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 42 of 82.
“I was listening to the BBC about food prices being increased in Poland, and along with it there came a government assurance that the poorer section of the community would be enabled by subsidies or relief payments to afford the food stuffs for which prices had been raised. There you have a government which is sensible, which is sensitive to the responsibilities to its community. We cannot just think of economic measures. We have got to think of the social consequences. Whilst talking about social consequences, may I say that unemployment also has social effects. We read, was it last week, about a statement that in Malaysia crime is on the increase because of the unemployment that has gone up. And we know about riots in the inner cities in the United Kingdom because of growing unemployment. Do we want all that in this place? The other thing, of course, is for the HDB to reduce its prices for the flats. I have not got very much time, Mr Speaker, Sir, but I have been saying since 1982 that the HDB is making profits, regardless of what the Minister for National Development says. Nobody believes him. We know that the construction costs are lower than the sale prices. And we know, now that it is conceded today, that prices of building materials have dropped. So I say that the HDB should, if the Government is not going to find the money, immediately slash prices of HDB flats and reduce the amount due from people who bought them and absorb any losses, if there are any losses. But I am saying that there will be no losses. I have suggested to the Minister twice that he should submit this question as to whether the HDB is making a profit or not to an independent body of quantity surveyors and architects. But he does not want to. Why? The answer is plain.”
“But the Government gaily decides to cut the worker's pay by these amounts, and I say it is the harshest cut. It is the most unkindest cut we have had from the Government after statements last year, "We will not touch CPF. It's worker's monies. It's worker's monies." All that have gone into thin air, all those pronouncements. We, of course, in the August 1985 National Rally did suggest that we wanted a 5% cut in the employee's contribution so that he could have a bit more. And to compensate the employer, we said, "He can have another 5% as well. He can also have a 5% cut." But we said that something must be done to see that the worker is enabled to pay. How is the Government going to do this? How is it going to help the worker to meet his instalments? Or is it saying, "Well, you default. HDB will recover your property. Good luck to you." I am saying to this Government that you are breaking faith. You are breaking faith with people who you persuaded to buy HDB apartments on the assurance that the CPF savings will see them through these payments. This is not the first time that this Government has broken faith with the workers. But this is a blatant breach of faith on the part of the Government. There are two things that can be done, ie, for the Government to absorb the excess, either by reducing the interest that is to be paid or by making a subsidy to the workers. And we are concerned, as I said in the National Day rally, with workers earning $1,000 and below. So the Government can absorb that if it thinks this cut is necessary for the economic recovery.”
“Member for Clementi, thank you. It must be that you look very much like the Member for Clementi! Mr Speaker, Sir, these two tables relate to a worker earning $500 per month with a loan of $30,000 and to a worker earning $1,000 per month with a loan of $50,000 to the HDB. Sir, you will see that as a result of this wage cut of 15%, the worker is left considerably worse off than he was before the 1st April 1986. With a payment schedule over 20 years, he is $47 the poorer every month. This is at the final column or paragraph. If you spread it over 25 years, then he is $25 the poorer every month. And we have glib statements from the Minister for National Development saying, "Oh, we are making it very easy. We are going to extend repayments." What is lost sight of, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that if you extend the repayments over 25 years, the poor man ends up paying much more, a lot more than he would be paying if he repaid the loan in 20 years. So there you have it. A worker earning $500 per month is poorer by $47 a month if he has to repay within 20 years because he has to meet from his take-home pay the balance required on his house instalment. And if it is 25 years, he is $25 poorer a month. If we come to the situation of an employee earning $1,000 per month with a loan of $50,000, what do we find? We find that he is poorer by $67 every month as a result of this wage cut of 15%. And that is if the loan repayment is spread over 20 years. If it is spread over 25 years, then he is poorer by $30.50 a month. And this at a time when the Government says there should be no increases in the pay, there should be wage restraint, there should be no half-month incentive for workers and a lot of other things.”
“Well, all right. Please sit down. I am sorry. I thought you said it.”
“You said that Opposition Members must be careful about statistics. Remember, about statistics?”
