities. The civil service aims to be a model employer. It is not for us to grade ourselves, and I am grateful that Mr Thomas has given us a pass, albeit not a very good one. We will work harder to try and merit a higher grade next year. Regardless of whether officers are covered under any collective agreements, the civil service has been fair in settling their terms of employment - salaries, progression, benefits, etc. And we regularly review terms and conditions of service against the private sector. Had the civil service not done so, it could not have retained and attracted people to join the service in a full employment economy. The civil service has also tried to be responsible in dealing with other labour management issues. The Public Service Division takes seriously requests to review policy rulings that have adversely affected individuals or groups of staff. PSD adopts a consultative approach when working with unions to address their concerns. And besides regular meetings between the Ministries and the unions, PSD and NTUC have held several joint management and union gatherings over the past few years. PSD also meets the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees (AUPE) regularly to discuss issues of concern to both sides. And I am happy to say that their relations are good.”
“And even our policy-related statutory boards, like MAS, EDB and NSTB, are recruiting from outside Singapore, and some of them have substantial numbers of foreign non-Singaporeans. EDB, for example, has a significant number of non-Singaporeans, but they work as an EDB team, and they promote Singapore as fervently and as vigorously as the Singaporeans. In fact, they give us a run for our money. So too with NSTB, which has people from Malaysia, the US and the UK. And in the case of MAS, recently, we recruited somebody - I think she is an Australian. So if you see a Caucasian face when you visit MAS, please do not be surprised. It is still the Monetary Authority of Singapore. But for the longer term, when we bring in people, we would like to induct them and make them citizens, and then, eventually, they become part of our team. And so if they rise up and reach the top, at the core, as Permanent Secretaries, as Judges, as the Attorney-General, we have them as Singaporeans, but actually we know they had foreign origins. So our Chief Statistician, Paul Cheung, is from Hong Kong. The Permanent Secretary in MTI, Khaw Boon Wan, is from Malaysia. Many of our Judges are from overseas, including the Chief Justice as well as the Attorney-General. But they have become Singaporeans and they are part of our team. I think that is the approach we should take - bring them in, integrate them, as part of our team. And for the best of them, most committed, encourage them to be citizens, and then they rise up in our core group. Mr Thomas Thomas asked about the Government as an employer and about bringing public officers under the ambit of the Industrial Relations Act for their benefit. Civil servants covered under collective agreements include Division IV officers and daily-rated employees.”
“I think we should bring in as many talented people as we can into the public sector as possible and that includes foreign talent in all suitable professions. We can do more to attract them and they can contribute to our public sector organisations without compromising our vital interest. There are certain areas which we have to keep as a responsibility of citizens. Defence and foreign policies are obviously two of them. Some other areas of social and economic policies are politically sensitive. Take, for example, education. It is a professional and technical matter, but it is also a political issue, and to make those recommendations for decisions which affect tens or hundreds of thousands of pupils, I think you have to have a feel for Singapore which mostly Singaporeans only will have. But beyond these areas, the public sector adopts an open attitude towards foreign talent. So we can find foreigners teaching in our schools and universities, working as policemen and prison officers, and in the civil defence. We also have architects and technical officers in HDB, nursing officers in our hospitals, and IT specialists in IDA. In fact, IDA has a very multi-national team. They have gone out to recruit, because we do not have enough qualified Singaporeans to staff IDA. And without foreign professionals, we would not be able to set up the outfit. 2.00 pm Similarly, with other statutory boards too. GIC, for example, which manages our reserves. We have found ways to bring in substantial numbers of foreign people - analysts, traders, managers of the particular funds - who can fit in and strengthen our team.”
