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 39 of 82.
“There are people in my area who want rental flats in Anson itself, who have not been moved out. What about giving flats to the families in 532 Kampong Baru Road. Why? They should, as I said, be really counted as Singapore citizens. But even if they are not (they are permanent residents), may I remind the Government about the observation in the Report of the Constitutional Commission in 1966 that there is an obligation and a duty not only to look after citizens but also to look after strangers within our gates. But these are not strangers. So may I hear from the Minister about these vacant flats. If I may move on to the Development Estimates. First of all, I have two questions for the Minister and I hope I am going to get answers to all these questions at the end of the day and that I have not asked them in vain. First of all, my questions centre around a project in Yishun New Town. I understand there is a Town Centre Contract II for four blocks of 5-room improved flats and four blocks of low-rise 3-room and 4-room flats, providing a total of about 450 units. May I ask for some information about this project? My infor- mation is that the HDB is spending a considerable sum of money on this project in fitting it with external aluminium curtain walling which one finds in Orchard Road hotels and other showpiece buildings, and that the cost of these projects will be considerably more than for the other projects. May we know for whom are these flats being constructed? I am told there will be a special viewing gallery at the top. What will be the cost of these flats? What I also understand is that the HDB has even specified, by brand name, the aluminium curtain walling to be imported from the United States at a cost of $4 million.”
“I have suggested last year, and the year before that, that there should be a parliamentary committee to decide on these questions of policy. The HDB should not be allowed to decide on these questions of policy. Will we hear something about this from the Minister in reply? 2.45 pm We were told after the 1984 elections, "We are going to listen now. We are going to relax. We are going to have more consultations with the people." But I cannot see any change, and a number of our people cannot see any change. The same thing continues unabated. It would appear that it was simply show-talk when statements were made after the 1984 elections. May I know from the Minister about the position of rental flats? I asked this sometime ago and I cannot remember the numbers now. But would he tell us how many flats are lying vacant in HDB apartments, ie, flats for rental. In my own constituency, Sir, there are four 1- room blocks and one 2-room block, making a total of five blocks with units available for rental. Walking through these blocks, I notice several of the flats are vacant. Some of them have been vacant for six months, nine months. What is the HDB doing about these vacant flats? What are they keeping them for? I wrote to the Senior Estates Officer at Tiong Bahru on the 17th of February, asking him to let me know how many flats in these blocks were vacant and how long they have been lying vacant. I have not heard from him. Today is the 20th of March. I do not know when I will hear from him, or whether I will ever hear from him. Perhaps the Minister can oblige and tell him to give me a reply on these flats. I want to know what the HDB proposes to do with these vacant flats. Keep them for how long?”
“But these are two families in 532 Kampong Bahru Road and this woman in Tiong Poh Road who, as I said, works in the Singapore General Hospital. That, Mr Speaker, Sir, is all I wish to say about the Resettlement amendment that I moved. If I may now move to the HDB Main Estimates. I asked this morning about the ruling of the HDB to disable persons under the age of 29 from applying for HDB rental accommodation. And we had the usual answer from the Minister which we have heard, if I may say so, I am sorry, ad nauseam, that the HDB is making it ever so cheap. So everybody must buy their flats. What I wish to query this afternoon is this. After selling these flats to them, they are not told at the time when they are sold, that they will lose their flats on the happening of a contingency. Of course, I refer this afternoon to the position of two occupants of a flat where one of them dies or, in the case of a husband and wife, where they are divorced. Then immediately the HDB steps in and says, "Well, you can't continue to own this flat. You've got to surrender it back unless, of course, you can find somebody else." If you have sold the flats to these persons, it is theirs. And why should they be visited with this requirement just because one owner of the flat dies in the family or, in the case of a husband and wife, they get divorced? We seem to get the impression that there is an abundant supply of HDB flats. Very soon we might reach a position, if we have not reached it, of saturation because of oversupply. Is it then necessary for the HDB to still continue with these practices? Or is it not time for the HDB to review these policies, and for the Ministry too? I have suggested that these things should not be left to the HDB.”