“May I start straightaway with the 15% cut in the CPF contributions paid by employers. I would not, of course, share the view of the Member for Rochore that it is a tax. Of course, it is part of the employee's wages and it is a 15% cut in his wages after the 1st of April this year. And to think that last year, Ministers and Members of the Government were saying, "There'll be no cut. It is part of the worker's wages. We cannot touch CPF." And now a complete somersault on the part of the Government, all because businessmen have demanded it. Well, perhaps it may be necessary to cut costs. But we have got to do something about the problem that is created as a result of this reduction of 15% in the employee's wages. Mr Speaker, Sir, there have been glib statements in this House that the take-home pay of the worker will not be affected. That ignores abysmally the realities of the situation and the problems faced by the worker who has home instalments to discharge. Sir, I am aware of the caveat entered by the Member for Mountbatten about tables and statistics. But with your permission, I propose to circulate the tables that I have prepared and given to the Clerk. [Copies of tables circulated to Members.]”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I leave the question of unemployment and I cannot spend too much time on it as I have other things to bring up, I wish to refer to the suggestion made by the Member for Tampines when he spoke yesterday about the setting up of a committee to inquire into the whole problem of unemployment. I was going to do this in my speech on the Presidential Address but I did not have the time and now I certainly would like to support the call for an all-party committee to be set up to look into the whole question of the unemployment problem, as to whether the unemployed can be found alternative employment, what can be done to stop indiscriminate retrenchments by employers and, of course, the whole question of relief. I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it must be an all-party committee. Let us not be partisan about things any more. Let us realize that the Opposition have a place in the politics of this country. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, on this, it is not as though we do not have the money to give any unemployment relief. I hope I am not going to be told that. I said that we have got enough money and to spare. So let us give help where it is due, where it is needed. It would be, in my view, a complete callous indifference to the plight of a section of our community who through no fault of their own have been brought to these dire straits, of not being able to meet their expenses of living, not to mention the education of their children. So I hope we will have some sensible and reasonable response from the Government to this problem which, I say, finds no mention whatsoever in the Budget statement. And I am very disappointed about that. If I may move on, Mr Speaker, Sir, to some of the specific measures which have been taken for the economic recovery.”
“" I want to know from the Minister what measures the Government proposes to take for those who are unemployed and who are unable to get jobs over a period of six months, nine months, one year. It is no good pretending (I tell this Government that people have been unemployed) that people have not been unemployed for six months, nine months. I know of several cases. I see that in a panel discussion, the managing director of a bank from New York says, "Oh, let things get worse, let there be more unemployment. Then the workers will come to their senses. They will not be choosy." Is that what the Government proposes to do? Do nothing; let it get worse? And who will suffer? Just the workers. Who cares? I want to know from the Minister why is it not possible to give unemployment relief. Because unemployment, as I see it, is going to be with us - not only for the next two years, it will probably become a permanent feature. I think it is time we discarded these ideas about unemployment relief being a soft measure, soft option, subsidy, and faced the problem fairly and squarely. And I hope I am not going to be told that the United Kingdom and other countries have all been brought to their knees because of unemployment relief. It is nonsense, as any good economist would tell you. I have said that it makes good economic sense to look after your workers who are unemployed.”
“Now, we have heard about prices of HDB flats. HDB tried to cash in into the boom, started over-building, jacked up the prices along, of course, with the URA. Then you have the car parks. The HDB saw that as a very profitable source of business. Car park fees went up, quite unnecessarily. And rentals for shop houses. The HDB saw that again as a convenient source of revenue, forgetting that it was set up as a public housing body. And so we have rentals raised by the HDB from time to time. I have, Mr Speaker, Sir, somebody living in my constituency who has a shop in the Rochor Centre. He said that his rental was increased by the HDB from $1,100 to $2,800 within a period of one year. And he said, "I can't carry on any business there." This is the sort of thing that has killed many businesses in Singapore. So I say, besides these measures, a change of attitude