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 20 of 82.
“Of course, I am referring to the question which I raised in this House not very long ago, whether the Government had acted in accordance with Article 144 of the Constitution. I do not wish to read again what Article 144 of the Constitution says. It is clear enough, and it seems to us that before any loan is given Parliament's authority by way of a resolution should be first obtained and that should again be ratified by the President. May I say from the outset that this motion does not raise the question whether it was right or wrong to have offered this loan to Indonesia. That is a matter which perhaps has to be decided at some other time. This motion raises the question whether the Government has been seen to act in accordance with the law. May I also say quite clearly at the outset that I am not here to argue that the Government's interpretation of that Article is wrong and that the interpretation that we seek to put is the right one. Parliament is not the forum to determine the interpretation of any Article of the Constitution. That, as I said, is the province of the courts. The courts have to determine it. It is in recognition of this that the Constitution was amended, I believe, in 1994, to set up a Tribunal consisting of Supreme Court judges to whom any question concerning the effect of any provision of the Constitution can be referred to for an opinion. So we have the machinery already set up. Under Article 100A of the Constitution, the President may refer to the Tribunal any question concerning the interpretation of any Article in the Constitution.”
“That is not the case where the Rule of Law prevails and in a country which professes to practise parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary democracy, by its term, implies that Parliament shall be supreme and the Government shall act under the laws passed by Parliament and shall be accountable to Parliament, not act as a law unto itself. These are absolutely necessary if we are to have any transparency or accountability in our system of Government. We have, even our own Ministers, proclaiming over and over again how transparent the Singapore Government is, that they accept the need for transparency, for all their decisions to be seen openly and to be judged by persons who are competent to judge such decisions. It is therefore a matter for regret, it is indeed sad, that over the last few years the Government has not been seen, and manifestly been seen, to have acted in accordance with the law. That, as I say, is vital in any democratic system of government. May I first of all highlight the recent instance where the Government has not been seen and perceived to have acted within the law. I should have also said that above all laws, the Constitution is the supreme law and all other laws are subject to the Constitution. Parliament is subject to the Constitution. The courts are subject to the Constitution. The Executive is subject to the Constitution. It is the people's charter. It is an Act of the people and it is through the Constitution that the people control the Government. Therefore, it is a matter for regret that the Government should have been seen to disregard flagrantly the provisions of the Constitution.”
“We would have the legislature, the Parliament, that would make the laws for the people and circumscribe the powers under which the Executive may act. Finally, that we would have an independent Judiciary - this was clearly spelt out in the memorandum - the importance of an independent Judiciary who will interpret the laws of the country and decide whether, be it the Executive or any citizen, has acted in accordance with the law or laws of the country. So we had chosen for ourselves these three divisions of Government. Following that choice by us, we finally enacted by Article 93 of the Constitution that the judicial power shall be vested in the Supreme Court of Singapore and such other courts as may be established. Any lawyer will tell you that judicial power includes the interpretation of any law passed by Parliament. It is part and parcel of their function - that the courts are always called upon to do just that, to interpret what the law means and whether anyone has acted outside the law. Good government, Mr Speaker, Sir, requires that government acts in accordance with the law. Government is not above the law. No one is above the law in a country which observes the rule of law. In a civilised democratic country, if the government acted above the law or outside the law, then it ceases to be a democratic government subject to the rule of law and it becomes no better than a mafia government. And any issue, whether the Government has acted under the law, must be determined by the Judiciary, not by the Executive. Otherwise, the Executive becomes judge and jury, master in its own cause, decides what is the law and whether it has followed the law or not.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this House regrets that the Executive does not respect the Judiciary as the final arbiter in the application of all laws passed by Parliament. Sir, I assure you and the House that I am not embarking on an academic exercise, but raising a question which I shall say is very relevant even in the economic woes that face this country at the moment. There have been calls for greater transparency and accountability in decisions taken in other countries in their financial matters. It is not altogether irrelevant to our problems in Singapore today. No doubt the ever faithful press will report of the NCMP wasting the time and I see that every time they refer to me, they say the NCMP. I am here not just as an NCMP. I am also here as the leader of the Workers' Party, and I am speaking on behalf of the party, not just for myself Mr Speaker, Sir, when we decided in the 1950s to set out on the road for self-government, we chose deliberately, of our own free choice, the form and system of government that we would like for Singapore. And, of course, as Members are aware or should be aware, that an All-Party Mission went to London for talks to hammer out what should be our style of government and our form of government, and included among them was none other than the one-time Secretary-General of the ruling party and Prime Minister for many years. And we chose the Westminster pattern and the pattern that was followed in other countries which had evolved into independence after British tutelage, that we would have a division of powers. We would have the Executive to implement and carry out the day-to-day decisions that are necessary.”