“As you please. This cut is prompted by the announcement some time ago that the President's wife should not be referred to as the First Lady, but simply as, what is her name, Mrs Nathan. I was puzzled by this sudden change in this designation. Then, there was, accompanying this announcement, an explanation, I believe, by the Ministry of Law that it was not right for her to be styled as the First Lady because we do not have an Executive President. So I asked myself: what were we doing - was it two years ago or more - when we amended the Constitution to give the President certain executive powers? Were we just playing a game? And he is now to be told that he is no longer an Executive President but simply a ceremonial President holding office as a ceremonial figure? May we know why this change in the designation has been announced? May I know, is it the intention that the President will no longer exercise any executive powers, and all executive powers which were given to him have now been de facto taken away from him? May we have an answer to that? Were not the spouses of the previous Presidents before we made this change, addressed to as the First Lady? I would like to be told that I am wrong that they were not. Could we have some rational explanation for this sudden change in the designation of the President's wife? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, I fully agree with Mr Davinder Singh that the public sector, as well as the private sector, ought to make full use of foreign talent. I am not as sanguine as he is that we have foreign talent then we can do with fewer scholars and they can go forth and do great deeds in the private sector.”
“Sir, I have two amendments. May I take them together?”
“I will withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $44,119,790 for Head B ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $5,161,100 for Head B ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.”
“Why should it not be? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: It should not be, because you cannot say in one breath that constitutionally he has the discretion and, yet, in the same breath, subject all his decisions to scrutiny. This is not the practice only in Singapore, it is also so in other countries.”
“All right, Sir. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, unlike Mr Jeyaretnam, I would not ramble because the answer is in the Hansard. If you look at the Hansard two years ago, he raised the same topic and the Minister for Law gave a full reply. I think it is very clear. If you look at Article 35 of the Constitution, it clearly states that the AG has got the discretion to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings. And it must be so because he is independent. He does not want his decision to be subject to scrutiny either in this House or out of this House.”
“I have asked then and the answer was that the police had not committed any offence. I pointed out the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code ---”
“Perhaps, I will carry on and then just withdraw my amendment, because I know what the replies will be.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head B of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. This concerns the decision of the Public Prosecutor whether to prosecute or not to prosecute. This question is prompted by the questions that I have raised in this House no less than three times. The first, of course, was the decision of the Public Prosecutor not to prosecute the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Ministers and others who, we say, quite clearly broke the law on Polling Day. I know there was an answer given, but that was given by the Minister of State, I think. But the Minister of State can only guess at the reasons behind the decision of the Public Prosecutor. It is time that the Public Prosecutor, when the public interest demands a prosecution, that he explains why he has decided not to prosecute. What are the reasons? It comes to my mind some time ago when the Attorney-General of Malaysia had to hold a press conference to explain why he did not prefer charges against the former Chief Minister or Head of Malacca State. Should not the Public Prosecutor here be also required to explain? The two other cases are, of course, the case of the shooting of the man in Seletar Hill Road.”
“Sir, I will withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $74,630,950 for Head E ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $24,282,100 for Head E ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head B -”
“I have to clarify because it is a question ---”
“I was not referring to that. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: For Court of Appeal cases, it is the same thing. They only charge after the first hearing day. In fact, charging court fees have a salutary effect.”
