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 43 of 82.
“Sir, supplementary questions for the Minister of State. First of all, he says in emergency cases people who do not have the money are not turned away. Would he say what are these emergency cases where they are not turned away? Will he then concede that there were several cases of people turned away because they did not have the $12 on them? And does this also extend to people coming in with cuts or wounds on their bodies? Secondly, about the repeat attendance, would he confirm that a similar fee of $12 is again levied for dressings on surgical wounds when they are asked to come back again the next day or the day after, simply for the wound to be dressed? And the question following that is, why is that necessary?”
“All right, Sir. Question No. 8. ACCIDENT AND EMERGENCY TREATMENT (Payment of fees) 8. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Accident and Emergency department of the hospitals turn away persons if they do not happen to have on them the fee payable for the treatment; and (b) whether the same fee is again levied for repeat attendance at the department for follow-up treatment.”
“If you think I should not ask, I will accept your ruling. But I have a supplementary question.”
“I am. But I have got a supplementary question on this.”
“A supplementary question, Mr Speaker, Sir.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, supplementary questions. First of all, about the sale. I repeat my question to the Minister, would he let us have the complaints received by him? Does he also know that, far from anyone protesting about our selling, they were milling round us trying to get the publication from us? Coming to this question that I have tabled, I accept the Minister's answer about the temples. But my question is about religious music along the route. How many complaints has he received and from whom, about the playing of religious music accompanying the kavadi carriers along the route? And what is the objection to the playing of religious music, not pop music or anything else?”
“On a point of clarification because the Minister is just repeating. He does not seem to be able to answer. He thinks he can repeat everything.”
“On a point of clarification. Prof. Jayakumar remained standing.”
“That is not my question. My question was about the routes.”
“May I ask the Minister whether in the cases of deferment of payments, interest will cease to run or whether interest will also be suspended?”
“I will send you a Written Question. DEFERMENT OF HDB LOAN REPAYMENT 3. Mr S. Vasoo asked the Minister for National Development if he will outline the steps which Housing and Development Board home-owners, who are facing difficulties in their housing loan repayment, can take to defer their loan repayment schedules.”
“I am indebted to the Minister for giving us the whole history of the general practice and policy of the HDB. But does the Minister realize that my question is directed particularly to the advertisement which was reported in December 1985? Perhaps the Minister could confine his answer to this exercise and not give the House the history of HDB policy. May this House be told, first of all, whether the salaries offered to these people overseas, these expatriates, were the same as were offered to the locals? Secondly, were they offered housing in addition to their salaries? Thirdly, when were these posts advertised locally? Fourthly, how many of the local architects, accountants and others responded to this advertisement? Fifthly, may we know why they were not found suitable for these vacancies?”
“Does the Minister realize all his answers sound very unconvincing to the public?”
“I have a supplementary question for the Minister. First of all, does the Minister realize that what he has said this afternoon is a mere repetition of what we have been hearing from him several times? Does the Minister know that sometime ago I asked whether he would appoint a committee to look into the whole cost of HDB flats? May I ask the Minister whether he will now agree that perhaps a quantity surveyor, an accountant, an architect, should be appointed to go into the whole question of the cost to the HDB in the construction of these flats?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I can ask the Leader to clarify what he meant because it seems to me that the whole of what he has said is non sequitur. It is inconsequential. He says, "We cannot give them equal representation." No one is asking for equal representation. Then he goes on to say, "Two does not equal 77". But the Committee of Selection last year conceded that there was a place for the Opposition Members on the Committees, and we were appointed to two Committees. All I am saying is, this year would at least one of the Opposition Members be appointed to either the Estimates Committee or the Public Accounts Committee? So I do not understand the Leader. Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, that is entirely for the Committee of Selection to decide.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have a clarification from the Leader of the House, provided he knows what he has said.”
“That will tell the people of Singapore that at last this Government is determined, and I say that again, is determined to allow democracy to take its roots in Singapore and to flourish, and that it will go along to help that process. And to help that process, this Government will give the Opposition their proper role and function in that democracy. Sir, I beg to move. Mr Speaker: It has been proposed as an amendment: In line 4, to leave out "Mr Chua Sian Chin" and there to insert "Mr Chiam See Tong". The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out.".”