“This has happened in other countries where there is a planning tribunal which hears representations from people who are affected by any order made under the Planning Act. Why can Singapore not follow that so that we introduce a little bit of democracy into the functioning of the Government in Singapore?”
“Similarly, should there not be some recourse for the person who is aggrieved by the refusal to grant planning permission or by the issue of any enforcement notice to seek a review by somebody other than the Executive, and the Minister of course is part of the Executive, the civil servant acts under the authority of the Minister. Why is it not possible for us to consider the setting up of an independent tribunal to entertain any appeals in such vital matters as this is where the citizen's interest may be affected quite drastically and quite extensively? That would at least give the citizen the feeling that his grievances will be considered by an independent body who would listen carefully to his grievances and then decide them. As it now stands, and I know from what is the usual procedure in appeals to the Ministers, the citizen or the aggrieved person is not allowed any hearing before the Minister. He perhaps can make a written representation. I do not know whether that is allowed or whether all his objections to the competent authority are just put before the Minister who then decides whether the competent authority was right or not. It would give the citizen a greater sense of fairness or feeling that his complaints will be considered fairly and by an independent body. There is much to be said for not entrenching the Executive with all the powers and making them the final judges of whether they are right or wrong. That decision, whether they are right or wrong, should be left to an independent tribunal. I can see an argument that the courts should not be burdened with this. But what is the objection to setting up a tribunal?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have not had very much time to go through this Bill and to see what the changes are, all the changes to the previous Act. But listening to the Minister, one of the major changes to this Act would appear to be the enhancement of powers that are to be given to the enforcement officers and the enhancement of punishments provided under the Act. We were told that the fine is being increased from $6,000 to $200,000. It is a great jump. The punishment would appear to be enhanced greatly. May I plead, even if it be the lone voice, of yet another instance, and this is increasingly the case, of denying the citizen any review by an independent body of any of the powers that are exercised by Government officers in the carrying out of their duties under the Act. Mr Speaker, Sir, I see that by clause 28(9) there shall be no questioning of the validity of any enforcement notice except by way of an appeal to the Minister. The courts are not to be appealed to by anyone aggrieved by an enforcement notice. When one looks at clause 29, one finds the provision which, as I said, seems to have become the standard practice in Singapore. In every Act, one finds the decision of the Minister shall be final. Mr Speaker, Sir, the powers, as I have said, have been enhanced and they are, in some cases, very drastic powers. One Member has drawn attention to clause 15 where the competent authority may alienate any part of the land. It shall be transferred free from encumbrances to the State or any public authority, as he rightly pointed out. That is a very wide power. Should that not be restricted and should there not be an appeal if that power is abused for some reason or other? Not an appeal to the Minister but an appeal to an independent body.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, following the Party Member's question to the Deputy Prime Minister, is the Deputy Prime Minister saying then that all these problems arose after the Prime Minister's visit in September, that until September everything was wonderful in the garden? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not say that. I explained that when you have a joint venture, you have many issues to be discussed and some become more complicated and some become simplified and resolved, and this issue could not be resolved and eventually had to be brought out in the open.”
“May I ask whether the Government has made any government-to-government representations? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Jeyaretnam may not be aware, but the Senior Minister is a member of the Cabinet and he speaks for the Government.”
“May I ask what representation has the Singapore Government made to President Jiang? BG Lee Hsien Loong: The Senior Minister has raised the matter with President Jiang Zemin and has received the assurances from President Jiang Zemin that the project has the full support of the Chinese government and his meeting with President Jiang was prominently reported in all the major newspapers in the PRC, both national and local.”