is important. But will we get this change of attitude from the Government and the statutory boards? - That profits are not the only motive for the existence of Government and statutory boards, - that Government exists for other purposes and not to make profits on all its operations, that statutory boards do not exist just to make profits, huge profits, on all their operations. One can understand wanting to cut even but not to accumulate huge surpluses. Mr Speaker, Sir, one other aspect of this Budget Statement, before I come to the measures in the afternoon, that I wish to touch on briefly now is that the Budget does not address itself at all to the problem of unemployment, which I said in the debate on the President's Address is a stark reality. It does not say anything to these unemployed workers. They are just left to take care of themselves, "I am all right, Jack.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the whole philosophy has to undergo a change, whether it is the proper function of Government and statutory boards (statutory boards are quasi government) to accumulate wealth as one of the objectives for their existence. We have been told about the huge surpluses that have been accumulated by the statutory boards. This year we are budgeting for a deficit. In truth, there is no deficit if you bring in all the surpluses from the statutory boards. So it is just an illusion that there is a deficit. Mr Speaker, Sir, let us take the HDB, one of the statutory boards. The HDB was set up to provide low-cost housing for the lower income group, the wage earners. That should have been its main objective. That objective seems to have been somewhat lost sight of. As the HDB began to look upon itself as a commercial organization, like one of the MNCs operating in Singapore, it became greedy for profits and started venturing into private sectors where it should not venture. The only motivating factor would appear to have been that these activities, if indulged in by the HDB, would bring in immense profits. And, of course, the HDB has made profits. And as the Auditor-General pointed out, the HDB invested monies in the MND Holdings company, which was outside the ambit of its powers laid down in the Housing and Development Board Act. And as I have pointed out more than once, they have made immense profits but they do not bring those profits back. They are all secreted away, still with the MND Holdings. I could go on, Mr Speaker, Sir, about the activities of the HDB. Some hon. Members: Carry on.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is time we changed our attitude towards our local entrepreneurship. There is too much reliance on foreign advice. We were told, even over the establishment of marina centres, in a Ministry statement, that the Government was going to send somebody overseas to learn how to develop these marina centres. But we have our own clubs here, and I was going to mention yesterday, "They have been clamouring to be heard." They wrote to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister referred them to the Ministry of Community Development. The Ministry of Community Development shuttled them to the Ministry of National Development. And they have still not been heard. All they are asking is that they be heard before the Government proceeds on its plan to set up marina centres, because they say they have got ideas. So may we have less reliance on foreigners and more reliance on our own people, on our own people's ingenuity and their ability to cope or to come up with solutions to our problems. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think what is needed more than anything else, besides the measures that are being outlined, is a complete change of attitude on the part of the Government and the Ministries, and particularly the statutory boards. It is no exaggeration to say that our economy has been brought to its present state by the overcharging by Government and statutory boards for all kinds of supplies and services rendered by the Government and the statutory boards to the community. There has been some faint recognition of this in the rebates that were frantically handed out last year.”
“But I have my doubts, very serious doubts, whether they will not take them away as soon as they get these concessions rather than put them back into this country. I am, of course, talking about the MNCs and the foreign companies. Mr Speaker, Sir, we perhaps tend to rely too much on foreign investment and foreign expertise. We seem to think that our local people are not in themselves able or adequate to find solutions and to come up with solutions for our economic ills. There is, in my view, very little encouragement that is being given to local entrepreneurship. We have heard only this morning about the over-regulatory feature of this Government which has, to put it quite simply, put our local businessmen into a straitjacket. They cannot do anything without first having to get permission for this and that from the Government. I hear this again and again, even in small matters. If they do something, immediately somebody swoops down on them and says, "Oh no, you can't do this. You cannot even put up a stick in your garden. You have to report this to the Building Control Division." An hon. Member: Is that true?”
