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 36 of 82.
“I am not giving way. If it is point of clarification, you may speak afterwards. I would like to know from the Acting Minister for Community Development whether there has been any improvement in the Government services for the education of the disabled children, the deaf, the spastics, the mentally retarded children, and all other handicapped children. What is the Government doing about them? Has there been any progress since last year when I last spoke on this subject? Last year I asked about the supply of specialist teachers for the education of these children, and I thought that the Minister of State for Education was going to reply, but he did not reply then. Perhaps he could enlighten us this year on what progress has been made with the training of specialist teachers for the teaching of disabled children. Let us have some information on that.”
“What is it? On a point of clarification or point of Order. You can speak afterwards, if you like, please.”
“The attitude of the Government is reflected in the answer given by the Acting Minister for Labour to a question I tabled in this House for the sitting of Parliament on the 31st October, 1985. I wanted to know why the Government had not felt able to ratify the recommendations passed at the International Labour Conference in June 1983 to provide vocational rehabilitation and employment facilities in training for our disabled persons. The reply was, I quote, Mr Speaker, Sir: 'the Government has decided not to ratify [the various conventions] for the following reasons: (i) Employment of the disabled is best left to market forces and enlightened employers rather than enforced through legislation. (ii) With the tight labour market, disabled persons have been able to secure suitable employment after appropriate training. Each country is run differently depending on its people, resources and state of development.' So it goes on. The Government does not propose to ratify what are recognized training schemes in other countries for the disabled, does not propose to accept responsibility for those in Singapore because they should all be left to the market forces, to the private sector. This is the attitude of this Government.”
“We must get used to the fact that these disabled persons in our society, these aged, destitutes, are still members of the community, and that they should be accepted as equal members of the society. I know, as I said, we are embarrassed by them and when we do something for them we tend to adopt a patronizing tone or attitude to them. But, they know that they are not getting their share of what they deserve in this community.Sir, in the book about Mother Teresa, written by Malcolm Muggeridge, "Something Beautiful for God", he quotes Mother Teresa as saying that the poor are prepared to accept their poverty. But what they find difficult and hurtful to accept is the feeling of not being wanted by the rest of the community. This is what we impose on our maimed, our disabled, when we do not make enough provision for their care and for their maintenance. We can, it would appear, without batting an eyelid, Mr Speaker, Sir, vote a sum of $320,000 for the purchase of a Rolls Royce for our President. But we cannot afford to buy equipment for the education of our disabled children, which they so badly need. I mention this year in and year out. The School for the Deaf in Mountbatten Road - they cry out for proper equipment to teach the deaf children. But the response from the Government is, "We can't afford the monies for this purchase of equipment." So it goes on. We cannot afford to look after members of our community who for no reason of their own are victims of tragedy, because it is a tragedy when you are paralysed, when you are debilitated. But we have money for lots of other things for the other members of society.”