“Another question, Sir. The Deputy Prime Minister talks about US$65 million investment of public monies in this project. This, as we understand from him, was after assurances by the local authorities that SIP would be given the highest priority. In view of this change in the attitude, has the Singapore Government taken up this matter at the highest level with the Chinese government? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Has the Member forgotten how he became aware of this problem? It is because the Senior Minister raised it at a high level and brought it out into the press.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have a direct answer to my question, which is, have they received a full report from the Senior Minister? BG Lee Hsien Loong: The matter has been discussed and all Ministers are aware of the problem.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Cabinet had received a full report from the Senior Minister after his recent visit to Suzhou and of his misgivings that were reported in the local papers of the project? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Jeyaretnam can assume that the Cabinet is aware of the Senior Minister's views.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he thinks that it is enough to say that those who wrote the letters consented? May I ask him whether it is not a question of the privileges of Parliament that is in issue here? They were letters written to the Speaker in confidence and they become Parliament papers. Were they released to the press in accordance with the Standing Orders and section 8 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act? That is my question.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I assure the Prime Minister that my purpose in asking this question was not for him to air his views on whether Mr Tang Liang Hong is a Chinese chauvinist or anti-Christian. My question was directed to the propriety of releasing them to the press. Is the Prime Minister aware that under section 8 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, no publication of the papers may be allowed except on the certificate of the Speaker? Otherwise, the papers lose any protection in any proceedings brought against them. Secondly, is the Prime Minister aware that, under Standing Order No. 30 of the Standing Orders of Parliament, the papers are in the custody of the Clerk and they may not be released except upon the authority of the Speaker? May I know whether all these were complied with before they were released to the press by the Prime Minister?”
“What does the Minister think that Article 144 then tries to say?”
“Sir, I am sorry. I have got the Article now, and Article 144 says quite specifically: "No guarantee or loan shall be given or raised by the Government - except under the authority of any resolution of Parliament with which the President concurs;" And this was an amendment which was made in 1991. So, going back to 1986 and before that will not help us.”
“I had intended to ask the Prime Minister these questions but I see he is not in the House. So I will address them to the Finance Minister. I should first of all like to know where and when was this decision taken to grant the assistance to Indonesia. Secondly, who took the decision? Was it taken by the Cabinet or by any of the Ministers? Thirdly, why was the approval of Parliament not sought before the decision was taken and the announcement made? Finally, was the approval of the President sought before the decision was taken and the announcement made?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have about three questions. May I ask them altogether?”
“We do know that he goes around, as I said, in the region preaching to all the countries in the region that democracy is not something for Asians. Sir, it is my proposal in this motion that we now take steps to bring in some sense of proportion and to make the payment of salaries to the Ministers more transparent and this can only be done by appointing a committee. Let us have a commission on salaries, as I said, not only just for Ministers but to include even the civil servants, judges, everyone, just as we have the National Wages Council. What is the objection to such a commission or a committee, unless it be that the Ministers will feel it very difficult to justify their salaries? Is that the reason why we do not have a commission? I would urge the Ministers, as they have all been saying all the time, that there should be greater transparency particularly in the case of Ministers' salaries. They should be made the subject of public approbation. The public are the taxpayers. It is they who are paying the Ministers, and should they not account to them the justification for the salaries? I do want to end, Mr Speaker, Sir, by asking that the matter be given serious consideration. I hope that in reply I am not going to be just laughed at but an attempt is made to deal with the matters that I have raised in my speech.”
“So we have that. And the press has a very important role to play on behalf of the citizens. It is for the press to highlight and to take the Government to task for problems, for injustices, for grievances, but that does not happen in Singapore. And we have a trade union movement which is again totally under the control of the Government. The workers have been told that either they behave themselves or they might find life made very hard and difficult for them. So you do not get any problems from the workers and trade unions. They just accept. As I said in my radio broadcast, there is a general feeling in Singapore of helplessness among our people. They are a hapless lot. And so the Government gets away with everything. No problems. What about the desire for people to provide an opposition in Parliament? This is visited immediately with threats and intimidation and people are deterred from standing for Parliament so that we may have a respectable opposition in Parliament. And the Government with the absence of a proper opposition again is able to get away with a lot of things, that it would not in any other country where there was a respectable opposition. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do say in all sincerity that our Ministers do not have the burdens and high responsibilities of office that Ministers in other countries have. And I think we should take note of this. I asked in the budget debate: may we know what the functions and duties of Ministers are? And I do not think I got a reply. We have a Minister without Portfolio whose task would appear to be to keep the trade unions in order and that is all, nothing else. And we have the Senior Minister, we do not really know what he is doing in the Government.”