“That is something, because in the past we have had Ministers trying to make light of the recession. One cannot help contrasting the present Minister's remarks about his hopes for recovery with the remarks made in 1985 by the then Minister for Finance presenting his budget. In his reply, he said [Col. 960 dated 19th March 1985]: 'I have to inform the Members of this House that the rumours about the impending demise of our economy are greatly exaggerated.' I have already mentioned more than once about the inability of the Government to see the trends that the economy was taking. He said in 1985 - it is good to remind ourselves of what he said then - finishing his speech in reply to all the speeches that were made on the debate, he said: 'We have every reason to be optimistic that, as the motto of one of our schools says, "The best is yet to be.".' Some best we have had since then. Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the reasons why I am not optimistic, and it has been mentioned, is that the policies will further depress local demand. I have said before, and I say it again, that not enough attention is paid to local demand. I see that an article in the Far Eastern Economic Review last week says this as well, ie, that while exports are important it is the local demand that would seem to be causing anxiety. Then there is an assumption in the Budget that all these concessions that are being given to the companies and to the businessmen will somehow find their way back into new investments and that they will be ploughed back into expansion of the industries or businesses that are carried on. Well, we all hope that that will be the result.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I refer the House to the statement made by, I think, the then Minister for Trade and Industry and now the Minister for Education on 11th December 1981 when he was speaking at a University forum. I referred to this in my speech here on 15th March 1982 on the Budget debate, and this is what he said then: 'It is the workers and the management who will decide whether or not Singapore continues to thrive in the 1980s or begin the slippery slide to disorder, unemployment and stagnation.' As I then pointed out, I said I was grateful to him when he put the workers first - "it is the workers and the management who will decide". In his Budget speech, he acknowledged the contribution of the workers for the growth in the year preceding when he said: 'They worked harder and smarter than the year before and acquired new skills.' But in this present Budget statement it would appear that our workers are completely ignored. They have really no place or no part to play in the economic recovery. That, I think, is regrettable because of the contributions that they have made to the economic progress of this country. That should be acknowledged and then they should be told now what is their role in this economic recovery and how they would be helped to play that role. I will deal with that a little later, Mr Speaker, Sir. May I go on to the adequacy of the measures. As I said, I have my doubts whether these measures will in themselves be adequate to bring about the economic recovery which we are all hoping. The Minister, in presenting the Budget, said we should not be overly sanguine. We have now for the first time an admission that we are in the midst of a severe recession. The Minister makes that admission at two places in his Budget speech.”
“Is one not expected, as part of his responsibilities as a citizen, to point this out? I, Mr Speaker, Sir, cannot remain silent when I see that the policies of this Government are divisive. I was not elected by the voters of Anson to remain silent. They were quite sure when they elected me that I would discharge that one duty, that is, to speak up for them, not so much to get benefits for them but to speak up for them. If they had wanted someone to agree with the Government and to keep quiet when he should speak up, they would no doubt have elected my opponent in the 1981 by-election and in the 1984 general elections. But I see, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I am not alone in this view that the policies of the Government are discriminatory against the lower income group. I see from a report in the Straits Times of 15th March that an economist in the University has made the same remark that the policies, if pursued, will result in the lower paid having a lesser share, ie, a decreasing share in the economic cake of the country. So I am not alone in saying that the policies would appear to be discriminatory. They are discriminatory. The other thing is the absence, entirely in this Budget statement, of the role or a place for the labour movement. It would appear that the Budget assumes that persons who have anything to do with economic recovery are only the businessmen and the people with money and that the workers in Singapore have really no place in this economic recovery, no contribution to make, except of course the oft-repeated admonitions to them: work harder, work harder, work harder. That is all they have to do.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance has presented his budget this year as a budget for economic recovery, and he has outlined the measures that he thinks will bring us the economic recovery. But I shall point out shortly, that he is not so sanguine about them. I am sure all of us in this House and the people of Singapore outside this House hope very much that these measures will bring us the economic recovery that we are hoping and looking forward to. I have my doubts that they will, but I shall take that up presently. First of all, let me, Mr Speaker, Sir, voice some of my own thoughts on this Budget statement and the policies outlined generally in the Budget. The first observation that I wish to make is that the policies, if pursued, will be discriminatory. They discriminate against the lower income group. They discriminate against the worker. They are aimed to benefit the well-off. Speaking in 1983 in this House on the Budget speech, I referred to the remark made by a British Prime Minister, in the turn of the century, about the country becoming a country of two nations - one nation of the rich and one nation of the poor. I said then that the Government should take heed that its policies would not bring that to pass in Singapore. But unfortunately it would appear that the Government is not taking heed. I am, Mr Speaker, Sir, accused sometimes of trying to divide the community. Let me ask: who is dividing the community? Is it the policies that are pursued by the Government that will divide the community, or is it the utterances of some- one who points out that these policies will tend to divide the country? May I ask whether one is expected, in the face of divisive policies, to keep quiet and let the gap between the rich and the poor get wider and wider?”