“The Member for Bo Wen was talking about our grants to voluntary institutions and he said it was about 2% or something. We ask the voluntary institutions to do the work that the agency is responsible for and whose responsibility it is, and we give them a quarter of a million dollars. For 1986, I see that the provision in grants to voluntary institutions is something like $260,000. And then we think, "Oh, we have done enough. We can now forget about them. Let the institutions get on with the job." There is talk all the time about us being an affluent society. But how does this affluent society discharge its responsibility to the less affluent? We provide $12 million for welfare services but about half of it (more than half, two-thirds of it) goes to manpower and operating expenditure. In subsidies and grants, most of it goes to Public Assistance. That is about all that we seem to be doing. The Member for Bo Wen has mentioned the magnanimous sum of $90 that we dole out to a single individual who is dependent on the society for his living, and we feel very proud of it that we have done our share in looking after him. I saw only the other day the Acting Minister beaming with his broad smile receiving a cheque for those who were unfortunate to have been injured or whose children or dependants have lost their lives in that tragedy at Serangoon Road. Is the Minis- ter's responsibility simply that of appearing at these functions and receiving cheques from the private citizens? Is that what he is being paid for in his responsibility for the underprivileged, for the maimed and the neglected in our community?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have three amendments under this Ministry and I propose to speak on all of them. But I hope I will not take up 30 minutes. My appeal, and I suppose it might have been expected, is for the forgotten members of our community. I say they are forgotten because it would appear, from the provision that we are making for them in this affluent society, that we are embarrassed by them being in our midst. And so we try and pretend that they do not exist; they are not part of our community. And so we hide that by just making meagre grants and hoping that nobody will really take too much notice of these people. Sir, may I make an appeal for a change in the attitude of society. And when I talk about society, I mean the Government as the agent of the society, because governments are nothing but agencies of the society. It is in the society's attitude to these people in our midst that I am appealing for a change. The agency's attitude, ie, the Government's attitude, would appear to be that the agency itself has no responsibility for these unfortunate members of our society, that it should be left to the private citizens, to the charity of our citizens and not to the whole community, to the agency of the society. There is a fallacy in this, Mr Speaker, Sir, because the agency acts as the agent to implement the society's responsibilities and its aims and objects. So if it is the citizens' responsibility to cater for these people as the agency would appear to be spouting forth - that the people should care for them, voluntary institutions should look after them and it is not for the Government - I say the primary responsibility must be accepted by the agency, the Government. But do we do this?”
“In fact, I have the letters from the relevant Malaysian authorities to these two companies and I would be glad to pass these on to the Acting Minister. In the milk powder case, the Malaysian importer was told that he would be allowed to import the milk powder if it was done through Malaysian ports and this clearly shows there was nothing wrong with the product. It is merely a case of discriminating against Singapore. There are also many other instances of discrimination which have become more and more common nowadays, notably the imposition of a 50% import duty on all goods brought into Malaysia by travellers. This has hurt a lot of our shopkeepers, particularly those in the Woodlands area. Malaysia is our closest neighbour. Our relations with it are warm and friendly, and that is the way it should be. I would therefore urge the Minister to continue to pursue these matters, explain our position, and I am confident that in the spirit of cooperation that has existed between our two countries for so long, a solution can be found. Most of us in the House know our fellow MPs in Malaysia and by and large we find that the Malaysians are very amicable and, are prepared to listen to us. I am sure we will be able to solve these various issues through the usual channels.”
“This action, of course, discriminated against imports coming through Singapore, and it was definitely in violation of GATT rules which state that imports through third countries have to be accorded no less favourable treatment than direct imports. Sir, Members will also recall that during the Lunar New Year or Chinese New Year we had the problem of two million oranges which were to have been exported through Singapore to Malaysia and these two million oranges were left lying at the Causeway, rotting away under the hot sun. I understand that the Ministry took up this problem with the Malaysian government which eventually agreed to remove the stipulation. But the efforts of the Ministry have only been partially successful as the Malaysian duty exemption on foodstuffs will only apply to goods brought in through Malaysian ports. As most of our goods enter Malaysia, not through ports, but by road, ie, across the Causeway, it still affects our re-exports to Malaysia. My question is whether his Ministry will take up this matter further with the Malaysian government. Sir, I have two more instances of such discrimination against Singapore. There was a case of a Singapore company which was unable to re-export full-cream milk powder to Malaysia, and in another instance, another company could not supply electric jugs, meant for storing hot water, to a hotel in Kuala Lumpur. In both these instances, it was not a matter of the products failing to conform to the health standards or to the safety measures of Malaysia but that both companies were told in no uncertain terms that trading through third countries, in this case through Singapore, was not encouraged.”