“Yes, I am one of them. They will tell you that. I am sure I am one of their problems. But that is the trouble. I am glad the Member has highlighted this. We have the spectacle of a government and we saw this in the 1991 elections. We saw this in the 1997 elections. We have the spectacle of a government which appears to be frightened and afraid of having one or two opposition Members in Parliament. In 1991, the general election had to be brought forward by two and a half years for no apparent reason but ostensibly, as seen by the public, so that I would not be able to stand for Parliament in 1991. My disbarment was running out on 10th November and elections were held in September 1991. As I said, Mr Speaker, a little while ago, we have very few problems. And it is not, may I say, to try and belittle what the Ministers have done for Singapore. The truth is that the PAP Government, ever since it came into power, has gone out of its way to see that no problems will arise, and they do this simply by the imposition of fear among our people. I heard over the BBC that the Senior Minister, in the launching of his book, had said something like that it is better to be feared than to be loved. Well, there you have it. The Government in Singapore has got rid of problems, by letting it be known among our electorate, our citizens, that any least sign of any disquiet, trouble or any clamour will be dealt with severely. And, of course, they have the machinery - the Internal Security Act. As a result, what have we got in Singapore, Mr Speaker, Sir? We have a subservient press which is a national scandal who sees its role as simply to uphold the government in power. So nothing is brought up which may upset the Government or give it cause for any action to be taken against the press.”
“So it is, may I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, wrong to give ourselves too much importance and imagine that our problems are far, far greater than the problems encountered by the leaders in other countries. The truth, Mr Speaker, Sir, if it were known - I do want to say it here - is that our Ministers have very few problems. An hon. Member: You are one of them!”
“But they show, by comparison, that the salaries that we are paying the Ministers in Singapore are way, way above what other countries are paying and what the Commissions, or whoever has the responsibility in these countries to determine salaries, judge to be the proper salaries for the Ministers and President of the United States and others. I have said about the wages in Singapore, Mr Speaker, Sir. If you also look at the household monthly income, and this comes from the Household Expenditure Survey for 1992 to 1993, you get that for 60% of our people, the average monthly household income is only $1,920. So, I hope, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have tried to show the great discrepancy that exists in our system and it is not perhaps just the Ministers' salaries but it is also the salaries for the top civil servants in Singapore and other public officers and the rest of the population. Is it to be suggested, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Prime Minister of Singapore has a more onerous task? He has greater responsibilities and duties than the President of the United States, and that he should be paid about three or four times more than the United States President should be paid? Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we have a tendency to spend time gazing at our navel. We seem to be filled with our own importance of what we are worth. Singapore is, after all, and I am not stating anything that is new, a small city state with a population of three million or more at the moment. We do not have a rural problem, people scattered in remote parts where we may have problems from them. We are very much an urban community and there is no part of Singapore that cannot be reached within half an hour or even less.”
“In the United Kingdom, and this is the salary for 1996, in Singapore dollars, the Prime Minister's annual salary was only $146,978, about 1/6 or 1/7 of what the Prime Minister in Singapore gets. But may I say again immediately that I do not have what allowances are paid in addition to that. But I should not imagine that even with the allowances, it would come to anything near what the Prime Minister in Singapore is paid. And the Cabinet Ministers, these figures are all in Singapore dollars, are paid $110,417 annually. And again, of course, I have not got the figures for allowances. Junior Ministers are paid $78,123. If we look at the salaries paid in the United States, what do we find? The President of the United States, and this is for 1964, I have not got the present figures, he was paid annually, and expressed in Singapore dollars, $320,004. Whether it was inclusive of all allowances, I know not. The Secretaries of State were paid $237,432. Junior Ministers were paid $213,756. If we look at Australia, you will find that the Prime Minister was paid, and that was 1964 again, I have not got the figures for 1966, $204,060. Again, I know not whether he was paid any allowances over and above that. Cabinet Ministers were paid $133,380. I have not got any figures for the Junior Ministers. New Zealand, I have the figures for 1996, and the Prime Minister there is only paid an annual salary of $183,645 but I have also got the allowances for him. He is also paid allowances totaling $29,205. And the Deputy Prime Minister gets $140,085 annually and he also gets allowances ranging from $12,870 to $9,000. Ministers get $124,740 and also the same rate of allowances. Junior Ministers are only paid $113,850 to $96,030. Sorry if I have taken up time to give you these figures.”
“I spoke on this during the Budget debate and also the last time I moved a motion, because we depend for our survival on being able to export whatever we manufacture or produce in Singapore at competitive prices so that they would find a ready market at the prices that we offer them. So we do recognise that need. But then the workers will be very justified, Mr Speaker, Sir, in asking, "Well and good, you ask us to keep our wages down. We are prepared to do that. But what are you doing, Ministers? What are you doing about your salaries?" One of the things we have got to learn is that leaders must lead by example, not merely just preach. I think any leader would accept that when I say this. When the increase in water prices was made lately, the Workers' Party asked whether Ministers would give an example, instead of just raising the prices, by disrupting water supply to their homes for a few hours so that the lesson is brought home to our people. But I have never heard from the Ministers as to whether they were prepared to do that. I say, Sir, I repeat again, that set against the wages paid to our workers in Singapore, the salaries paid to the Ministers are hugely disproportionate. But that is not the only comparison I have made. I have prepared another table and that is to compare the salaries of our Ministers with those paid in selected countries. I have not chosen the still-to-be developed countries but fully developed countries. What do we find if we look at that table? May I say that the figures that I give - I give not from my head - have been obtained from the respective Embassies and High Commissions.”