“She works in the General Hospital but she is married to a Malaysian. That, of course, disqualifies her because only one applicant is a citizen and the other is not even a permanent resident. So she has been told, "You will get no help from us. You've got to go and find your own accommodation." Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is time this Government recognized the rights of people to have their own homes. Here you have a situation where you are throwing them out of their own homes. You are uprooting them and then, with arrogance, you tell them, "We are not going to provide you with any homes." We have got to recognize the right of people to homes. We have got to recognize their rights as houseowners. May I say quite clearly to the Minister, and I give notice, that I have told these families that they are not to move out. I have said this in my letter to the Resettlement Department, but I give notice. I have told the resident, "You will not move out and do not move out unless alternative accommodation is provided for you." I want to tell the Minister that it is simply because they cannot find accommodation themselves. They cannot afford any other accommodation. That is the only reason. So I wish to ask the Minister what does his Ministry propose to do. Bulldoze them? Bury them under the ground? May I have a clear answer to that question, please, because they have been to see me two or three times and are anxious about their fate? And I have said to them, "You stay put. And if they come with bulldozers, I'll be there." So may we have an unequivocal answer from the Minister to the problems of these families? There are several others I am sure.”
“I would like to know from the Minister what will be the position of these people in Tras Street, the shophouse owners, the tenants of flats or of residential accommodation in the area? Mr Speaker, Sir, no one disputes that it is necessary to have urban renewals from time to time, that when properties wear out and are dilapidated, there should be slum clearances. But in all this, one must not forget that we are dealing with human beings and regard must be paid to their preferences, to any inconvenience or to any hardship that may result to them. The whole purpose of the exercise is to benefit our citizens. And if this objective is lost sight of, then the whole thing becomes a meaningless exercise. Sir, I am particularly concerned with the ruling that is followed by the Resettlement Department on the eligibility for accommodation when they are resettled. I have two families in 532 Kampong Bahru Road. They have been told that they cannot be resettled and that they will have to look for their own accommodation. The reason is that they are all permanent residents. Why are they permanent residents? Because they have not got their citizenship, not because they have not tried to get citizenship. I am told they have been living here since 1945-1946. But under the enlightened policy of this Government, citizenship is only granted to those who show that they have got big bank balances. Of course, these two families are unable to show that they have got any big bank balance. So they have been denied citizenship. They have been told, "You've got to find your own accommodation." I have got another case at 88 Tiong Poh Road. This is the Singapore General Hospital quarters and I am told that it is needed for MRT work. In this case, the woman is a Singapore citizen.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have three amendments, the first of which is under monies allocated for Resettlement, Subhead TG-01 of the Development Estimates. The second one is under the Main Estimates of the Housing and Development Board. And the third one is on the Development Estimates of the HDB. So I propose to take them in that order, and I assume that I shall have 30 minutes, if necessary. First of all, if I may deal with the amendment under the Resettlement subhead. I was amused to hear two Members of the Minister's own party this morning making an appeal to him to delay the resettlement of people because there are people who are unable to afford the purchase of HDB flats at the present time. Only a little while ago, we had been told by the Minister glibly, "Oh, there's no problem. Singaporeans are all queuing up to buy houses and we are making it ever so cheap for them." Well, there seems to be a contradiction somewhere or a breakdown in communication between the Minister and his own Members. Perhaps we should look into that breakdown in communication. I am concerned for people who are to be resettled generally, particularly for people in my constituency. There are a whole lot of them in Tras Street who are to be resettled. May I ask the Minister,first of all, what is the likely date before which they will all be told to move out? Or will there be some lapse of time? Secondly, may I ask the Minister, where will they be resettled? I have advocated in this House that resettlement should be so arranged that people are resettled, if not in the same area, at least in adjacent, surrounding, areas.”
“All right. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (Extension of Hours of Sitting)”
“Sir, am I to understand that you would not receive the complaint?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is fallacious to say that I am continuing the debate. This morning the debate is not on Ministers' pay and -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a breach of privilege - The Second Minister for Law (Prof. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. Mr Speaker: Yes, let us have your point of order.”
