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 41 of 82.
“It should have been specified in the Bill that it did not affect proceedings brought before that.”
“The truthful answer is that I did not have the funds to put up the security. I am not ashamed to admit that. The Prime Minister: So a Party with $14.90 in the bank issues a writ, and if it loses it has only got $14.90 to lose. But when it was asked to back its writ with a cost of what it would be to the other side, the Member for Anson -”
“If you want to know, Mr Prime Minister -”
“Yes, you laugh. It is a matter for laughing for you. The Party is unable to lodge the security and the High Court then says, "Well, you are unable to lodge the security, you cannot proceed." That is the simple truth about it. You asked: why does he not put up the security?”
“Sir, we are straying. The Prime Minister, very deftly, is straying away from the subject. We brought an action against the Senior Minister. No, he was the supernumerary Foreign Minister in those days. The Foreign Minister could not be trusted to do the job himself, so he has had to have a supernumerary Foreign Minister to oversee the Foreign Minister. We brought an action against this supernumerary Foreign Minister for defamatory words uttered by him. The Party brought it. And something which is unheard of in other countries, a writ is commenced, a Bill is introduced in Parliament to affect proceedings which are already commenced in court retroactively, requiring the Party to lodge a security and the Party was unable to lodge the security.”
“Sir, I am glad he brought this up. I am very glad. Does the Prime Minister know why that action aginst the Senior Minister was dismissed? Does he know? Not on merits. Would he tell us if he knows why it was dismissed? The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not worried why it was dismissed. All I know was we passed in this House an amendment which says that any political party that issues writs will be held, not only as a party responsible for those writs because the party can be made bankrupt, as he has made his Party bankrupt, but that the central committee members of that party who are not bankrupt can then be attached for costs. And if he had conviction, as the Secretary-General of the Workers' Party, he was doing right for his party and not making it further into debt, he would have carried on and staked his personal bank account against the writ. But he did not. Why did he not?”
“Sir, the Prime Minister says, "Take it to the courts." May I ask him, if he is really earnest about all this, would he ask the Attorney-General to present an originating motion in the High Court for the determination of this question in the public interest and then I will argue it contra?”
“The legal authority, for the third time, is the Constitution. All political appointments must find a place in the Constitution, and I am asking the Prime Minister where is the provision in the Constitution for the appointment of a Political Secretary. It is no good saying that it is not an office of profit. It is not that and this. Their pay is being charged to the Consolidated Revenue and it is put under a political appointment. It is as simple as that. The taxpayer is asked to pay for this appointment of a Political Secretary and I say every political appointment must be spelt out in the Constitution.”
“Sir, I have asked the Prime Minister about Political Secretary appointments.”
“Yes. The Prime Minister: Say so. Bring your evidence.”
“Let us spend the whole afternoon on this.”
“The Constitution is the authority for political appointments.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, these are supposed to be political appointments. Does not the Prime Minister recognize the distinction between political appointments and other appointments? Of course, he can appoint his Private Secretaries, he can appoint anybody he likes. But these are political appointments.”
“The constitutional basis is the Constitution itself, Mr Prime Minister. If you like, I will get you a copy of the Constitution now, and you tell us where in that Constitution is there a provision for the appointment of a Political Secretary? Do not point me to the definition section. Point to me the substantive provision in the Constitution which says that the Prime Minister or the President shall appoint a Political Secretary.”
“Is the Prime Minister not aware that this same point was raised in the 1960s by a man who is now a High Court Judge, who said that he did not see any provision in the Constitution for the appointment of a Political Secretary?”
“That was made in 1966 as well by a present High Court Judge.”
“The Privy Council did not go into that. Bring the Judgment out.”
“You have got the judgment. You read it. Circulate it so that everybody gets a copy of it.”
“- by way of clarification, now that we have got the whole day. Does he know of the grounds on which the Privy Council have refused me special leave to petition? Does he know? It is all because of his law that he passed in Singapore, the Statute. The Privy Council held that under the Statute, the statutory provision, there was no further appeal from the High Court. How does that prove that I was wrong?”
“But I asked for the correct figures and you hide them.”
“We will see whether you will win the next one.”
“May we know what the Senior Minister is doing in your Office? What is the Second Deputy Prime Minister doing?”
“Will you answer the questions without giving us a history? An hon. Member: Sit down!”
“I can see what the Prime Minister's game is. We have only got 10 more minutes and he does not propose to answer my questions which are directed at him. So may we, Mr Prime Minister, because this is my motion for an amendment, have answers to my questions because we only have got 10 minutes more?”
“Would the Prime Minister reply to the question of the over-supply of Ministers, particularly in his Office, the Prime Minister's Office, where we have three full Cabinet Ministers and two Ministers of State? Why is it necessary that he should have two Ministers in his Office? What are they doing? Would he please answer that and also answer the question about the salaries?”