“Would the Acting Minister say whether any representations have been made by the Government to these governments in ASEAN which have taken measures against our exports? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson is zealous for our interest, for once. Of course, representations are made. Last year we took up a case with the Malaysian government because we considered an action which they had implemented to be outside the rules of GATT. As a result, the Malaysian government amended their rules. Should subsequent actions occur and difficulties arise, which can happen even between the best of neighbours, further appropriate measures will, of course, be implemented by MTI. ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT 12.00 noon Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [7th March, 1986] [2nd Allotted Day], 'That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1st April, 1986 to 31st March, 1987.'. - [Minister for Finance]. Question again proposed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has pinpointed two countries - the United States and Australia. May I ask him whether the countries within ASEAN, our neighbours, have implemented measures that adversely affect our exports? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not pinpoint two countries. I cited two examples of countries which have discriminated against our exports. Many others in Europe have also done so, and I think Members who have been following the press will remember that we have had some trade difficulties with Malaysia last year.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, supplementary questions for the Minister. Is the Minister saying that he has in Parliament given all the reasons fully on the events leading to the suspension of trading on the Stock Exchange of Singapore? Secondly, is he saying that the events leading to the collapse of Pan Electric Industries have also been fully explained? I did not think he was saying that. But is he not aware that the public have been told very little about this? Is the Minister not aware of the damage that has been done as a result of the events, the manipulations, and does he not think it necessary that the public investor and shareholders should be told fully of everything and nothing is hidden from them? Is the Minister also aware that a Commission of Inquiry may be appointed after the criminal proceedings are concluded, if that is what is worrying him? Would he now agree that he would recommend the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry to commence its work after the criminal proceedings have been concluded? Finally, are there any reasons why the Government is reluctant to appoint a Commission of Inquiry? May we know frankly whether there are any reasons. Is it because the Minister and the Government wish to cover up any failure on the part of the MAS or the Government to forestall and to prevent what happened to Pan El and to the Stock Exchange?”
“Sir, may the Minister tell us whether this proposal to cut the half month incentive pay for daily-rated employees has been fully discussed with the union?”
“Answer the question. Is that reasonable?”
“And the man was not charged when he was released at 3.00 pm that afternoon. On those facts, will the Minister say whether that detention was lawful and justified?”
“Would the Minister say that was a reasonable detention of this man on the facts that I have given him - non-possession of an identity card - An hon. Member: Sit down!”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has asked for examples. Does he not know that someone was arrested on the 1st of March in the early hours of the morning, and because he did not happen to have his identity card on him he was hauled off to the police station, and he was locked up until 3.00 pm that afternoon? What was the reason for that, and what was the reason for preventing him from getting in touch with his family?”
“Does the Minister realize that most of his answer really is specious? Will the Minister say whether he is aware or not? If he is not and he wants details, I will give it to him - cases where persons have been detained for more than 24 hours without any opportunity to contact their homes. And it is not in serious crimes. It is even in arrests for the slightest reasons. Is the Minister not assuming in his answer that every person arrested by the police is a criminal? Is he saying that every person who is arrested is charged immediately in court? Does he not know of persons who have been detained for 36 hours and then released without any charge being brought against them? What is the objection in these cases to their being allowed to phone home or to their friends or relatives? May we have sensible answers from the Minister?”
“What crime-free environment? Prof. Jayakumar: - and in a state of law, order and security.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister saying that this existing police procedure, which he says exists, is complied with by all police stations, by police officers there? Is he aware that persons had been detained for up to 48 hours, which is the time under the Constitution for a person to be detained before he can be brought to Court, without facilities given to the accused persons to contact their homes or their relatives? If he is not aware, I will give him a number of instances.”
“May I ask the Minister why is it necessary to relate rentals all the time to rentals in the private sector?”
“While I sound this call for support by the people for the new generation of leaders and their measures to beat the recession, may I also urge the new leaders to make a special effort to understand the people and reach out to them. The people are now experiencing a rather different kind of economic environment. They were accustomed to two decades of growth, affluence, high salaries and the many related comforts. The younger Singaporeans, moreover, might not have even experienced the difficult times of the past. They have been enjoying a life of plenty. The changed scenario from one of economic abundance to one of economic recession certainly has an impact on the people. Lately, our people have sacrificed much. They have to put up with disruptions to their lives. There have been a loss of jobs for some, a cut in salary for others. New graduates find it harder to get jobs. They could in these difficult times misinterpret what they read in the newspapers or be misled by questions raised by the Opposition in Parliament, such as why should not the Ministers take a pay cut, are Ministers paying income tax, etc. All these promote anxiety and confusion in them.”