“It is where a Member insults the dignity of this House.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to lodge a complaint and my complaint is against the Prime Minister and the Member for Tanjong Pagar. Speaking in this House yesterday, Mr Speaker, Sir, he said "we have no reason to flout the Constitution as the Government has 77 Members in this House." I am afraid the Prime Minister was grievously wrong. The Government does not have 77 Members in this House. The Government only has 75 Members. It cannot be over-emphasized that, in our parliamentary system of government, Parliament is not part of the Government. Parliament exists quite independently of the Government and as a check on the Executive and the Government. In saying that he had 77 Members in this House, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid he was casting aspersions on your office as Speaker of this House. You are not a member of the Government and you are not one of his Party men. The same thing applies to the office of Deputy Speaker. This tradition of the Speaker is very zealously upheld in the United Kingdom. You must be aware, Mr Speaker, Sir, -”
“May I ask the Minister for National Development again why is it necessary, again and again, for the HDB to follow the private sector? Has the HDB no independent views of its own, and a role to lead the private sector. Two days ago I asked the Minister about a downward revision and his answer was confined to season parking. I am asking him now, by way of a supplementary question, whether the HDB will consider a downward revision of its hourly parking charges. Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the hourly parking charges of HDB are comparable to that of all other car parks. So there is no need to have any downward revision. REDEVELOPMENT OF SIT FLATS IN DELTA 11. Mr Yeo Choo Kok asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether there is any plan to redevelop the old estate comprising all the Singapore Improvement Trust flats in Delta into a new housing estate with modern amenities and facilities; and (b) whether the Housing and Development Board will convert all the one-room flats in Delta into bigger flats.”
“I am asking you now. Dr Koh Lam Son: May I ask the Acting Minister whether incidents of child abuse in Singapore are on the rise?”
“I could have written to the Ministry. I had this letter at the beginning of this month from someone who is interested in the child. I am asking the Minister whether he will investigate, and find out whether there is a child in Katong Children's Home who has been deprived of education.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Acting Minister investigate the case of a child of primary school age in the Katong Children's Home who has been sent there and who is very anxious, as I understand, to go to school but the Ministry has not done anything to enrol the child in a school.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Acting Minister tell us whether all children in the care of the Ministry, who are of primary school age, attend schools? Are efforts being made to place them in schools?”
“No present plans. May I ask the Minister whether he will give an assurance that if at any time the Singapore Pools (Pte) Ltd decides to go into housing estates to set up betting centres, the views of the residents will be taken into account?”
“Did I understand from the Minister that the Singapore Pools (Pte) Ltd has no plans to set up betting centres in housing estates themselves?”
“Does the Minister realize that his last answer is too funny for words? MRT BOON LAY STATION (Plans) 4. Mr Goh Chee Wee asked the Minister for Communications and Information if he will confirm the decision of the Mass Rapid Transit Corporation to shelve the plan for the construction of the proposed Boon Lay station and explain the rationale behind such a decision. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications and Information (Mr Ho Kah Leong) (for the Minister for Communications and Information): Sir, I have been asked by my Minister to reply. The MRTC has decided to defer the construction of Boon Lay Station because the HDB has postponed development of the new town which the MRT was designed to serve. Therefore, there is no need at the moment to have an MRT station there. Residents from Boon Lay Constituency can use Lakeside Station. TAXI LICENCES (Particulars) 5. Mr Chew Heng Ching asked the Minister for Communications and Information how many taxi licences were issued in 1983, 1984 and 1985, and whether he will give priority to applications for taxi licences from the older retrenched workers who are unable to find new jobs because of their age.”
“May I ask the Minister why should the Government force on our citizens 100% home ownership? That is the whole principle of it. You give your citizens a choice. You encourage them. But you do not force them. There is a whole world of difference between encouragement and forced persuasion. Is the Minister saying that the only thing that this Government knows is compulsion of our citizens?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Minister realize that, parrot-wise, he is repeating the same thing again and again and again. May I ask him why is it necessary to cut down on the choice that citizens of this country have. By what authority does the HDB take it upon itself to cut down the choice that our citizens have? Does the Ministry and the HDB realize that there are people, whatever the Ministry might think, who simply cannot afford to buy HDB flats? Does the Minister realize also that this is discriminatory under the Constitution? What gives the HDB the power to flout the Constitution? What gives the HDB the power to cut down on the choice that our citizens have?”
“I think very few, but if we have to do it, then we must all learn and we must all learn, in peace time. We will move on to these areas step by step. The Member for Chong Boon talked about recruitment, and exhorted MINDEF not to choke off our recruitment because of our manpower budget. We have to be tight on our manpower budget because we cannot expand indefinitely. But at the same time MINDEF has a special reason to continue to recruit for the next few years. MINDEF is in several respects different from the other Ministries. First, our establishments are very far from filled. This affects our operational readiness. If you are short of a clerk and do not have her for five years, well, perhaps you can delete the establishment and still make-do. If you are short of a first-class marksman trainer, and do not have him for five years, you may delete him from the establishment but then your Armed Forces will never have trained marksmen. That is a price which cannot be paid. That is the first way we are different. Secondly, we have contract service people. In other words, we recruit people for a fixed term, they serve and when the contract is over, some leave. Therefore, our turnover is high. Therefore, it is necessary for us to recruit to maintain our strength. 5.00 pm Thirdly, we need continually to upgrade the quality of our manpower. Each year we have better and better cohorts coming out from our education system, and we must get a fair share. And finally, in the Army, you must recruit in a recession because that is when you can get the best men and then you hold them through a boom. Mr Speaker, Sir, that would respond to most of the points raised by Members.”