“Thus, for instance, a small company which manufactures a product that could contribute to the well-being of our country and thus could find the support of the EDB might find its access to low interest funds denied by the commercial banks participating in the scheme because it has a small capital base, the very reason why in the first place the company needed a loan. I understand that there are many companies which are, in fact, given approval by the EDB for loans under SIFS but have been turned down subsequently by the banks participating in the scheme. In order that the small manufacturers can benefit from this scheme, I hope the Ministry will look into this matter. Sir, we have heard a lot about economic cooperation amongst ASEAN countries. In my opinion such economic cooperation still leaves much to be desired. Three of the ASEAN countries, for instance, impose exit taxes on their citizens travelling abroad, and such measures undermine the efforts of governments in moving towards economic cooperation. Just last week, we heard the Acting Minister for Trade and Industry telling the House about the increasingly hostile trading environment that Singapore faces. He cited acts of protectionism by our trading partners, and he mentioned a case that his Ministry took up last year with the Malaysian government which had taken a course of action that was outside the rules of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT). I believe the Acting Minister was referring to the Malaysian government's action in exempting import duties on foodstuff pro- vided they were imported directly from their country of origin.”
“This is a relatively passive role, different from the tenacity one needs to compete on the international markets. I believe the TDB can play an effective role in setting our businessmen on the right tracks. Unbelievable as it may seem, quite a lot of businessmen just do not know how to get about doing it and quite a lot of them do not know what the TDB can do for them. There are a lot of medium-sized companies with good management and good products, but Singapore is still relatively new in the field of international marketing and proper guidance from the TDB would help. There are also a lot of companies which do not even have the right products, thinking that they can export them on the world markets. I think the TDB should intensify its efforts. Firstly, by publicizing more of its activities, identifying the right products and therefore it follows - the right companies - to enable us to fight on the international market. Sir, one of the many schemes which is currently available to our businessmen under the EDB is the Small Industries Finance Scheme. This scheme operated by the EDB together with selected commercial banks provides various kinds of loans at very low interest rates to deserving manufacturers. But this is where the problem arises. The EDB interprets a deserving case with a yardstick quite different from that of the banks participating in the scheme. While the EDB identifies companies that in their opinion fit well into Singapore's industrial and export strategy, the commercial banks which disburse the money under the SIF scheme measure the worth of the company according to normal banking standards.”
“Does the Minister know that I have told some of these people just to forget about the Government notice? MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1986 TO 31ST MARCH, 1987 Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [6th Allotted Day]. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Head V (cont.) - Resumption of Debate on Question [25th March, 1986], "That the sum to be allocated for Head V be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead VA-01 Object Group 1100 of the Main Estimates." - [Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee] Question again proposed. Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Alexandra): Mr Speaker, Sir, since its establishment in 1983, the Trade Development Board has effectively represented Singapore's international trade interest and promoted our exports. Sir, I have high a regard for the TDB and its efforts. I think it is one of the very few statutory boards that does not see money-making as its objective. On the contrary, it is a statutory board that gives away money to our businessmen through its various assistance schemes. Perhaps the TDB's foresight and enlightened attitude is attributable to the fact that it is headed by a Member of Parliament who knows that success in endeavour is measured not just by having mere surpluses in the kitty. Prior to the TDB's existence we can say that our exporters lacked proper guidance and direction of purpose. In fact, even today, sad to say, many of our businessmen still do not know much about international marketing or how to export their products and services. Perhaps this is attributable to the fact that most of our local manufacturers have for many years been contented with relegating themselves to the role of being supporting industries for the multinationals that set up shop here.”
“Will the Minister please refer the House to the power or to the section in any Act of Parliament which says, "The Ministry of National Development may send out notices to owners to clear squatters within 12 months, or the Ministry may take over." Could the Minister please refer us to the section?”
“On the other hand, the young couple may have decided to buy another HDB flat to live on their own, or because they calculate that it is good investment to own two HDB flats, one for the wife's parents and one for themselves. It would not be in the national interest to facilitate such splintering of the family nucleus. Besides being socially undesirable, it would create additional demand for HDB flats which our land-scarce situation cannot afford. It would result in more aged parents living on their own, in larger HDB flats than they need. There is therefore no simple answer to the Member's question. At present what he is proposing is not permitted under HDB and CPF rules. However, I recognize that there are exceptional cases which could be justified on hardship or other grounds. My Ministry will study with the HDB whether such applications could be considered on a case-by-case basis, bearing in mind our social objectives. If permission is granted, a decision will have to be made whether the daughter should continue to be a joint owner in her parent's flat so that the ownership of her CPF funds utilized for the flat remains with her. Mr Chng Hee Kok (Radin Mas): Mr Speaker, Sir, to ease the burden of such families, will the Minister agree to extend the period for reimbursement of the funds to CPF?”