“Hear, hear! Mr Phua Bah Lee: "People's will" in Singapore can help us overcome this recession. The new team of leaders is chiefly responsible for turning the economy around. It is now the will of the people translated into concrete action and support for the Government that will make the difference between success and failure. In the past, the people stood firmly behind the Government in many crises, such as Singapore's separation from Malaysia, the British withdrawal from Singapore, the oil crisis, etc. Each time, we passed the test with flying colours. We became a better people - hardier, wiser and more resilient. We had a different team of leaders then. Today, whether we can survive this economic recession and overcome the problems ahead will again depend to a large extent on the people working in concert with the Government. Unless there is the same level of support for, faith in, and cooperation with the new team of leaders, the measures introduced to beat the recession cannot go far. This new team of leaders from the 1984 group are young. Except for the Minister for Finance, their average age is 39 years. They are a fine team - highly qualified, full of ideas, stamina and verve. They possess a keen mind, an ability to zoom in on problems, analyse them and come out with solutions. The team has been specially hand-picked after rigorous tests and scrutiny by the old guard. The second generation leaders will not fail the people, just as the first generation leadership had not. They will chalk up a fine track record given the time and the support of the people.”
“In this particular case, was there? MINISTERS AND EX-MINISTERS (Income tax and pensions) 16. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for Finance (a) whether Ministers pay income tax on their salaries; and (b) how many Ministers and ex-Ministers who are Members of this House are receiving pensions in addition to their salaries/allowances.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say that the Minister is evading the questions. May I ask him directly: was any communication made to the University about this particular member of the staff before the University decided not to renew his contract? May I also ask him for the third time if he will outline the Government's policy towards academic freedom in the University? Is the Government in favour of it even though they come out with strong criticisms of any Government policy?”
“You have not answered it. What is the Government's policy?”
“Do I understand from the Acting Minister that it was the President's own wish to be involved in this and that it was not a request to him to grace the Government's function? Secondly, does the Government realize that it would be wrong to involve the President in Government's functions and activities?”
“May I ask the Acting Minister for Community Development why was it necessary to duplicate this? And would he have the figures for the amount spent for the dinner that was held a week later hosted by the Prime Minister? Would he tell us whether the same people were invited to the dinner or whether they were a different category? Thirdly, would he tell us whose bright idea it was to involve the President of Singapore in the function which he says was organized by the Government to thank the people on the 15th February 1986?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, supplementary questions for the Acting Minister. May I tell him that I am referring to the Ministry's statement for Marina Centre that appeared in the Straits Times sometime ago. May I ask him, arising out of that, whether it is the Government's intention to retain Punggol as a marina centre? Because, according to this report, only Pasir Ris, Sembawang and West Coast are the three areas. Secondly, would he assure this House that the views of the local users of these facilities will be taken into account in locating sites for marina centres? Thirdly, would he also assure the House that these centres or sites will not be offered out on a commercial basis but that the needs of the clubs which are already offering these facilities will be taken into account?”
“May I ask him if he is aware that there is already provision in the Housing and Development Board Act for housing estates to have their own management committees? Why are we going through all this mumbo-jumbo about Town Councils then?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say that I am amazed this morning to hear from the Minister for National Development saying that the proposed Town Councils will be no more than management committees of housing estates.”
“Will the Minister just answer my question? What reasons are there for not giving them free medical treatment?”
“Will the Minister confirm that all those who are given free treatment are those on the public assistance scheme? My question is directed to those who are out of employment and with no income at the moment and would not be put on the public assistance scheme. What reasons are there for not giving them free medical treatment?”
“Supplementary question for the Minister of State, Sir. Would he tell this House what compelling reasons are there for not affording free medical treatment to someone who has been thrown out of a job and is in receipt of no income for the period of the recession?”
“Will the Minister please give a specific answer to a specific question or a direct answer to a direct question? Did the Singapore Government receive an official reply to the protest?”