“We have progressed from telling the public what Total Defence is about, to getting the public to think about what it means, and to go beyond, to urge the public to participate in Total Defence exercises, to learn and to gain confidence about it. We have some sense of progress. The Member for Serangoon Gardens asked whether we have opinion poll surveys. Well, one which we recently conducted showed that 88% of the population understood that in Total Defence everybody played a part, not just the soldiers. But when it came to the next step, knowing that your participating is all right, but what do you specifically do? Fewer knew. Only about one-third of the population were confident of their specific role in Total Defence. So we have to do something about it. The way we are doing it is to get the population directly involved, get more Ministries involved. Home Affairs for Civil Defence, MTI for Economic Defence, Community Development for Social Defence, and Communications and Information for Psychological Defence. We have had Civil Defence exercises and operations. We have had Civil Resource mobilization exercises. We have Food Distribution and Rationing exercises. Last year, in two constituencies we practised giving out ration coupons and had the ration coupons redeemed for rice and sugar. There are other components as well. For example, fuel plans. How do you cook during war? There may not be enough LPG to last long. In any case, LPG cylinders are dangerous to have in buildings in war, because they can explode. There will not be town gas. We can have electricity, but the electricity can be cut off. So we may be reduced to cooking with kerosene stoves. In Singapore, how many housewives still know how to use kerosene stoves?”
“I was very cheered last year when I attended to a National Day Observance Ceremony at SBS. After the ceremony I was talking to one of the bus drivers. I asked him whether he participated in the open mobilization. He said, "No, my unit was not called." And he whispered to me, "Its code word is Towering Eagle." I said, "What?" He whispered to me again. So it had registered with him, and I am sure with his girl friend and with his family, that there was a code word. This is a serious matter - he remembers it and if he sees it flashed on the cinema screen, he will react straightaway. So that is where we are driving at. Civil resources are easier. Mobilizing people is much harder than mobilizing vehicles. We had our first exercise last weekend. You have seen the report, 97% of the vehicles reported in time. No major problems. We will have six more exercises this year. A major concern of Members, when the Requisition of Resources Bill was discussed in the House, was compensation, and whether owners would be paid quickly. Members will be happy to know that, in the case of the first exercise, we expect the total compensation, which comes to about $20,000, to be paid by next week. In other words, within a fortnight. Eventually, this too will move to no-notice exercises and open civil resource mobilization exercises. There will be code words for vehicles, just as we have code words for units. Total Defence, raised by the Member for Kebun Baru. I shall respond to his remarks concerning the economy later on in the debate. Today, let me just talk about the military and operational part of Total Defence.”
“MINDEF has to make every effort to solve the problem, ensure safety, and at the same time allow the Air Force to fly, and to fly safely. This is being done, and as much of the issue as it is in the public interest to make public, is being disclosed. The Member for Thomson asked about open mobilization. We have had two exercises, the first one in July, with 98% response. Perhaps it was a little easy, because we gave the exercise full publicity for weeks on end, and the date was known. Only the reservists did not know who were the only ones to be called up. As time goes on, we make it harder. The second exercise in November also collected a good response, more than 96%. There was limited publicity, but still the date was known. We are now conducting a third exercise. We are getting more ambitious. A third exercise will be conducted in the first half of April this year, in other words, in a few weeks. This time there will be no high key publicity, and no actual date will be announced. All that the public is being told is that it will take place sometime in the first half of April. It will involve Air Force and Navy units as well as Army units, also for the first time. Later on we will progress further: exercises with no notice whatsoever. These will be exercises in which you come back and be equipped with uniforms, weapons, vehicles, exercises in which you go out, deploy the troops and conduct live firing practices. There will be exercises to see whether you really can marshall your soldiers, not just bring them back but bring them back to do something. We must reach a stage where such open mobilization exercises are a routine aspect of reservist training and readiness. It must be a routine not only for the reservists but for the people of Singapore.”