“And finally, for my purpose, we have 271,412 who are paid between $1,500 and $1,999. The total number of workforce in Singapore is 1,748,140. And if you add up those who are earning below $2,000 a month, you get 62.58% earning below $2,000 per month. Set against that, which are the wages in Singapore, we have the Ministers' salaries, and this I have taken from the answer given in Parliament by the Minister for Finance in a Question for Written Answer, I think, tabled by the MP for Hougang. These figures are for 1995. And what do we find? The Prime Minister was paid a total of $1, 271,000. May I say straightaway that they are gross salaries, including allowances, not just basic. And the Senior Minister was paid an annual gross salary of $1,703,000. The Deputy Prime Ministers were paid $1,314,000. Ministers varied from $1,239,000 to $765,000. Senior Ministers of State, their salaries ranged from $765,000 to $549,000. And Ministers of State, their salaries ranged from $549,000 to $357,000. These are all annual salaries. Set against the wages that our people are earning in Singapore, 62.5%, they tell a story, Mr Speaker, Sir and that is, there is gross disparity in Singapore that whilst our workers are only paid $1,000 to $2,000, the Ministers are paid huge sums, way and above what the employees are paid in Singapore. I do not want to labour this. But as I said, the average wage in Singapore would appear to be between $1,500 and $2,000 and that is for a month. And we have the Prime Minister and the Ministers being paid almost a hundred thousand dollars a month in all. There is a total yawning gap between these salaries. And I think we do all recognise, and the Ministers have often said so, that it is important that we keep wages as low as it is possible.”
“We have the National Wages Council, Mr Speaker Sir, which deliberates on what wage increases should be given to our workers year by year. Why do we not have a National Salaries Commission which will try and provide the guidelines for Ministers' salaries, and not only just Ministers' salaries but for salaries in the public service, in the statutory boards and in the Government? Why not? That would make everything more transparent and allow the taxpayers to see that somebody outside those affected by the salaries make the decision. It is not that Singaporeans are not prepared to pay the Ministers what they should be paid for their jobs. They are not being grudged that. But as in all things, we have got to keep a sense of proportion. That is important. I have, Mr Speaker, Sir, sent to the Clerk two tables. I have not asked for them to be circulated to every Member in this House. I thought perhaps we should not waste so much paper, but they will be available for anyone to look at and they may help the Chief Reporter when it comes to reporting today's proceedings. One table is the monthly wages in Singapore in 1996, Mr Speaker, Sir. And may I assure the House that I have not just plucked this out of my head, as was suggested last time when I said something, that I just come out with figures, and it was even reported in the press that "Mr Jeyaretnam claims". These figures are taken from the Ministry of Labour's Labour Force Survey for 1996. We have 136,321 employees in Singapore who earn below $400 a month. And we have 76,040 who earn between $400 and $599. We have 107,932 who earn between $600 and $799. And 140,792 who earn between $800 and $999. Then we have 361,572 employees who are only paid between $1,000 and $1,499 a month.”
“What was not explained is why it was found necessary to peg Ministers' salaries to those in the private sector. May I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a totally wrong analogy, wrong comparison, because it does not try and see what is involved or what goes with the jobs. It is totally wrong to try and compare and put on equal footing the Chief Executive Officer, the head of a multi-national company, with that of the Prime Minister of the country. I remember seeing sometime ago that somebody who was a former Minister in the UK government saying that he would rather be Prime Minister of England for a day than be the Chairman of the Bank of England. They are two different things. And so it is wrong to try and peg salaries to those in the private sector. For one, as I said, has anyone drawn up a balance sheet of the responsibilities of the Chief Executive Officer in a big multi-national company and that of a Minister? I am quite confident that if that balance sheet is drawn up, it will be found that the Chief Executive Officer of the MNC would have far greater responsibilities. Secondly, it is wrong because of its lack of transparency. I assume that the decision was taken by Cabinet, but again we were not told by what route the Cabinet arrived at these salaries. May I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, with all respect to the Ministers, that it is not really seemly for the Ministers themselves to decide what they should be paid and what they are worth. The judgment should be made by the people or by people who are qualified to make that judgment. In other countries, they have Commissions on salaries for Ministers which decide what should be the proper pay for Ministers. Why don't we have one in Singapore?”