“The Prime Minister was not really interested in an Opposition. Neither was the Government. They were prepared, so long as they could keep the Opposition out, to pay lip-service to the idea of an Opposition. The idea was the great thing, not it becoming a reality in this place. Since then, of course, every attempt has been made not to give the Opposition its role in Parliament and outside Parliament. And I say that this attempt inside Parliament not to give the Opposition a role consists of keeping it out, keeping the Opposition out of the Committees which really serve to discharge the functions and role of Parliament. The Committee of Selection, Mr Speaker, Sir, as you are well aware, appoints the other Committees of this House. I have no doubt that when the other Committees are appointed, I shall find myself in the glorified position of being a member to look after the comforts of Members, and I suppose my colleague, the Member for Potong Pasir, will be told, "You can deal with the Standing Orders whenever we want to look at that. Otherwise, thank you very much for your services and contributions." I would urge this Government that if it really believes in democracy, in the fact of a Parliament with an Opposition in it, then I say, you should show your sincerity in this belief by allowing the Opposition its full role in this House, and that is, by appointing it to the Committees that really matter. It is for that purpose, Mr Speaker, Sir, and it is to that end, I have proposed that the motion be amended by replacing Mr Chua Sian Chin with Mr Chiam See Tong from the Opposition. That will demonstrate the sincerity of the Government.”
“We have the Public Accounts Committee which scrutinizes all the accounts of the Government, the Ministries, the departments. And we have also the Estimates Committee which looks into the expenditure by the Government of the taxpayers' monies. These two Committees, as I said, to some extent, serve to discharge the functions of this House. But has the Opposition found a place in any of these Committees? Why not? It boils down, Mr Speaker, Sir, in the last resort to whether this House believes in a full-blooded democracy or whether it believes in a wayang kulit democracy, a shadow democracy, a sham democracy, where the Opposition Members of Parliament are merely put there on show, so that the world at large may be told, "Oh, yes, we've got two Opposition Members of Parliament." And they go away saying, "Oh, Singapore is a great democracy." Mr Speaker, Sir, I have several times spoken of the lip-service paid by this Government, and particularly by the Prime Minister, to the need for Opposition in Parliament. I heard this in the first general elections that I contested in 1972, and I have heard it since then: lip-service to the need for an Opposition, to the need for a democratic institution of Government. You only get that, Members, if Parliament consists of a two-party or three-party Chamber where the views of the people who are opposed to the government may be heard, where they may make their criticisms, where they may make their contributions for the welfare of the State. As I said, we have heard this lip-service time and time again, lip-service. But the truth emerged when finally an Opposition Member made his way into this House in the by-election in October 1981. Then we saw the Prime Minister in his true colours.”