“It is a role which must be conducted by the Navy in conjunction with the other Services, particularly the Air Force, especially aeroplanes such as the Hawkeye, which will provide surveillance and give an overall picture of the sea lanes; and also Fighter cover, because Fighters are effective platforms to be used against ships. Nevertheless there is a role for ships. The Navy's mission is a critical one. They need some ships to do it. We have six MGBs armed with Gabriel missiles. We are upgrading the missiles to Harpoons. You have seen it reported in the newspapers. It gives a longer range, better capability. At the same time, we are building six more MGBs to increase the strength of the Navy to conduct this mission. We believe this is a reasonable size for the Force, given the role which it has. We do not build armadas and destroyers and aircraft carriers for the thrill of seeing them sail past us. The Member for Geylang Serai asked us about air safety. It is a problem which preoccupies us. We have had a bad year. We have had a series of aeroplane crashes. In August last year I informed the House that our Skyhawks, the A-4s, were temporarily grounded because we were investigating the causes for a series of crashes. We think we have identified the cause. There was a specific problem with the engines, which are old, a specific problem that is now being rectified. It will take some time to do so. In the meanwhile we cannot completely stop flying. Especially cleared aircraft, which we believe to be safe, are allowed to fly. Unfortunately, despite the precautions taken, in March this year another Skyhawk crashed, for reasons so far unclear, but apparently unrelated to the engine.”
“It is not three services, each one competing for a share of the budget, each one saying, "I must have my fair share of the cake so that if you have aeroplanes, I must have ships. If he has tanks, I must have missiles." We do not operate such a system. Our force build-up must meet our operational needs. That means you must have a specific reason why you need that unit, that weapon, that group. Then you build them up to meet that function. The needs for the Air Force and for the Army are clear and obvious. You must have an army because you must be able to safeguard the integrity of the Republic of Singapore, the main island and our outlying islands. You must have an Air Force because you cannot afford to have hostile aeroplanes flying overhead of Singapore, dropping bombs on our population, in our housing estates. If we think one accident in one hotel is bad, to allow hostile aeroplanes to fly at liberty overhead and cause many such disasters simultaneously, is unthinkable. The Navy has two specific roles. The seaward defence of the Republic, that means making sure that any opponent who comes by sea will be met. Secondly, to maintain our sea lines of communications. We have spoken of how our exports are 1(r) times our GDP, how our trade is three times our GDP. All these travel by sea, in and out, also by air, but mostly by sea. If the sea lanes are not safeguarded, it is possible for an opponent who wishes us harm to choke us off without moving any soldiers, without using any aeroplanes. He can just cut off our trade, stifle our life line, and rub out. It is a fate which we cannot expose ourselves to.”
“In other words, before a person drives a tank, or a battalion of tanks, ten miles down the road for an exercise, he must ask himself, "How much is this going to cost? Wear and tear, maintenance, fuel, time, ammunition. Do I get value for the money which I am spending? Is it worth doing? Or can I train my men better in some other ways?" In order to focus this economy drive, MINDEF is establishing an Economy Drive Committee. We will be running a cost reduction campaign to drive home the message to everybody, the Colonels, the Majors, the Corporals, and the Privates, that it is their responsibility to make sure that every dollar counts. From the point of view of each individual's contribution, we are talking about productivity in their daily effort. In each thing they do, there should be what we call PRIDE - in productivity in daily effort. From the overall view of the organization, we are talking about the competence of the SAF as one fighting force, making sure that we spend the money in the right areas, making sure that we buy the correct equipment, and having bought the equipment, to maintain it, to see that it is in running order, to have the training to use it properly, to decline the doctrines to employ them to the greatest effect, and to have the intelligence to apply the devastating blow in war which will make our present investments pay off. So the software must be in place as well as the hardware. The software does not cost as much money as the hardware, but it is much more difficult to do. We will be concentrating especially on this in the years to come. The Member for Chong Boon asked about the Navy. This is an instance of making the right investment. The SAF is one fighting force.”