“But it is to try and draw attention again, if necessary, to what would appear to be a glaring anomaly in our country. I shall point out what the glaring anomaly is later. When the present salaries were accepted or adopted, the Government presented a White Paper which was headed, "Competitive Salaries for Competent and Honest Government" justifying the salaries which it proposed for the Ministers, junior Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries and other officers. But I must say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I do not think the public found that very convincing. There was no attempt made to try and explain why we have to pay our Ministers the salaries that we are paying. I shall in the course of my speech point out what we are paying the Ministers, what the taxpayers are paying. But no attempt was made as to why. The market rule, as I understand it, is that you pay for the job, and for nothing else. So one would have thought that an attempt would have been made in that White Paper to try and define their responsibilities, their tasks, that lay upon Ministers and why it was necessary to pay them the salaries. On the contrary, the reasons that were advanced were that unless we paid the Ministers the salaries, we would be soon running short of Ministers in Singapore. I do not know whether that observation is justified at all. Secondly, another curious point was made that we have got to pay them so that they are not tempted while in office to try and secretly make any money. If that is the reason, it would ascribe to the people who are aspiring to be Ministers quite the wrong motives. And I do not think that is the right motive to hold out to people who attempt to go into politics.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this House resolves (i) that an independent committee, consisting of persons outside the Government, be appointed to review all salaries and allowances presently paid to Ministers and to make recommendations on the salaries and allowances that should be paid commensurate with the responsibilities and functions of the Ministers; and (ii) that the committee do have the power to invite representations and hear such evidence as it may think necessary to arrive at its recommendations. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no doubt that I shall be accused of indulging in politics of envy and being invidious and even of perhaps wasting the time of this House on matters which have already been decided upon by this House. The last time I moved a motion for the appointment of an All-Party Committee, the writer for the Lianhe Zaobao started off by whining that I had kept the House till past 8.00 pm, talking on something which was quite unnecessary. I expect I shall get no better treatment. But that will not deter me from doing what I think I should do in this House. May I assure the Ministers particularly and this House that it is not politics of envy, rather it is the judicious use of our monies. It does not follow, Mr Speaker, Sir, that because we have huge surpluses, we have accumulated huge reserves, that we should pay Ministers a lot more than what the job as Ministers, as Prime Minister, demands. If we do have a lot of money, I can think of other ways in which that money can be used. There are crying needs in our community which have been neglected and the monies could perhaps be used for those needs in the community. So it is, may I assure the House, not politics of envy.”
“Sir, point of clarification. The Minister says that after constructing these shelters, the residents may use them for whatever purpose they would like to put them to, and he suggests storeroom. If a resident stacks up all his old furniture or other things in the storeroom, what good will that shelter be when it comes to an emergency or wartime? Someone has to remove everything out first.”
“Mr Chiam has rightly pointed out that if it is necessary, should the Government itself not provide public shelters in all parts of Singapore, especially in areas where there are big concentrations of our people, so that people may seek shelter there. To ask our citizens to put up the cost of providing shelters which, as Mr Chiam has again rightly pointed out, they may not find it necessary to use, is adding an unnecessary cost and expense on our people and it is not as though they have got a lot of money to spare. I would, therefore, like to hear something from the Minister when he replies as to why the Government has considered it necessary to introduce this Bill at this moment of time.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I was not in the House when the Minister introduced the Bill. But I would like to know from him whether there is any particular reason for introducing this Bill at this time. I hope I shall not be thought flippant if I say that my immediate reaction when I saw this Bill presented to Parliament was to ask, "Oh, are we in imminent danger of invasion from another country? Or is there an imminent danger of insurgency breaking out in the country?" So I should like to know what has prompted the Government to bring in this Bill at this point of time. One would have thought, following the news everywhere, that the world is becoming more peaceful except I suppose in certain areas where you have local wars. Do we have real fears in Singapore about some country in this region going to war with us? I suppose I will be told these are questions which I must not ask. The government knows best. But I think people must be told why we now find it necessary to have household and storey shelters built all over Singapore. And it is not being provided by the Government. It has got to be paid for by the owner of the house, which means someone who is building his new house has to go to the extra expense of providing a shelter and even when it is being built by developers. The developers are not going to absorb the cost, are they, of providing the shelters. It will be passed on to the purchasers of the apartments. So this is throwing another burden, another expense, to purchasers or builders of new homes and purchasers of apartments.”