“You should ask the Minister and not ask a Member of the House.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I put all my supplementary questions to the Minister, instead of popping up every time? First of all, may I ask the Foreign Minister whether he realizes that the reply by the Singapore Government, as reported in the Straits Times, would appear to be a misunderstanding of the whole thing? Does he realize that the report says that the First Deputy Prime Minister never intended to offend the Malaysian Chinese Association? Did the Minister realize that the protest came from the Malaysian Government, that the Malaysian Government took that statement as being offensive to the Government and not to the Malaysian Chinese Association? There is a clear distinction between the Malaysian Government and the Malaysian Chinese Association. So does he realize that the reply makes nonsense of the protest by the Malaysian Government? Secondly, does he realize that the explanation that the First Deputy Prime Minister never intended to offend anybody by his remarks is the weakest excuse that can be offered? Does he realize that every man is held to intend what he says, and it is a lame excuse to come later and say, "I never intended what I said"? Does not the Government think that it would have been far more gracious if the Singapore Government, even if it thought that it was not giving any offence, to have apologized? And finally, will the Minister tell us whether an official reply was received from the Malaysian Government to this note? Does he realize that according to the reports the Malaysian Government decided not to reply to that note?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no question to ask now. But with your permission, may I propose that the House observes a minute's silence before we move on to the other proceedings in this House? Mr Speaker: Although we grieve at the tragedy, it is not a practice in this House to call for a minute's silence for such tragedies. ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 11.28 am LAND RECLAMATION AT PUNGGOL (Progress) 1. Mr Ng Kah Ting asked the Minister for Law what progress has been made with regard to the land reclamation at the north-eastern and north-western parts of Punggol and what is the land area reclaimed so far.”
“May I ask whether it is really necessary that we should have a Rolls Royce? I know the Queen of England perhaps rides in a Rolls Royce. But is it necessary that we should also follow their practice? Dr Hu Tsu Tau: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not necessary but, in the case of the Singapore President, it is a matter of judgment what we should provide him with. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, "That this Parliament, pursuant to section 7 of the Civil List and Pension Act (Chapter 52), resolves that the Schedule to that Act be varied by deleting the figures "$478,300", "$39,000", "$2,123,700", "$388,900", and "$29,600" in the second column and substituting the figures "$440,000", "$38,400", "$1,806,000", "$342,700" and "$359,300" respectively." EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, "That the proceedings on item 3 on the Order Paper be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1." - [Mr S. Dhanabalan]. ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT 3.50pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I understood the Minister, the provision for "Special services" is increased from $29,600 to $359,300, an increase of $329,700. I see, of course, that there is a reduction of $402,000 for the sums provided for other purposes. Now, I heard the Minister say that the increase is for the purchase of a vehicle. Would he elaborate on this? What is this vehicle that is going to be bought that will cost the taxpayers $329,700? Because I see that in previous years, the "Special services" have been reduced year after year, but this year we are asking for an increase of $329,700.”
“Whilst the present situation of unemployment is a cause for concern (the Government therefore is taking various measures to try and stimulate economic recovery) in actual fact the situation is not really that bad because even now we are still getting requests from many companies, for example, garment factories, wanting to employ foreign workers because our Singaporean women and young girls are unwilling to work in garment factories. The same thing applies to the construction industry and the woodworking industry. I have given Members the example of our offer of assistance to the retrenched workers. Very few of them come to us for assistance. So I think they are able to find jobs on their own. In fact, over the last few days we have found that the Seagate Technology advertisement appears every day. Is that a sign of severe unemployment?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Minister say, in cases where the employers advise the Ministry about impending retrenchment, whether the Ministry takes any action to inquire if the retrenchment is really necessary or not? Or does it merely accept the company's retrenchment? Mr Lee Yock Suan: Mr Speaker, Sir, if our Singapore economy is to function properly, it is important that companies should be able to adjust and redeploy their workers in the best way they think fit. I do not think the employers would just retrench workers out of spite or for no good reason. Usually because there is a drop in orders there simply are not enough jobs to offer their workers. They have, in fact, to offer to the workers, especially those with longer service, very substantial retrenchment benefits. This, in itself, will act as a check against hasty or unjustified retrenchments. The philosophy of the Government is that we should not interfere with that process. We should leave it to market forces. Those who are retrenched, in fact, are able to find jobs. Let me quote some figures. Last year, there were about 20,000 workers retrenched. Of this number, about 16,000 were Singaporeans and permanent residents. As at the end of last year, about half of them have found jobs; that means about 8,000 have found jobs. Another 3,000 were retrenched only in the fourth quarter. So they were still looking for jobs. This leaves about 5,000 workers. Some of them may have found jobs on their own, some may be self-employed, and so on. We do not know much about these people because they are not shown up in the CPF records. We check on them through the CPF records. Others, like housewives, may have dropped out of the labour market.”
“Sir, is the Minister or Ministry aware that some of the doctors are very unhappy about this state of affairs, turning away patients when they should be treated?”