“And in training you make decisions which are just the same as operational ones. You have to have the absolute confidence that you can make the judgment correctly. You cannot afford always to have at the back of your mind the thought that, "If I do it wrong, will I be sued? Will the Government not back me? Should I have to appear in court?" That is the reason why the law stands as it is. Let me move on to the other issues raised by the other Members. The Member for Pasir Panjang and also the Member for Serangoon Gardens have asked about the Defence budget, and whether we have enough money to spend under these reduced circumstances. They have pointed out that the environment remains uncertain and that in a recession our needs for national security do not go down. They are absolutely correct. When an economy does poorly, the first temptation always is to cut defence expenditure, because it is large and the returns are not obvious. It is a temptation which must be resisted, because if we do not spend the money on Defence, then everything else will be put into jeopardy. And it will be in vain that you spend money on investments, on promoting industries, on salaries, whatever. That is the reason why we have maintained the Defence budget at 6% of the GDP even this year. It is a smaller estimated GDP, but the share remains. 4.45 pm With a reduced budget like this, we must make every dollar count. That is the Ministry's responsibility, the SAF's responsibility. And the priority must always be the operational readiness of the troops, not frills. We must control our operational costs tightly, our manpower costs tightly.”
“Settled! BG Lee Hsien Loong: And the Coroner's inquiry will in due course take place. As for the Government Proceedings Act and why the Government cannot be sued, we do not follow British precedent blindly. We follow it when there are good reasons to do so. Why can you not sue the State in case a serviceman dies in training or in action? The reason as given by the British is that in this case, the State is fundamentally different from a private citizen, and therefore cannot be treated on the same standing. I will quote here from a submission in the House of Lords in 1947, when the Crown Proceedings Bill was introduced in Britain and it applies to us. 'The private citizen does not have the same kind of responsibility as the Crown for protecting the public. He does not have the care of public safety. He does not have the defence of the Realm to consider. In these matters, the functions of the Crown involve duties and responsibilities which no subject is required to undertake and these distinctions are inevitably, necessarily and properly reflected by various provisions in the Bill.' In other words, that is the reason why you cannot sue the Government under such cases. And to be able to sue the Government under such cases would be destructive to the morale, discipline and efficiency of the service. We concur with these views and we have adopted the same practice. Mr Jeyaretnam: And cover up evidence. BG Lee Hsien Loong: An alternative could be to sue an individual instead of the Crown under such circumstances, namely, the officer involved who gave the order. However, this is also not allowed, for a specific reason, namely, that if we propose to do so, any officer or soldier who is making an operational decision, is placed in a difficult position.”
“Were the findings disclosed? BG Lee Hsien Loong: The findings have been settled.”
“Boards of inquiry! BG Lee Hsien Loong: As for the casualty in Pasir Laba Camp, I am not sure which casualty the Member for Anson is referring to. I remember a discussion in this House about a year ago which the Member raised. So far as I recall, the case did not happen in Pasir Laba Camp. It happened in Khatib Camp. I understand that in that case, the Committee of Inquiry has been held and the family of the deceased soldier was present.”
“Boards of Inquiry, not Commission of Inquiry! BG Lee Hsien Loong: I was referring to a Committee of Inquiry as well as the Coroner's court.”
“Yes, I have, Sir. I am saying it is important that people should be told everything.”
“I was told, "Imagine, if this was allowed, what would have happened in the Falklands War?" And I said, "For goodness sake, we are not fighting the Falklands War here." Sir, there was the pilot of a Skyhawk who was killed. What compensation did the family receive? He was a highly educated personal and if they were only limited to the pensions payable under the Armed Forces Act, it would have been about a quarter or a third of what they would have recovered, provided of course it is shown that the death came about through negligence in the maintenance of the plane or some other negligence on the part of the Air Force. My question is: is it not time that we did away with all these obsolete practices? I say they are obsolete and they have no place in a society where the Government is accountable to the people. We should do away with these obsolete practices and disclose to the public all the details of any accidents to soldiers, sailors, pilots or any deaths that occur in the Armed Forces. We keep talking about the necessity to involve our people in the total defence of this country. Yes, I agree. But you are only going to get total defence, you are only going to get a willing participation by everybody if our citizens know that whatever happens, they will be told the full details, the full story, surrounding anything that goes on in the Armed Forces.”
“So I would like to know from the Minister or whoever is replying on the reasons why findings of Boards of Inquiry are not made public and my plea is that they should be made public. We should be told the whole truth and nothing but the truth. My next amendment, Mr Speaker, Sir, is: 'That the sum to be allocated for Head K be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead KA-00 of the Main Estimates.' This is somewhat allied to my first amendment and that is the question of adequate compensation. I know I have spoken on this before. But nothing has been done and so I consider it necessary to speak again on this matter. There is a provision in the Government Proceedings Act which prevents anybody or the dependants of someone who has died from bringing any action against the Army (the Government), in respect of any injury or death. There is a blanket ban on this. I questioned this sometime ago and I was told that this was also the practice in Britain. Well, I ask again. It does not follow that all British practices are good. I said then that if the victims or the dependants of the deceased victims brought proceedings in court and the Ministry, the Armed Forces, are shown to be negligent, then the compensation that would be awarded would be much more than they would get under the pensions provided for in the Armed Forces Act. I ask, why should the families of soldiers, pilots, sailors, be discriminated against when other ordinary citizens can recover the full amount of damages and compensation in respect of any injuries or death occurring outside the Armed Forces? If anyone gets run over on the road, he can bring an action and recover the full amount of damages. Why should soldiers be put under this disability?”