“Have they been told that they must pay their way for the work they do, or is it the policy of this Government to see that everyone, regardless of his wealth, regardless of his income, is able to take his complaint or grievance to the courts and as cheaply as is possible? Justice is an important factor and has a very important role in keeping the society together. If a number of people feel denied of justice because they cannot afford the fees to take their cases to the courts, then clearly, they will be right in saying, in Singapore, it is very difficult to get any justice. 3.15 pm So may I know from the Minister, or whoever is replying, what is the justification, what is the rationale, for these high fees in the courts? Finally, may I ask why - I asked this of the Deputy Prime Minister and he says, "you better table another question", I do not know why - is it that the courts refuse to accept cash in payment of these fees? It makes it more difficult, more inconvenient for people if they do not have a cash card or a credit card. Cash is legal tender. Why are the courts refusing to accept cash, making it more difficult for the public? The Minister of State for Law (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee): Sir, Singapore is not the only country that charges court fees. It is done in other countries as well. Australia does it. Other countries which are not doing it are also considering doing it, for example, Malaysia. I think charging court fees is the thing to do because judicial resources are scarce. For example, if one appeals to the Court of Appeal, it is three High Court judges sitting over the appeal. The other point is hearing fees. In so far as hearings are concerned, court fees are only charged after the first hearing day.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head E of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code EA 1500. My question to the Minister, or whoever answers this, is: do we really have to charge the fees in court that we are at present charging? At one time, it used to be said in Britain that the doors of the courts there were as open as the Savoy, which was a very expensive hotel in the Strand in those days. Are we going to say that our court doors are also open to the public, just as Raffles Hotel is open to the public for them to go in and use the hotel? Sir, justice must be made available to all members of the public, that goes without saying. If it is not, then it is a denial of justice to a substantial sector of our people. If I may just quote a few fees at random. If you want to take an appeal from the Subordinate Courts to High Court - it is a civil appeal - you have to pay $600, just to file a Notice of Appeal. I do not know why that is necessary - $600 to file a Notice of Appeal. And if you take an appeal from the High Court to the Court of Appeal, it is $1,000 to file the Notice of Appeal. That is not all. If you want to make an application to the Court of Appeal, an interlocutory application concerning the appeal that you have before the Court of Appeal, then it is $1,000 again; and similarly with the Subordinate Courts, if you wish to make an application. Then in an appeal to the Court of Appeal, a sum of $3,000 has to be paid to file your case to be argued before the Court of Appeal. May I know what is the justification for these fees in our courts? Are the courts in business?”
“I have asked in this House that the Ministry of Health provides a costing, why it costs the Government to charge the fees that it now charges. That question was misunderstood and I was given an answer that all bills have a breakdown of what the costs are for. It is time the Government presented a White Paper on Health and tell the people exactly how much it costs them to keep a patient in hospital. I am not talking about the first class, or the A class wards, but about the people in the C class. Why is it necessary for the Government to charge $30 or more for a bed in the C class? Why is it necessary for the Government to charge extra for every other service given to the patient? That is the sort of costing one should provide so that people may understand. But nothing is done to explain the cost to the people. So I am very disappointed that health does not rank as a priority with this Government. I am aware, as I said previously, that there can be abuse. I have proposed a social security card system for people earning below $2,000 a month so that their health is taken care of. What is wrong with that? Why cannot the Government provide the funds for that? Now, if I may turn to Education. Yes, Education provision has increased. But it is still by no means enough. It does not match anywhere near the Defence provision. Why is it not possible, I have asked before and I ask again, to see that children from families earning below $2,000 can have their children educated without any cost to them, without any fees under whatever name it is called? They should not have to pay anything to have their children educated. That way, we will be investing in this country because we have been told again and again that our people are the only resources here.”
“Is it not necessary to defend our people against attacks of ill health, sickness, just as much as it is necessary to defend the country against attacks from overseas or abroad? I have questioned year in and year out the expenditure on defence, and I am afraid I have not been given a satisfactory answer, and that view is not only mine, it is shared by several people. I see the Minister for Defence goes to Europe, meets the American Defence Secretary and talks about great understanding and cooperation between the US and the Government on defence matters. If you are relying on American military might and we give them facilities, are they going to run away if there is any attack on this country? So why are we at the same time increasing our defence spending year by year? May I say a few words on health? Mr Speaker, Sir, healthcare is crippling for our people and I have asked time and time again for a public health service in this country. Again, may I repeat that is not welfarism. That is, as President Zedillo says, investing in our people. It is not welfarism. There was a letter in the Straits Times of 1st March from someone who asked why is it that the same medicine costs much more in Singapore than in Johor Baru and that they have to travel there to get their medicine at almost a little over half the price. Why is it that we cannot afford, from the monies that we have, to see that those who are in need of medical care get the proper medical care at a cost that they can afford without having to go abroad to get medical care? Is that not demeaning ourselves if our citizens have to go abroad to get cheaper medical care? Is that not abdicating our responsibility to them?”