“Sir, are we to understand from the Minister that apart from providing hourly updated information to our residents and giving advice on how they could cope with it, the Government has no other plans to try to see how the risk to our citizens may be minimized? Is that so? Or has the Government any plans to minimize the risk? Has the Government considered, eg, cloud seeding operations in Singapore?”
“The trouble about Singapore is that for the last 36 years, this country has been governed by just one party - a party that believes that it can do no wrong, a party that thinks that what it does is best in the interest of Singapore, a party that does not allow any dissenting views, a party that does not call for valid contributions from any other persons in Singapore. It takes all its decisions by itself. And this is an attempt now to correct that. Not just have one party making all the decisions but letting the people of Singapore make the decisions through their representatives in Parliament, and that of course means not only the ruling Party but the opposition Members in Parliament. And that is why I say it is important that opposition Members be on that committee. Finally, it is said, if the PAP has not done well for Singapore, has not served Singapore well, why is it at every four years or so they are returned to power? That again, Mr Deputy Speaker, is another story. And if we are sincere in wanting to find the answer to that question, I suggest that we have a public inquiry and I will be very, very happy to assist at that inquiry. Question put, and negatived. Motion accordingly negatived. MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT”
“1992. Thank you. That was formed for a specific purpose. And at the end of it, when it submitted its report, it ceased. It was what we lawyers would term functus officio. It had no more life. It was not a standing committee of Parliament. And then last year, an attempt was made to recall that committee, and the Member consulted with me and I told him that the committee was functus officio. "You cannot just revive a committee which is functus officio. You got to appoint a new committee. Parliament should again appoint a new committee if it wanted it. And that is why the Member did not take part in that committee. But what I am proposing is something quite different. I am proposing, as the Member said, a permanent All-Party Standing Committee of Parliament which will monitor all increases in the services that I have listed - the university fees, the transport fares, and all the other charges. And that All-Party Committee will submit its report to Parliament and Parliament can then ratify the increases. What one forgets is that, under the Constitution, Government may not levy any tax, any charge without the approval of Parliament. Of course, these are not taxes, but they are analogous to taxes, because most of the population will be called upon to pay these taxes. Therefore, should Parliament not be consulted? Should Parliament not have a chance to discuss and say what it has to say on it? And more so, what the opposition has to say on it. Were the opposition parties consulted about the increases?”
“With respect, I am sorry. Maybe it is me. I am unable to follow this kind of reasoning. Maybe it is just me. But frankly, I am unable, Mr Deputy Speaker, to follow the kind of reasoning that we are hearing. But what all the speakers miss, what all the speakers overlook, Mr Deputy Speaker, is this. Why should the increases not be brought to this House? If the increases are justified, there should be no problem of bringing the increases to this House and justifying them. Why should they not? Is this House, is this Parliament, not the supreme authority for Singapore? We get this lip service of accountability. But accountability means that Government is called into question in Parliament and Government answers to Parliament on everything. That is what it means. It does not mean Government makes the decisions and Parliament should not be consulted about it. It is the very antithesis of accountability. Reference was made to the Cost Review Committee. As my Party's member colleague in Parliament explained, that was formed, was it in 1990 first?”
“Yes. Mr Lim Swee Say: I just want to clarify. Sir, if the purpose of setting up this All-Party Committee is to make things happen for Singapore, I will be the first to vote for it. But if the purpose of this All-Party Committee, which I think it is, is to try to make things happen for the political interest of the Workers' Party, I see no reason why the people of Singapore, including the Members of this House, want it to happen. An hon. Member: So something happened. It still happened, right?”
“All right, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sorry. This is the sort of talk that we hear from the PAP. My Party's Member in Parliament asked a simple question of the Member on my left how this motion does not go forward in doing something and he does not answer that. He completely skirts it. Mr Lim Swee Say rose -”
“Please try and understand. Have you made a survey of how many people hold down two or three jobs? Have you tried to find out the numbers? Have you? I cannot do it. You are the Government.”
“How many? Well, several told me. Have you tried to make a survey?”
“Then we have a Member, I do not know whether he is from the NTUC, who wanted to speak up for Mr Lim Boon Heng. Again, I am sorry, I am afraid I do not think I could follow him through his speech. I was not saying anything false about what Lim Boon Heng said. What I saw reported was that he was telling the workers that it would be wrong to pass on the increases to the employers, that they should not expect wages to go up because of the increases. That is what I was attacking. He missed the point. That is coming from the Chief of the workers. Finally, to answer the Minister. Again, he talks about falsehoods. It shows, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that the Ministers and the PAP Members are out of touch completely. If Mr Lee Yock Suan is serious, I will ask him to come and see the grass cutters of whom I spoke at Budget day, and ask them whether they work in two jobs at all. Do not be so easy with your accusations of falsehoods. I have heard from a number of people who work two jobs -”
“Perhaps you can send them to me and I will look at them.”