“I do not know whether it has been made known to the family. I do not know what is the need for secrecy. How is the safety of Singapore jeopardized? How is it detrimental to the security and safety of Singapore if the public are told of the circumstances in which a soldier was injured whilst under training? Or of why a plane crashed? I am sorry I have to keep repeating, or I seem to be repeating, but one of the cornerstones of parliamentary government is accountability, accounting to the public for everything that takes place. So why are these findings of the board of inquiry not made known? We want to know why these planes crashed from time to time, the Skyhawks? Is it because they are obsolete planes, which should not have been bought? Or whether there was something wrong with their maintenance; whether there was any negligence? I shall be talking about the liability of the Government when I come on to the next amendment. But the point is that the public have a right to know. Parents send their sons to national service for training and they are very willing to do so. They would like to know all the details of any accidents or deaths that occur in the Army. So my question is, will the Government or will the Ministry now disclose or agree that the findings of the Boards of Inquiry into any accident in the Army will be made public? I know of no good reason why it should not be made public. I do not know how that is going to be useful to the enemy. Unless, of course, somebody had been negligent and the Government does not wish it to be brought before the people, the negligence of somebody in the Army or the Ministry.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two amendments on this. May I speak first on the first amendment and then move on to the second amendment? Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid my amendments are not going to feature on seeking assurances from the Minister about the safety of our country. I am sure there is no immediate danger of that. I am going to ask about the secrecy surrounding a number of things in the Army. So may I move, first of all, That the sum to be allocated for Head K be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead KA-02 of the Main Estimates. Mr Speaker, Sir, from time to time we read about plane crashes. From time to time we read about deaths in the Army. From time to time we read about soldiers having suffered injuries whilst under training. There is very little said about it in the papers. And then we are told that there will be a board of inquiry appointed to inquire into the accident or the calamity that has befallen the soldier. And then we do not hear anything more about it. I have at one time asked the Ministry - I think it was during Question Time - whether the findings of the inquiry boards will be made public, will be revealed. The answer was that this is not done in Britain. I see that when it suits the Government, it follows the British practice. When it does not suit the Government, it tries to deride the British practice. Mr Speaker, Sir, sometime ago - was it last year, or the year before - there was a man who died at Pasir Laba Camp. I asked questions about it because the family had come to see me. They had been given conflicting reports, and there were also some questions as to the conflicting information given about the time of the death or the accident itself. And I asked whether the proceedings, the findings of the board, will be made known to the family.”
“I claim a Division, Sir. The Committee divided: Ayes, 2; Noes, 69; Abstention,1. Ayes Noes (cont.) Chiam See Tong Goh Chok Tong Jeyaretnam, J.B. Goh Choon Kang Heng Chiang Meng Noes Ho Kah Leong Abbas Abu Amin Ho Tat Kin Abdullah Tarmugi Hu Tsu Tau Ahmad Mattar Ibrahim Othman Ang Kok Peng Jayakumar, S. Barker, E.W. Jek Yeun Thong Beng Kian Lam, Arthur Koh Lam Son Chandra Das, S. Koh Lip Lin Bernard Chen Lai Tha Chai Cheong Yuen Chee, Eric Lau Ping Sum Chew Heng Ching Lau Teik Soon Chin Harn Tong Lee Boon Yang Chng Hee Kok Lee Hsien Loong Ch'ng Jit Koon Lee Kuan Yew Chua Sian Chin Lee Yiok Seng Dhanabalan, S. Lee Yock Suan Goh Chee Wee Leong Horn Kee Lim Boon Heng Noes Noes (cont.) Lim Chee Onn Vasoo, S. Ng Kah Ting Wan Hussin bin Haji Zoorhi Ong Teng Cheong Wan Soon Bee Othman bin Haron Eusofe Wong, Aline K. Ow Chin Hock Wong Kan Seng Phua Bah Lee Wong Kwei Cheong Rajaratnam, S. Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Sia Khoon Seong Yatiman Yusof Sidek bin Saniff Yeo Cheow Tong Tan Cheng Bok Yeo Choo Kok Tan, Dixie Yeo Ning Hong Tan, Augustine H.H. Yeo Toon Chia Tan Keng Yam, Tony Yu-Foo Yee Shoon Tan Soo Khoon Zulkifli bin Mohammed Tan Tee Yong, Philip Tang Guan Seng Abstention Teh Cheang Wan Teo Chong Tee Yeoh Ghim Seng Amendment accordingly negatived. The sum of $10,208,140 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. Head K -”
“I am afraid I have to have the last word. I am the mover of this amendment. The Prime Minister is hedging and hedging and hedging. I am sorry. With an air of bravado, he said, "You tell me what percentage should it be cut by?" And I am telling him 25%, and he refuses to move it. Well, the public will see it. I ask for a division, Sir. 4.00 pm Question put, "That the sum to be allocated for Head U be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead UA-01 Object Group 1100 of the Main Estimates."”