“The role of the committees in the American style is greater than the role played by committees in the United Kingdom House of Commons. But even there, as I explained last year, there was reform made and departmental committees were appointed. Sir, I am aware of the provision in the Standing Orders and I have no doubt that Members of this House are aware of that provision, that the Committees of this House shall reflect, as far as possible, the composition of the House. After I came into this House in October 1981, I complained of the absence of the Opposition Member on any of the Committees of this House, from 1982 to the end of 1984. I suppose in an attempt to shut us down, shut me down, at the First Session of this Parliament, the Committee of Selection proceeded to appoint the two Opposition Members to two Committees. But what Committees were they appointed to? The Member for Potong Pasir was appointed to the Committee on Standing Orders. This Committee virtually, Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as I know, has really nothing very much to do except if and when questions on Standing Orders are referred to it. I had the great honour and privilege of serving on the House Committee to attend to the comforts of all the Members of this House. And I am afraid that I have not done anything about the comforts of Members. I have failed abysmally in that duty of looking after the comforts of the Members of this House. Mr Speaker, Sir, the main function and purpose of Parliament does not lie in looking after the comforts of its Members. May I repeat again, at the risk of repetition, that the main function and purpose of Parliament is to see that the Executive is kept within bounds of the mandate of this Parliament. We have two Committees in this House which go to some extent to do this.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to move an amendment to this motion. Sir, I beg to move, That the Motion, standing in the name of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, be amended by deleting the name "Mr Chua Sian Chin" appearing therein, and substituting therefor the name "Mr Chiam See Tong". Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Minister said, this Motion seeks to reappoint the members of the Committee of Selection, who served on the Committee in the last Session of this Parliament, for this current Session. I have had occasion, more than once, to refer to the work of the Committees of this House and also to the lack of powers given to the Committees, and to the absence of adequate Committees to discharge the functions and responsibilities of Parliament. Mr Speaker, Sir, was it last year, I advocated the creation of several new committees, the departmental committees, so that Parliament may perform its proper functions as a watchdog on the Executive's actions. They supervise the powers given to the Executive by this House, and to see that the Executive is kept within the bounds of Parliament's mandate. I have said that the work of the Committees is, in one sense, far more important than even the meetings in this House because it is in Committee meetings that we get down to the nitty-gritty of Government actions. Parliament, by the very nature of the debate and proceedings, cannot find the time to get down to the details of Government's actions and powers. It is in the Committees. Mr Speaker, Sir, you will find that in the American House of Congress, the committees are very powerful. They perform the most important task of seeing that the President and his various Government departments are kept within bounds.”
“It is not that I do not wish to thank the President but I cannot see anything in it to thank him. COMMITTEE OF SELECTION (Appointment of Members)”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may it be recorded that I have abstained on this voting?”
“The point is that it has got too much money.”
“Of course. We will take over the Government.”
“Good, the 112 will go there. Mr Lim Boon Heng: Well, if the Member for Anson is a great champion of the workers, let him find the work for these workers first. If he fails, we will take it up.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister's statement arose on my question to the Member for Mountbatten on his claim that if anybody wanted a job, they could go to him in the Ministry of Labour, and he would find it for them. My question was: why was it not possible to find jobs for the 112 PWD workers? The Member for Mountbatten did not respond to that. But the Minister responded and his reply was that they accepted retrenchment benefits and did not want any alternative jobs. I have here only the report from the Straits Times to go by, as I do not have access to Government files, but this clearly says that from October of last year PWD officials had approached various Government departments, including the Ministry of Labour, to find jobs for these 112 daily-rated workers. But all these attempts had come to nought. And there is nothing here to say that the workers did not want alternative jobs. In fact, some of them were quoted as saying, "They will take any job that is available." So I regret that the Acting Minister misled the House.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to clarify the statement made by the Acting Minister for Labour in the debate yesterday on my amendment?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member is thoroughly confused. Perhaps he should clear his mind first.”
“I did not say that I spoke to a Japanese friend.”
“I will tell you what I said. You can check from the Hansard. Call for it.”
“By way of clarification, may I say what I said? Encik Yatiman Yusof remained standing.”
“Where did I say this? Perhaps you do not understand.”
“But who told them? Encik Yatiman Yusof: Point no. 2. He quoted a report from the Far Eastern Economic Report, according to him, which is actually the Far Eastern Economic Review, on a case pertaining to the over-supply of our hotel rooms. Does he not know that there is no country in the world that can guarantee the inflow of tourism? I was in Hawaii in 1982, and in that huge hotel, there were only 22 rooms occupied. Hawaii is a State in America whose ability to forecast the economic change seems to be one of the most advanced in the world. Yet they are not able to pin-point the problem. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson too, during his rhetoric and appeal for emotion, had said what had happened to the Singapore as a Garden City. He said that Singapore is a Garden of Beauty. It is still a Garden of Beauty.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, by way of clarification, may I ask the last speaker and the Member for Mountbatten on their assertion that the Ministry of Labour will find jobs for every unemployed man? Why has the Ministry not found jobs for the 110 PWD workers retrenched over the last, I do not know, how many months? The Acting Minister for Labour (Mr Lee Yock Suan): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I give the facts on that point? Recently the PWD retrenched 113 workers. They were retrenched not because they were not offered alternative jobs. They were, in fact, asked whether they wanted to be redeployed to other Government jobs, but 95 of them chose to be retrenched because they wanted to enjoy the retrenchment benefits. So please get the facts right and do not mislead the House. 4.00 pm”
“How are they going to feed their families? You answer that.”