“I have not seen CASE challenging the Government trying to produce convincing arguments to the Government as to why it should not go up. I know they talk whenever our prices go up in the shops and markets.”
“Yes. But may I assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I do not intend to take one hour. The reason is this. Let it be made clear that I have not found anything with respect to all the speakers, including the Minister, on which I should have to spend an hour to reply. By the way, the Minister contested Cheng San and he thinks he won because of the voters choosing to vote them. If he would like to have an inquiry, I would be quite happy to assist, as to why the PAP candidates were elected. Let us have a public inquiry. May I come back? We have the first speaker and what do we hear from him? Nothing new. It is a repetition of what we hear from the PAP ad nauseam, taken up by the press, taken up by the radio and television, "Productivity must go up". That is all. Nothing about the concerns of the people. Then we have Dr Toh from CASE making a spirited defence of CASE. I have to mention this because despite what he said, I have yet to come across CASE really taking up the Government on any increases. Dr Toh See Kiat rose -”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, before anyone else talks, I wonder whether we have a quorum in this House. I think the quorum is 22. It shows the interest. I am told by the Clerk that the quorum is 22.”
“It would not serve its purpose unless it is a Committee that comprises all the parties represented in this Parliament. It is for the Opposition MPs also to be consulted so that they can put forward their views as they know it from the voters and the Committee can then report to the House. And I have proposed in this motion that the Committee should have power to summon witnesses. That is essential if you do really mean to do something about this. The Committee should have power to summon the directors, managers of these bus companies to bring their accounts, examine them, and to answer questions as to why they need the increase, equally with the university. We do not know the university accounts. But, above all, I keep saying this House should examine whether --”
“You write to the hospitals for reports, treatment, diagnosis of people who were admitted because they wish to pursue a claim, they might have been involved in traffic accidents, and what do you find? For the doctor to give his report, it will cost the patient - I stand corrected - I think, more than $100, just for an ordinary report to be given by the doctor of what he diagnosed and what the prognosis was. And if you want a specialist to report, then you have got to pay a lot more. I could go on, Mr Deputy Speaker, giving examples of the fees charged by Government departments. That is not only Government departments, but also statutory boards. You go to HDB, ask them for something - administrative fee, my boy, down. "You pay administrative fee first before we give you the answer." Are all these necessary, making our citizens' life more difficult? They find life very, very hard. I know this because I talk to them and they tell me. They do not hesitate to speak to me. They tell me how they are finding life in Singapore. Finally, there are the rent and selling prices of HDB apartments. Again, there has been really no examination as to the costing of these apartments for sale and about the rentals that are charged. Should there not be a costing done and this House acquainted and apprised of all these? So it is my proposal, and I urge this House, to say this afternoon that the Government should afford this House an opportunity to examine all increases in essential services supplied to our people, that we, this House, as the representatives of the people, should be given a chance to look at the increases and to pronounce on them, and not to be left to boards and the Government to increase charges. I have proposed that this should be an All-Party Committee.”
“I have got the charges because my sister is there at the moment and she is in a 6-bed ward and her daily fee comes to $55 ringgit. It is not a C class, but they call it according to the number of beds in the room, and a 6-bed room is the lowest. She has to pay $55 ringgit. If you take it at the exchange, that is lower than what our C class patients have to pay. But, as I said, it is a 6-bed room and I think in our hospitals we also have 6-bed rooms in B2, and what do we charge? $50. I have been to this ward and I must say that I thought they were running it very professionally in the treatment and the nursing care that is given to her. Why is it that we are unable to keep our costs down? Has there been an examination into this? But more, has there been an examination as to whether instead of passing the increased cost to our people why it cannot be absorbed by savings from other expenditure? All these need to be thoroughly looked at and we have not looked at them at all. Then we have got, in my list, fees charged by Government departments and statutory boards for administrative services. We pay taxes, income taxes, and yet the citizen is called upon to pay a fee under the Fees Act for all kinds of services supplied by Government departments and statutory boards. Take the police, for example, Mr Deputy Speaker. If you want a report, on behalf of an accused person, made against him, you have got to pay what they call a search fee first, $14. It does not matter whether the report was only made yesterday and you write today. So I do not know what search they have to make. But you have to pay $14 search fee first. And then you have to pay the copying charges and they come to $30, $25, or something.”