“Forget about rescue. You throw a challenge and you say, "Well, what do you suggest? And I will move it." Well, I am responding. I am saying 25%. Now, will you move it?”
“Didn't I hear the Prime Minister say it?”
“The Prime Minister said he will move it.”
“No. I propose in this House 25% of all allowances. Will the Prime Minister move that?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister has asked the Member for Potong Pasir what does he suggest.”
“I have nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to be embarrassed about. But I am amazed that the Prime Minister can stand here and make monstrous allegations. Should he not be referred to the Committee of Privileges? [Laughter] Yes, everybody will laugh, ha! ha! ha! Because there are 76 who will say, "Baa, baa, black sheep; yes, Sir, yes, Sir, three bags full." We are getting sick and tired of this "three bags full; yes, Sir, yes, Sir." So, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not withdrawing the amendment. I ask for a division.”
“If you know the outcome of this appeal to the Court of Appeal, then I will have to decide. That is what you said, that you know the outcome of the appeal. He should know that that very charge is under appeal to the High Court because we were acquitted in January 1984. A retrial was ordered and we were convicted, not for falsifying accounts, but of a different charge under section 199 of the Penal Code. And that is under appeal. So if the Prime Minister knows anything about parliamentary etiquette, he should not have mentioned it.”
“Finally, we have it from the Prime Minister that in his view, there will be no reduction in Ministers' salaries. If he had his way, it should be increased. Well, so be it. This is what I wanted to know. The people will judge and they are quite astute enough to make their judgments. And now we have it. Before I sit down, Mr Speaker, may I just answer one allegation. He keeps saying that I make wild allegations. He makes monstrous allegations. He said that I was convicted of falsifying accounts. Nothing is further from the truth. Has he read the charge? The charge is that we made a declaration, not that we falsified accounts, believing something to be true which was not true, not quite true. That is the charge. The charge is not one of falsifying accounts. There is a world of difference. In any case, the Prime Minister should know. He has just told us that he knows what the outcome of my appeal against the First Deputy Prime Minister will be.”
“If that is your answer, so be it. Let the public know that. Now we know it. Now, coming to the Second Deputy Prime Minister, we understand from the Prime Minister that he is paid $26,000 to carry the trade unions with the Government, to convince them of the rightness of the Government's policies. So we have it now from the Prime Minister that one of the posts in the Cabinet really is NTUC Secretary-General. And that is why he is paid out of public monies to be NTUC Secretary-General. Now we have it. He has made it very clear to us and to the public, that he (Second Deputy Prime Minister) is paid $26,000 so that he can carry the trade unions for the Government. Then we have the Political Secretaries. I think the Prime Minister misses the point. We have political appointments and we have civil service permanent appointments, and both are paid out of the Consolidated Fund. Civil service appointments are in the Establishment and they are created in the civil service. Political appointments come from the Constitution. He still has not told me where it is in the Constitution. He says, "My two Ministers advise me. It is perfectly all right. The Attorney-General advises me that it is perfectly all right." It does not follow from that that it is constitutional. But the more important thing is this, that he is paid out of public funds something which you say he is doing to keep the Government in office. Well, that is a wrong use of public funds. It is perfectly in order if the People's Action Party pays him. It is perfectly in order if somebody else pays him. It is wrong to pay somebody out of public funds so that he helps to keep the Government in office without actually doing any work in the Government itself, either as a political appointee or not.”