“Why don't you answer me? DAUGHTER'S CPF PAYMENT OF PARENT'S HDB FLAT (Position upon Joint Purchase of Flat with Husband) 11. Mr Philip Tan Tee Yong asked the Acting Minister for Labour, where an applicant and his daughter had used their Central Provident Fund savings to jointly purchase a Housing and Development Board flat and the applicant is no longer gainfully employed, whether the CPF Board will consider allowing the daughter's part to remain with her parent's flat when she applies jointly with her prospective husband to purchase a HDB or private flat. The Acting Minister for Labour (Mr Lee Yock Suan): Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the Government's social objectives is to incul- cate filial piety and to encourage Singaporeans to live with and look after their parents. As far as possible, aged parents should not be left to live on their own and to fend for themselves. In the situation raised by the Member, it appears socially desirable that the daughter contributes part of her CPF savings to help her parents pay for their flat if they do not have adequate CPF savings or other financial resources. However, if this involves transfer of ownership of the CPF savings, it opens up a new policy direction of the CPF Scheme which requires further consideration. At present such transfers of CPF benefits are not allowed except under the Medisave Scheme. Other factors also have to be considered. If the parents have no other children to look after them, it is even more desirable that the daughter and her spouse share a flat with her parents. However, this may not always be feasible. For example, the spouse may have to live with his parents.”
“So will the Minister, honestly for once, concede and admit that CISCO personnel are compelled to work on their rest days? There can be no other answer.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, you have ruled. So be it. But may I point out that when I made a complaint on Thursday morning last week, that was not referred to the Committee of Privileges. But I will let it pass. May I know whether the Minister will answer my question now? Or is he trying to escape, wriggle out, as the Prime Minister is fond of saying?”
“Is the Minister going to answer my question? Or is he going to escape?”
“Back to the old game, aren't we? You are getting frightened, aren't you?”
“No, I have nothing at all, Mr Speaker, Sir, no direct pecuniary personal interest in this question. It is true of course that in 1985 or 1984 I wrote to the Commissioner of Police on behalf of this CISCO woman. But this question was prompted because I have had a complaint from several CISCO constables. I have no direct personal pecuniary interest. But may I say this, Mr Speaker, Sir. As I understand, the practice in the House of Commons is that in asking questions, you do not have to disclose whether you have any personal interest in it. And if you look at Standing Orders, it is only if the matter comes to a vote and a question is not a matter on which a vote is taken. I think the Minister should perhaps look at Standing Orders and study them before he comes up with all his complaints. I see what the tactic is. He does not wish to answer the question. I am saying to him, go ahead and file your complaint. But answer my question.”
“May I ask the Minister whether he is filing a complaint? If he is going to file a complaint, go ahead with it.”
“Does the Minister realize that his answer really is a bit of nonsense? Does the Minister realize that he says the officer is not required to work on his rest-day but if the exigencies of the service require, he will be asked to do so? Will the Minister say what happens if the officer says he is unable to report for duty on his weekly rest day because he has already entered into other arrangements? Is he penalized because he is unable to work on the rest day as requested, or is he let off?”
“Would the Minister tell us where this officer has been transferred to? And over whom has he been put in charge?”
“Sir, has any action been taken to suspend this officer against whom the report was made? If not, what is he doing at the moment?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister aware that this statement was seen by me only this morning? But would he answer whether there has been any further request from any quarter after Mr Marcos left Manila for Honolulu?”
“May I have, if not a promise, an assurance that he will give it favourable consideration, and that I will get this room? Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, any request by Members of Parliament will be considered. PAID PARKING SCHEMES IN PRIVATE HOUSING ESTATES 3. Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee asked the Minister for National Development why the Urban Redevelopment Authority has implemented paid parking schemes in some private housing estates outside the Central Business District instead of allowing private enterprises to operate such facilities.”