“And he ends his Budget Statement with that same phrase that, "There is a place for everyone in Singapore . " When I saw that, Mr Speaker, Sir, I was reminded of two lines in a Christian hymn: "The rich man in his castle and the poor man at the gate. The good Lord make them all." So the poor man has his place at the gate or somewhere down in the cold whereas the rich man has a place in the sun. They all have their respective places, and that has to be accepted by society. Do we? So I would now propose to turn, knowing that I only have half an hour, to what the Budget does. I see that we have again managed to exceed the estimated surplus for the year 2000. We have managed to increase or put together a surplus of at least $1 billion more than what was estimated. Great! And for the year to come, the estimated surplus is $4.37 billion. May I ask, as I did ask, what comfort is this? To the people in the 50% bottom of our society. If you look at the provisions in the budget, and I am looking only at the Main Estimates provisions provided for operating expenditure, what does one find? That for Health, we are only spending $1.5 billion of our monies on health and that works out to a percentage of 5.6 of the total expenditure. For Education, we are only spending $4.9 billion working out to a proportion of 22.3% of the total expenditure. But when one looks at the Defence expenditure, one finds that we are spending $7.1 billion on Defence, $2 billion over Education and $5.5 billion over Health provisions. What does this say about our priorities? That health ranks way down below defence of the country. Is not providing that our people are healthy and well enough, also a defence?”
“That is by no stretch of imagination enough to cater for the needs of these families. We have to recognise - I have said this time and time again - that Singapore is one of the most expensive cities in the world now. It ranks very high on the list of expensive countries or cities. In the face of this growing cost of living, the lowest 10% are only earning an average of $459 in household income per month. I asked in my August speech: has the Government made a study of how much a family of four will need? I had tried to give my figures and I said it would appear that at least $1,800 would be needed by a family of four. But I am told by several people that is very low, very conservative. They need a lot more than that. But if you look at the latest figures released by the Department of Statistics, there are 30% of our people in our society having a household income of only $1,862 or less. Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is steadily slipping into a country of two nations, unless steps are taken to check this. This was a term coined by a British Prime Minister at the beginning of the last century. And Singapore today in the 21st century is beginning to slip into a country of two nations. So in the face of this grim reality presented by the statistics gathered by the Department of Statistics, what do we have? What Budget is the Minister for Finance proposing - a Budget that gives to those who already have and precious little for the have-nots. It would appear that the motto or object is to give to those who have and to deny those who have not anything, to deny them anything. The Minister for Finance headlines in Part II or somewhere in his Budget speech says, "A place for everyone in Singapore".”
“Again, may I repeat, that is not welfarism, that is acting as a responsible government with a conscience. The Prime Minister speaking then quoted President Zedillo of Mexico. And if I may give the quote here. President Zedillo was replying to whether wealth should be spread more evenly and his reply apparently was: "They are confused. You don't get better income distribution by taking from one and giving to another. You get better income distribution by empowering people to have the capacity to share the benefits of development. The wealth will be better distributed as long as we are successful and continue to invest heavily in education, health and programmes against extreme poverty." The most important part of his observation, may I say, is the last sentence: "The wealth will be better distributed as long as we are successful and continue to invest heavily in education, health and programmes against extreme poverty." The Prime Minister quoted him with approval, but stopped short of that. Is his Government adopting that advice, given by President Zedillo of Mexico? It does not appear from this Budget that the Government is indeed taking that bit of advice to heart - investing heavily in education, health and programmes against extreme poverty. I was talking about the figures given in the May release. If one looks at the latest figures released by the Department of Statistics before the census report is out, Mr Speaker, Sir, you find that for the lowest 10%, the average household income has dropped again to $61 per month. And this, we are told, includes households where no member of the family is earning income. But what are we to do about these people who are not earning any income? The table goes on to give the average income for households with income at $459.”