“I can see clearly the need or the possibility of merging Ministries together, so that one Minister could be put in charge of both. The Ministries that come to my mind are Health and Environment. You can put them together. The question is, quite apart from whether the Ministries should not -”
“No. But I think there are too many Ministries for a place like ours, with a population like ours. We could cut down on the number of Ministries.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, sometime ago, I tabled a question asking for the pensions and the gratuities that were paid to Ministers who gave up office. I was told, "We won't give you this. You can work it out yourself because they are all matters of public record." Well, we have worked it out and we have now published in the Hammer what gratuities Ministers retired at the end of 1984 were paid and what pensions they are drawing. Two Ministers should have received gratuities of well over $1 million and their pensions are about $15,000-$16,000 a month. It may be argued that, in the private sector, they might have been much better off. That is a hypothetical question. The public must be told why these pensions and gratuities are not adequate enough, and why there is a need to maintain these high salaries for Singapore Ministers and Ministers of State.”
“Last year, the Prime Minister wanted a full debate on this and so, notwithstanding the time that was allotted by you, we had, I think, a whole afternoon debating this. I then said that it was my view that the Ministers in Singapore are grossly overpaid when one considers the salaries of Ministers in other Commonwealth countries. I gathered from the arguments put forward by the Prime Minister (and I see it was supported yesterday by the Member for Whampoa) that unless you pay the Ministers what you are paying them now, they will be putting their hands into the till, so to speak. So to keep them free from corruption, we will have to pay them adequately. May I say that I find that answer or that reason most unconvincing. In the first place, it is not flattering to our Ministers that if they were not paid the sums they would resort to corruption. I am sure that cannot be applied to all the Ministers or to any of the Ministers. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has only recently imposed a 15% wage cut on our workers. I said this yesterday. The 15% reduction in the employer's contribution amounts to a 15% reduction in the wages of the workers. Well, what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander! Last year, I said that it would be worthy of Ministers if they set an example. Now, this year, the need becomes far more urgent. The Government has, as I said, forced a reduction on the wages of the workers. May I assure the Prime Minister that the public are waiting to know what is the response from his Ministers and from himself? I think they are entitled to ask this and they demand an answer. It was said last year that the Ministers were making a sacrifice, that they lose by coming into the political arena, into the service.”
“Last year, I said that the appointment of Political Secretary was ultra vires the Constitution. The First Deputy Prime Minister, aided by the Minister for Home Affairs, tried to argue that it was within the Constitution. May I say that nobody is convinced by those arguments. All they could rely on was a definition section. Perhaps the Prime Minister could tell us where in the Constitution does it provide for the appointment of a Political Secretary. That is one. The other thing is that they would also like to know what duties are these Political Secretaries discharging? We know the one in his Office also holds an Office in the NTUC. Is he being paid for work in the NTUC, or is he being paid for his work in the Prime Minister's Office? May we know what they are doing? There is, of course, the other man, another Political Secretary, who I believe is working in a company, the Singapore Press Holdings. So may we have from the Prime Minister this morning the responsibilities discharged, particularly by the Senior Minister and the Second Deputy Prime Minister? Will he also let us know about the responsibilities discharged by the other Senior Minister of State and Minister of State? They are not paid a pittance and, at this time of the recession with the need to try and cut down on our operating expenditure, I think the public are entitled to an answer. If I may now move on to the other amendment that I have and which concerns the whole of the Head U. Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head U of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, here I am renewing my call for a reduction in the pay of the Ministers, Cabinet Ministers and Ministers of State.”
“Now, if I may move on to the Prime Minister's Office, particularly the political appointments. What do we find besides the Prime Minister there? We have two other Ministers - Senior Minister, Second Deputy Prime Minister. Then we have a Senior Minister of State, a Minister of State, a Senior Parliamentary Secretary, a Parliamentary Secretary, and a Political Secretary. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the people of Singapore would like to know exactly what responsibilities are discharged by the various holders of these posts. I am particularly referring to the post of the Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Office and to the Second Deputy Prime Minister. (I notice that the Second Deputy Prime Minister is here but not the Senior Minister). Sir, quite seriously, I was asked by a member of the public whether I would propose that the case of these two appointments be referred to the National Productivity Board to determine and to report to the people on their productivity. It is not a meagre sum that they are paid. What is it? $23,000-$24,000 a month. I assure the Prime Minister that it is not just me, but the public would like to know exactly what responsibilities are discharged by the Senior Minister in his Office and by the Second Deputy Prime Minister. We know the Second Deputy Prime Minister is also the Secretary-General of the NTUC. Is he being paid to discharge his office as Secretary-General of the NTUC? Or is he being paid for his work in the Prime Minister's Office? The public are anxious to know this. I have not the time to dwell on every other appointment but there is the appointment of the Political Secretary. I asked this last year and the Prime Minister was not here to answer it. But I am glad to see that he is here and perhaps he can enlighten us.”