“Yes, a room. In Block 135. Are you not aware of it?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a supplementary question for the Minister. First of all, I wonder whether the Minister realizes that most of his answer is completely irrelevant to the question which asked what steps were being taken to cater to the physical, social and recreational needs, not about their housing needs. Is the Minister aware that sometime ago I made a request for a room in Anson Constituency to be made available for the needs of the senior citizens? This room was made vacant because the Youth Club which was occupying it had moved out. Does the Minister know that permission has been refused for us to use this room? Will the Minister now tell me whether he will grant permission to use this room as a lounge, as he calls it, for the senior citizens?”
“That is for the unions. What are you going to do about it?”
“They are not wild. It is here in the Auditor-General's Report.”
“Because of working conditions. Mr Lee Yock Suan: It is not because of working conditions. Of course, there is pressure because it is piece-rate work. Everybody wants to earn as much as possible. Those who have mastered enough skills can earn maybe $1,000. How about the factory environment? We did a survey of 17 garment factories. Nine of them are air- conditioned. The surprising thing is that some of the girls do not want to work in air-conditioned factories. They say it is too cold and bad for their health. So we cannot please everybody. The working environment, in fact, has improved. I think the problem with the garment factories is that the starting pay is too low. They have a basic pay, and if you want to earn more, you must produce more. It is quite a punishing system. Maybe the garment factories should examine this system and get the help of SDF or other means to help these workers overcome the initial training period. In the electronics factories, the starting pay may be $400-$450. In a garment factory, unless you are skilled, the initial pay may be only about $300 and it takes them perhaps a year to build up skills to a reasonable level. As a result of this problem, plus the bad image of the industry, many garment factories now are employing more than 50%, in some cases as high as 70%, foreign workers. So something has to be done to get the employers to offer more jobs to our older workers, to get them to change the system to attract more local workers.”
“They are here - Ministry of Labour, Research and Statistics Report.”
“But this unfortunate man who should have got a lot more than what was assessed under the Workmen's Compensation Act was debarred from bringing any action in court because under our Limitation Act any action for negligence had to be brought within three years. So may we have an assurance from the Minister that the Workmen's Compensation Section of his Ministry will speed up things a bit and try and protect workmen who have been injured? I have one other instance where a company sent a worker outside Singapore to work and he was injured in an accident and the Ministry refused to do anything about it because the employer said, "This was not in the course of any of his work that he sustained this accident." That is the sort of attitude that the Ministry takes, ready to listen to everything that the employers have to say but not ready to lend a willing ear to the workers. I do hope that we will see a complete change of attitude from the Minister and his staff after this, especially, as I said a little while ago, in this time of recession when our workers are being made to bear the cost of the recession. It is they who are suffering and it is time the Ministry awoke to its responsibilities to them and discharges those responsibilities.”
“' That is, between 24 and 14 years, they have been remaining in the Workmen's Compensation Deposit Account. Why? May I know from the Minister what has happened to these moneys now? And he goes on to say: 'A further sum of $349,600.23 in another trust account, as at 31 December 1984, had also not been distributed to beneficiaries as required by law.' The Prime Minister last week said, "Do we need to flout the law?" "We who have 77 Members in this House," he said. But there you have it from the Auditor-General saying that the Ministry of Labour flouts the law. A sum of $349,000 undistributed when the law requires that it should be distributed. May I also, whilst we are on the question of funds, ask the Minister what has become of the Spyros fund that was set up for the victims of the Spyros disaster. I have been questioned on this by people who have asked me to raise in Parliament as to whether any account has been published of this Spyros fund. Will the Minister be able to tell us, if not today, sometime later at another sitting, what has become of this fund, and how much of it has been undistributed? Whilst on the workmen's compensation, may I also bring to the attention of the Minister a case where a worker, who was injured in an accident and which was reported to the Ministry of Labour, had to wait for more than three years before the Assistant Commissioner for Labour assessed the compensation. And when he received it, more than three years later, he found it was completely inadequate for the injuries he had sustained. Of course, the Assistant Commissioner for Labour was not to blame. That was the assessment under the Workmen's Compensation Act.”