“The Department of Statistics released an occasional paper in May of last year drawing attention to the accelerated widening of the gap between the rich and the poor in Singapore. I spoke on this in this House in August of last year when I proposed a number of measures that the Government could take - not welfarism; I was not proposing handouts - to remedy and to halt this widening gap between the rich and the poor. The Prime Minister in his National Day Rally speech referred to this release by the Statistics Department of the widening gap. He seemed very upset by a photograph in the Straits Times showing a cleaner with a quote: "I survive on $133 a month." I hope the editor was suitably rebuked and told not to write such nonsense. But that was what the Department of Statistics reported - that persons in the bottom 10% of our society were only earning that amount. The Prime Minister says that it is misleading, and he says that no cleaner earns only $133 a month. But when I spoke last year, I referred to the statistics on wages and I said that for 1999, there were 14,700 workers earning less than $200 a month and there were 33,700 earning less than $400 a month. Is the Prime Minister not aware of these statistics? And then he takes up what has been attempted by even the Department of Statistics, that the fact is that the bottom 10%, he says, have a reasonable standard of living - they have their TV sets, they own their houses - so what are we complaining about? And he attributes the widening gap to globalisation. May I make it quite clear here that I do accept that in all societies, there must be a gap. But the responsibility of government is to see that the people at the very bottom level are not thereby left out completely.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this Budget, as the last speaker has said, has been termed in some quarters, as an election Budget and being very generous. Of course, it is generous. One can see that. But the question that has to be asked is: is this generosity spread to all our people? Is it even handedly spread or is there any neglect or uncaring attitude towards some sectors of the population? May I, at the outset, reject completely the idea that it is welfarism to take care of and to attend to the needs of those in society who are unable to afford the needs themselves. It is not welfarism. It is to see that all our people, regardless of their wealth or their poverty, regardless of the level of their income, do not go without the basic needs and necessities they need for human life. For that reason, Sir, I find the Budget lacking very badly. I have no quarrel with the tax cuts, with the rebates and what is being done to help the business sector. But, if I may say so, this Budget shows a callous disregard for the plight of at least 20%, or it may be even 30%, of our people, and it reflects the lack of any political will on the part of this Government to do anything for them. I am, of course, referring to the widening gap in our society between the rich and the poor. I do not think I need to tell the Members of this House that if this widening gap is not checked and something is done to rectify the widening gap, the results for this society will be disastrous. I hope such a thing may not come to pass, but that there will be a greater bonding, as the calls have been from the Government - we hear this again and again - a greater bonding of the people together, a caring for all of them, not that some are left out and only some are cared for.”
“Are they to be prosecuted in the Singapore courts?”
“I am asking about US personnel in Singapore. Mr David Lim: Are they subject to our laws?”
“Subject to the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts.”
“Sir, we have been told that they respect the sovereignty and the judicial process in this country. May I know the answer to a specific question? Are US personnel stationed in Singapore subject, for any conduct of theirs, criminal or civil, to the civil and criminal courts in Singapore?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have an answer to the question? Is the Ministry prepared to make it public? Why can the public not know exactly and read for themselves what is the agreement between the Singapore Government and the United States government?”
“Sir, will the Ministry make public the MOU or whatever agreements it has with the United States government?”
“This is ex post facto. But is the Senior Minister now aware that the Supreme Court has ruled that he was constitutionally removed, and that it was not against the Constitution?”
“Has the Senior Minister now explained why, giving his reasons for saying that it was not a plus or boost for democracy?”
“Sir, the next question I am moving to is not Question No. 2 but another question for the Minister of State. Mr Speaker: All right.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say that he still does not answer my question. The question is: did he make it clear that he was not? If I am not going to get an answer to it, may I move on to the next question?”
“Sir, the question was: did the Senior Minister, when he did express these views, make it quite clear that he was not speaking on behalf of the Government of Singapore, but that it was his own personal view?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I first of all express my disappointment that the Senior Minister is not here to answer the Question. After all, he is asked to explain, not simply to say that he made the statement. May I ask: did he make it clear that he was speaking in his personal capacity and not speaking as a member of the Government, disassociating the Government from his view?”