“I know, Sir. Well, I was very upset that you have curtailed the times. I can understand your difficulties. But I think something must be done, such as amending Standing Orders, to enable a very full discussion of the Supply Estimates. Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, may I move, 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. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Object Group deals with political appointments in the particular Office of the Prime Minister. But the Prime Minister's Office is also responsible for the overall policy direction for all Ministries and for the Government, of course. So I wish to dwell on the number of political appointments in the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, quite recently the public were told that there was a need to restrict posts in the private sector and the public sector and a need for restraint. Nothwithstanding those calls to the private sector and to the public sector, the people of Singapore were informed that two Minister of State would be promoted to the rank of Acting Minister to the Cabinet. This would appear to run counter to the Government's call that at this time there should be some restraint in the number of new posts that are created or filled. Mr Speaker, Sir, one cannot help the feeling that in Singapore perhaps we have too much of over-ruling of us. One wonders whether it is really necessary that a country like Singapore with a population of 2.5 million should have the number of Ministers, the number of Ministers of State, the number of Parliamentary Secretaries, the number of Political Secretaries that Singapore has. It seems to me, Sir, that it is top heavy, and perhaps an attempt should be made to prune this and to pass the savings on to the people.”
“I see that we have got until 12.20 pm, Sir. The Chairman: That includes the reply.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two amendments as you may notice. Is it your pleasure that I take them together, one after the other?”
“Should not the people be told what they are getting on their reserves? Does the Minister realize that it is a weak answer to say "it is the practice". The practice may be all wrong. And if it is wrong, does he not realize it should be discontinued?”
“- should they not be told what the returns are? This is my supplementary question.”
“I think that if the reserves belong to the people -”
“Would the Minister explain what is the reason for not disclosing the returns?”
“May I ask a supplementary question? I see that part of the Ayer Rajah Expressway is going through my Constituency. Since there are blocks of flats there, has any attempt been made to find out the views of the residents, before it was decided to put a highway between those blocks?”
“Sir, will the Minister tell us how many persons who purchased flats have now applied to return their flats to the HDB because they are unable to continue with their instalment payments?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister, by way of a supplementary question, whether the Ministry would consider a downward revision of the parking fees paid in housing estates? If his answer is that he will not consider, would he tell us why not?”
“But we have not got every one saying "Aye."”
“What do you do in the meantime? Mr Tang Guan Seng( In Mandarin): If the Member had been here at the earlier sitting, or had read the newspaper report, then he would have known my answer. But it is a pity that he was not here last time and did not read the report. I do not want to waste my time here with you repeating what I have already said. Now, the more important task now is how to strengthen the Government's relationship with the people. I feel that whenever there are changes, the people find it difficult to adapt. This is only natural. The people generally find it difficult to adapt to new situations. Therefore we must give them adequate time to enable them to understand the true nature of our policy and the situation and not allow those with ulterior motives to confuse the people and fish in troubled waters, I am referring particularly to the Opposition Members. Therefore, before any change is to take place or any policy is to be implemented - there will be more of such happenings - there is the need for ample explanation to be given. If we do so, I believe we will then be able to overcome our present difficulties and problems.”
“So will you please, I say to this Government, take into account the sufferings of the lower paid, the workers, in our community? I wish to end by repeating what I said earlier, and I stand by it, that this recession is due solely to the economic mismanagement by the Government, whatever they may say. It is not any fault of the workers. 3.01 pm”
“Then, Mr Speaker, Sir, finally, about the proposed trimming of the civil service. There is considerable anxiety and some Members have mentioned that in this House. I was asked about it in our rally on Saturday. I understood the Minister to say that there should be no need for any retrenchment. It will be by normal attrition, not replacing people. I would ask the Minister to make a solemn assurance in Parliament in his reply that there will be no retrenchment. Particularly we are concerned with Division 3 and Division 4 workers. We were given a table yesterday which showed that whilst the Government was reducing Division 3 and Division 4, it was increasing the manpower in Division 1 and Division 2. So may we have an assurance from the Minister for Finance that the Government will not retrench. We had the case of the 112 PWD workers who were thrown out. In spite of what the Acting Minister for Labour had said about them signing to the effect that they did not want alternative jobs, the fact remains, according to the report in the papers, that the Ministry of Labour, statutory boards, and all the Government departments, were not able to find any jobs for them, for several months. Is it for that reason that the Ministry got them to sign saying that they did not want alternative employment? Mr Speaker, Sir, it is almost one hour. I would ask this Government now to consider the social implications, as has been said by several people. You do not just consider economic measures in their isolation. You have got to consider every measure in its effect on the community as a whole. You do not just consider one section of the community. You have got to take the whole of the community, and the workers are part of this community. They are the majority in this community.”