“Is he going to consider introducing legislation to give security to our workers in their employment, to protect them against employers, or is he going to say, "Oh, no, we have got good employers in Singapore. I cannot see any bad employers." There is this section 14 of the Employment Act. I have mentioned this several times in this House that it was intended to protect the workers from unfair retrenchment. Last year I brought up the case of a man who had appealed to the Minister some months before I brought up the matter, and the Minister's reply was, "We are still considering this." I am now told, several months later, that the man was informed, but in a curt reply, that the Minister has decided not to intervene. That is the sort of attitude that our workers get from the Ministry. It is appalling that the Ministry of Labour, set up primarily to look after the welfare of our workers, should so neglect its responsibilities and duties. Sir, I would urge the Minister to take immediate steps to see that, particularly at this time, our workers are protected and I would urge him quite seriously to lend his efforts to persuade the Cabinet and the Government to giving unemployment relief to those out of employment. There is another amendment I have and, that is, under the workmen's compensation. Here again, it is a sorry tale, Sir. I see that the Auditor-General in his Report for the financial year 1984/85 reports at paragraph 104 that the Ministry had: 'no procedures to ensure prompt clearing of long outstanding compensation moneys. As at 30 September 1984, compensation moneys totalling $156,399.79 received [mind you, Mr Chairman, this is what he says] during the 1960s and 1970s remained in the Workmen's Compensation Deposit Account.”
“His answer shows exactly where his interest lies. He says, "I do not think the employers would just retrench workers out of spite or for no good reason." We have heard from several Members here, not just me, that employers are taking advantage of the recession and they are throwing their workers out of employment, and the Minister says, "No, I don't think they do that, do they? And I don't think my Ministry should interfere." So I ask: is it a Ministry to protect our workers, or is it a Ministry for the employers? Our workers who have come to see me tell me that when the Ministry speaks, they hear the voice of the employer. They do not hear their own voice whenever the Ministry speaks. I think the Minister should know this. There were the Jurong Shipyard workers who were being "persuaded" by the company to accept early retirement. Then because they had come to me, the company thought better of it and said they would take them back. But they wanted to see the Minister on the terms on which the company would take them back and I spent a whole Saturday morning trying to get the Minister to see these workers. I got no reply. The following Monday I was told that the Minister would not see the workers but one of his officials would see them. Why cannot the Minister see the workers if they wish to see him? Is he too busy seeing the management that he cannot find time to see the workers whose welfare is his responsibility? There is the urgent need, desperate need, I tell the Minister, for legislation to protect our workers. I can tell him about all the countries in which there is this legislation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I speak on the amendment, perhaps I should say I have no direct personal pecuniary interest in whatever I say. Of course, I do act for workmen in claims against their employers and in accident claims. Sir, I would like to commend to the Minister whether he should not consider changing his designation from that of "Minister for Labour" to "Minister for Employers". I am not saying this out of sarcasm or with my tongue in my cheek. I am quite serious about this. I am saying to the Minister that for all the work that he and his Ministry is doing to protect the workers in Singapore, it is a waste of public funds. The workers will be no worse off if the Ministry fails to exist in Singapore. Are these harsh words, Sir? They might seem to be harsh words. But I will try in the time limited to me to show that they are not harsh words. First of all, there is, as we know, this growing unemployment, but the Ministry apparently is still not able to collect accurate information on the number of unemployed and about the numbers who have been found jobs. Sometime ago the Minister said in 1984 there were no jobs lost in reply to the Member for Rochore. I checked this up in the 1984 Research and Statistics Department in his Ministry Report on the Labour Force Survey, and I find that in 1984 more than 6,000 jobs were lost, not taking into account those who resigned and those who retired. So it would appear that even the Minister does not take the trouble to get his facts correct. The other thing is that the Minister appears to show no appreciation or empathy for the workers and their feelings. May I again refer him to his answer given in this House to a question that I asked him whether his Ministry would take any action to stop needless retrenchments by companies.”
“Perhaps it would be a good idea if grassroots leaders be invited to NUH to have first-hand information about this hospital. Finally, Sir, I would like to know from the Minister whether there are plans to further develop NUH as one of the best in the region, perhaps as a place for research and development in the medical field.”