“Question No. 1, Sir. May I apologise that at the last sitting, I did not rise from my seat. I offer you my apologies.”
“The Minister of State speaks about some danger to the public arising out of these 20 to 30 persons running. Could he try and spell out please, what is the danger to the public? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Mr Jeyaretnam did not hear the answer. I have given a detailed answer. It is confirmed now that he does not hear my answer. It was publicised as one event and the run culminating in a demonstration. So it was assessed as such. Should we allow demonstrations in Singapore? 2.00 pm”
“Yes, answer that. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I think Mr Chiam is not cognisant with what may happen on the ground. A demonstration can start with 20 or 30 people, but who is to say that other supporters will not gather? And who is to say that other people who are against the cause may not gather? Then, problems will ensue. I think from Police's point of view, uppermost in their minds is the protection of citizens, like you and me, the safety of ordinary citizens. Hence, if there is a potential law and order problem, they will have to say no. They cannot wait for things to happen and hope that the 31st runner would not join in, or hope that at the Speakers' Corner there will be no 31st listener. They cannot do that.”
“All right. The main question is about the running. If you separate the two, what was wrong about the 20-30 members of the public running together, if you now separate the two distinctly? Could you answer that? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: It is a hypothetical question. We are dealing with realities here. Public safety is a very real concern of Police. You cannot separate the two because the website of Think Centre which publicised the event had said this would happen - the run, and, in fact, it states specifically, 12 noon, it will end there where a demonstration will be held. In reality, Sir, that is what Police has to consider. Let me assure Mr Jeyaretnam that the Police will consider all these points professionally. Uppermost in the minds of the Police will be the question of potential law and order and breach of the peace problems. Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, the permit asked for specifically says that there shall only be 20 to 30 persons running. If the number is more than 30, the Police could declare and just ask everybody to disperse because they are breaking the conditions of the permit there. So if there are only 20 to 30 persons confined to that demonstration, is there a security, law and order problem for the Police?”
“The Minister in his reply rolled up the whole thing into one. He said the permit was refused because of what the Police feared might happen at Hong Lim Park. So he has rolled it up into Hong Lim Park. May I ask the Minister of State then to tell us what were the Police fears about these persons running? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Mr Jeyaretnam said that it was one event. It was publicised as one event. That was the import of Mr Jeyaretnam's original question which was rightly asked: why was the permit for the run refused? The permit for the run was refused, like I have said, because the publicity had said it was one event where you end up in Hong Lim Park, where demonstrations would be held to abolish the ISA and activists would be invited to join in. And it was very likely that these activists who join in might also end up in Hong Lim Park and be part of the demonstration. So from the viewpoint of rejecting the application for the run, it was one event. But now Mr Jeyaretnam is asking specific questions on events that happened thereafter which are currently under Police investigations, which I think we should not discuss.”
“Is the Minister saying that it is a criminal act for people to go to Hong Lim Park and join the speaker in calling for the abolition of the ISA or for any other Acts which they find repressive or oppressive in Singapore? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Since the opening of the Speakers' Corner six months ago, there have been more than 800 registrations to speak at the Park. Perhaps not all have spoken. But many speakers have spoken and hundreds of people have listened to these speakers and no one has been prosecuted. So, here is a place where people can speak any time, just register and speak on any topic, except those which I have mentioned, and people can gather, and indeed Singaporeans of all backgrounds have gathered, some more interested than others, but nevertheless many have gathered and none has been prosecuted or investigated. But like I have said, Sir, the use of the Park is subject to the laws of the land, and Mr Jeyaretnam, as a lawyer, should know the provisions of the Miscellaneous Offences Act and the rules, in particular Rule 2 which defines what is an illegal assembly, when people plan, organise together to publicise a specific cause, then possibly an offence has been committed. That is all I want to say in terms of the general broad framework of the law. In terms of the specific case, it is being investigated and I should say no more.”