“I would like to know from the Minister whether that that is true, whether they are no longer valid. They have all completely vanished into thin air. Or was he not talking reasonably --”
“3 million. Good. Then what are we going to do? Are we going to introduce a system of refund for the tourists who make purchases here? Otherwise we are going to lose them buying things here. This refund is, of course, made in other developed countries. Mention has been made of it. So what are we going to be left with? Half the tax sent back, after collecting it. So is it worth the candle? Setting up this administrative machinery and the cost, and then sending half back. What are we going to be left with? I ask the Government to think very carefully about this. Not just for the reasons that have been given about administrative difficulties. The Minister for Finance acknowledges it is cumbersome, unwieldy. But for the one reason which should commend itself to this Government, that it discriminates against the lower income group. He is going to tell them, "You cannot buy these goods. They are not for you. We keep all these goods for people who are earning higher salaries." That is what it will do. Now, about the corporate tax. I was amused and I think reference has been made by the Member for Queenstown when he spoke (was it in the Presidential Address Debate) about the comments made by the then Minister for Finance in the Budget debate last year in 1985. Mr Speaker, Sir, time does not permit me to read what he had to say in the 1985 Budget debate. But there was the then Minister for Finance arguing the case for not reducing corporate tax. His answer was that there were already enough concessions given to companies. He said we should see how these concessions would work out, what effect they would have before we rushed in to produce corporate tax. It is all there. Then now it would appear that all the reasons that he gave, only 12 months ago, are no longer valid.”
“So, Mr Speaker, Sir, let us not try and pretend that our structure of tax is equitable. It is not equitable. It places a heavier burden on the lower income group. People who most need the money and who cannot afford to pay taxes. I have been asking for this year after year and the Minister says all he got to do is to repeat wht he said, and that is, the rich pay more tax in the end. But of course they have to. That is not a fair comparison. A man with a million dollars, of course, will be paying more tax. May I move on to the consumption tax, Mr Speaker, Sir. I am racing against time, Mr Speaker, Sir. I do not want to repeat what has already been said about this. It is again wholly discriminatory against the lower income group. There are no two ways about this tax. It is no good for the First Deputy Prime Minister (I see he has just walked in) to say, "We will be selective." The point is this. How selective can you be? If you narrow it too much, then you are not going to get the tax. And the Government says it wants the tax because it is losing the revenue from the corporate tax and income tax. So it has got to find another source of revenue. So you cannot be too selective, otherwise the whole object of it is lost. So what do you do? You have got to have a broad base of goods. And who is hit? Not the man who is earning $6,000 a month. It is the man who is earning $600 a month who will not be able to buy what he needs because he says, "It is going to cost me. I have got to pay tax on this now." This is why I say this tax will depress demand further. And it is completely discriminatory. Mr Speaker, Sir, mention has been made about its effect on tourists. Let me just say one thing about this, and that is, our population is only about 2.5 million and tourists 2 million.”
“So it is $10 saving for every $1,000 for a man with a chargeable income of $3,000, but a man with a chargeable income of $400,000 gets a saving of $21,000, $54 per $1,000. Can he not see how inequitous the whole thing is? How unfair it is on the workers? Then if you go higher up the scale to somebody with a chargeable or taxable income of $750,000, he is given a saving of $57 per $1,000; both five times what the worker gets.”
“Because they will tell him that the HDB is making a profit. And they try to hide that because of imputed cost of the land. That, in my submission, is dishonest, Mr Speaker, Sir, because we know that these lands were acquired at a pittance. And if anybody is subsidizing, it is the landowners from whom the lands were acquired. So let us not talk about HDB not being able to afford it. Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may move on to income tax. I share the view that was expressed by the Member for Rochore that the measure is regressive. It is discriminatory against the lower paid. I see from this discussion that was called by the Straits Times that that view was also taken not by an economist but by an accountant, and he said he would like to have seen the Government increase the personal relief from $3,000 to $5,000. Of course he had in mind the relief that is given in Malaysia. But I have mentioned this. In Malaysia the relief for a husband and wife is $7,000, and it has been given. We can only afford to give them $4,000 relief ($3,000 plus $1,000 for the wife). Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not going to give percentages but I will show you how inequitable the whole thing is by showing the amount that would be saved by various categories of people. Let us take the case of a person with a taxable income of just $3,000 (ie, $7,000 income and his reliefs are $4,000, then his taxable income is $3,000). With the variation in the rate for next year down from 4% to 3.5%, all he saves is $10 per $1,000. That is all the saving he is given. This is after you allow the full rebate of 15%. If you take the case of a person with a chargeable income of $400,000, what does he get after you apply the new rate? He gets $54 per $1,000.”