“May I ask that a more enlightened policy be taken by the hospitals when it comes to, particularly, workers who have been out of employment for six months, nine months, and less anxiety be shown about collection of fees and greater attention given to the needs of the man? Finally, may I ask, why is it not possible for a patient who has to attend at the hospital every day for treatment to pay these charges out of a relative's Medisave Account? I know a man who was not warded in the hospital. Apparently it is his mother, he says, who has to attend at the hospital every day for treatment and he has to pay $10 a day, which amounts to $300 a month. And he wants to use his Medisave Account but he is told he cannot. I do not know why he cannot be allowed to use his Medisave Account because it is almost as though his mother was warded in the hospital getting treatment daily. So could we have a bit of relaxation of rules governing the use of Medisave and the collection of fees to suit the needs of individuals in their circumstances? Encik Abbas Abu Amin (Pasir Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, though the National University Hospital has been in operation for quite some time, there are still some members of the public, especially those from the neighbouring housing estates, who are not fully aware of the facilities and services available at NUH. Some even think that it is just a teaching University. Could the Ministry or NUH authority consider providing information to the residents in the neighbouring constituencies on the following: (a) Are there A&E services? (b) How many and what classes of hospital beds are available? (c) Are the charges similar to that of other Government hospitals?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I will try and be very brief. I have a feeling your remarks were particularly directed to me. May I make another plea for the Ministry of Health, particularly in Hospital Services, not to be too rigid in its efforts to collect charges. I say this because only last week somebody came to see me in my MP's office. He has been out of employment for about nine months, and he has been told that he has got to have an operation. He has got to go into hospital and, on top of this operation that is facing him, he has got his family problems. He was very worried about the hospital charges and the operation charges and all the other investigation charges. I told him, "Look, I think you had better go and have a word with the hospital almoner or medical social worker about your problems. And if you do not get any help there, then perhaps you can come back and see me." This is really the problem that I want to try and place before the Minister for Health and the Hospital Services - that, in this time of recession, there must be hundreds of people who are unable to pay even the basic daily ward fees. They may or may not have enough in their Medisave Account but even if they do have it, perhaps they may not be very anxious to use it all up in the hope that they might be able to rely on it later for their own living expenses. So could I make another plea? I did that the other day and I was told there are other avenues - they can go and use somebody else's Medisave Account or go and ask for assistance somewhere else.”
“Is the Minister seriously saying that the policy of the HDB is to keep all rental flats vacated vacant and deny, I do not know how many hundreds, it might be running into thousands, applications for rental flats. What do you expect these people who have applied for rental flats to do?”
“May I ask the Minister of State to what extent, if any, does the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board cooperate with the Malaysia Tourist Corporation to sell both countries, as it were, in a package deal to tourists? Sir, they can use Singapore as a stepping off place, spending a day here or two, and then going on to Malaysia or other places.”
“Does the Minister not realize, or has he forgotten, that sometime in 1984 (I think, in the last quarter) there was a transfer from service and conservancy fees of a sum like $42 million to paying interest on loans or something, to another subhead? Will the Minister explain how, in view of his statement that the HDB does not collect enough to pay for the maintenance service charges, it was able to transfer this $42 million?”
“Sir, will he explain how is it then that the HDB was able to transfer a sum of $42 million from the service and conservancy charges to other subheads sometime in October 1984? Mr Teh Cheang Wan: The service and conservancy charges account has been clearly published in the Annual Report. The 1984 Report for FY 1983/84 quite clearly show, that the income derived by the HDB from service and conservancy charges was $158.8 million. That is the published accounts. The expenditure for service and conservancy charges for that FY was $197.5 million. Therefore, there was a deficit of $38.7 million, and this deficit represents 24.4% of income. So it is quite clear from the accounts which are published that a heavy subsidy is provided by the HDB.”
“May I just ask the Minister one question.”
“We have carried an article in our paper, the Hammer, and I will repeat what we said there.”
“It clearly had under its terms of reference approved by the Minister and published, as I said, on the 19th Septemer 1974, other powers. So the question does arise, and it is important, Sir, that the question should be faced squarely. It cannot be swept under the carpet. It cannot be evaded. The question does arise as to when the MAS became aware of insider trading and when it became aware of the forward contracts entered into by Pan-El. And why was not the matter referred to the Securities Industry Council with all the powers it possessed under the Act to inquire into it? Why were not the practices of Pan-El referred to the Registrar of Companies, because you will find that as one of the terms of reference? Why did not the Securities Industry Council consider the question whether there was any unlawful or dishonest forms of trading inside Pan El in 1984 and beginning of 1985? These are very important questions, Sir. As a result of no action taken by the MAS and the Ministry of Finance, the people who had invested monies lost considerably. And not only that, as I keep saying again and again, we have suffered considerable damage in our efforts to become a financial centre. I hope the Minister will try to give satisfactory answers to these questions. I have asked only last week that a Commission of Inquiry be appointed to inquire into all the events leading to the collapse of Pan-El and the suspension of trading on the Stock Exchange. The Minister replied that the Government did not think that it was necessary and the Prime Minister supported the Minister. But as the Minister, I think, himself conceded, the public had not been told everything about the Pan-El crisis. So my criticism in this debate is to place the blame on the Ministry of Finance and, particularly the MAS.”
“807 of the Hansard of 10th January 1986: 'That body's sole function, in fact, is to advise the Minister on new listings of companies. It also advises the Minister on administration of the Code on Takeovers and Mergers on stock exchange matters.' The Minister left this House with the impression that the Securities Industry Council did not have any other terms of reference or other powers, except to advise the Minister on takeovers and mergers and on stock exchange matters. After that I managed to get from the Ministry of Finance the press statement that was made by the Securities Industry Council on the 19th September 1974. I found in that press statement the following terms of reference as approved by the Minister for Finance: '(a) Advise the Minister on all matters concerning the Securities Industry, including the administration of legislation, particularly on the protection of investors. (b) Advise the Committee of the Stock Exchange on matters referred to it and to consider recommendations. (c) Advise the Committee of the Stock Exchange on action to be taken to prevent or expose unlawful or dishonest forms of trading. (d) Advise the Registrar of Companies on matters referred to it and on activities of any company which in the opinion of the Council are suspect.' And only finally we come to the term of reference which the Minister said was the only purpose of this Securities Industry Council, ie, (e) Administer and enforce the Singapore Code on Takeovers and Mergers. So it seems to me, Sir, and I am sorry to have to say this, that the Minister misled the House on the 10th January 1986, in his assertion that this Securities Industry Council's task was only to advise the Minister on new listings and on takeovers and mergers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my amendment concerns the inaction of the Ministry of Finance to avert the Pan-El crisis and the Stock Exchange closure. I make no apology for coming back to this subject. I want, within the means available to me and with all the force that I am capable of mustering, to try and impress upon Members the accountability of Government and Ministers. Sir, in the debate in this House that took place on the 10th of January this year, when the Minister made a statement, I asked him about the time that the MAS was aware of insider trading in Pan-El and of its forward contracts. His answer was that the MAS was aware of the insider trading in early 1985. But I see from a report by a journal that the insider trading complaint was made in 1984. And he then went on to concede that the MAS was aware of the forward contracts entered into by Pan-El in February 1985. His answer was that MAS was unable to do anything about these two complaints. It referred them to the SES committee and they reported that they were unable to do anything because they did not have the powers to summon witnesses and to examine account books. So we were told that as a result of all this, MAS was unable to do anything and things had to go on the way they did, until we came to the crash at the end of December 1985. At that sitting, I referred the Minister to the Section in the Securities Industry Act about the advisory body having all the powers it needed to summon witnesses and to ask for production of documents from members and from other companies. The Minister replying to my speech on the adjournment said, "Yes, the Securities Industry Council was such a body." But he says, and I read from col.”
“The accounts showed $12 million, profit in 1982.”
“Not every month. Every three years or so, if it is necessary.”