“Unemployed, all right. For so long as they are genuinely unable to find any employment. It is as simple as that.”
“No. As long as they are unemployed. I have never suggested unemployment benefits for those who are employed. I said for those who are unemployed. So please try and listen carefully.”
“You have got to go and assess their basic needs.”
“Just a second, sit down! I will give you the answer. If you do not want the answer, then you can keep interrupting. You have got to assess the basic needs of the workers, the family, and to try and arrive at a sum that will keep their heart and soul together. I am not suggesting that you should pay them the same salary that they were earning.”
“The unemployment benefit is necessary for workers who lost their jobs and have got no wages at the moment.”
“Unemployment benefits. Haven't I said that?”
“It is your business now. Dr Lee Boon Yang: He has failed to expound any ideas for economic recovery. No solution of any worth has been offered, merely exaggerations. This morning, he tried to mislead the House. He told the House that there were 55,000 taxi drivers in Singapore. For his information, there are only 11,000 taxis in Singapore and a total of 37,000 taxi driving licence holders, and not every one of those 37,000 are actively driving taxis for a living. The Member for Anson's suggestions are misleading illusions, not unlike the mirages that flicker in front of thirsty desert travellers.”
“At the arrogance of the Government. Mr Lau Ping Sum( In Mandarin): Does he think that this is the time for him to laugh? No doubt, Singapore is a garden city with all the flowers blooming. But the transformation of this garden city into a deserted and desolate waste land does not take very long. If we wish to maintain Singapore as a beautiful garden city, the only way is to look after and take care of it constantly. But the two Members of the Opposition are only making false accusations. Are they trying to maintain Singapore as a beautiful country so that we would have a place in the world? Although we cannot influence external factors, we could do something to the internal factors. We should not indulge in finger pointing. Singaporeans are very practical. They would not believe in false accusations. The two Opposition Members made mischievous statements. In order to ensure our success we have to adapt to changed circumstances. This is one of the most important factors required for the recovery of our economy.”
“For example, the Economic Committee recommended that the employer's CPF contribution be reduced and that there must be wage restraint so that the wage costs would not escalate. We must face reality and find out where the problem lies. Employers, employees and the Government have to work hand in hand. We have to create conditions to attract new investments, and develop Singapore into a regional centre. If we rigidly adhere to old policies, then we will not be able to maximize the use of our human resources. We will not be able to solve the present problems. We must be courageous enough to make changes to existing policies. During the recession, we have learned a lesson - that rapid economic growth has brought benefits as well as disadvantages. Accustomed to the good life, our fighting spririt, our ambitions, our work attitude. Were they not affected? Our people in both the private and the public sectors, were they over-optimistic and over-confident? In the property sector, every one rushed in to make quick profits. Even the URA joined in and obtaining greater income became its objective. But during the recession we must review our fundamentals. The public sector should assess the priority of projects and emphasize cost effectiveness. The surpluses of statutory boards should be reviewed and our resilience strengthened. Economic prosperity is like a mist, covering our weaknesses. The recession is like a shower of rain, driving away the mist and exposing our weaknesses, the companies which are fragile and weak with high costs and low efficiency. But our strong point is the close rapport between the people and the Government. The Opposition Members said that the people did not support the Government.”
“Before that. Mr Lau Ping Sum( In Mandarin): He accused the Government in an agitated tone and loudly condemned the Government. I was sitting behind him. I do not know whether he was shedding tears. If at all he did, they must must have been crocodile tears. The two Opposition Members believe that the Government should be blamed for the economic recession. But we can see very clearly from the Economic Committee's Report the actual causes of the recession. There were external factors such as low growth in the United States, the slow- down in world trade. In 1984-85, there was reduction in demand for electronic components and computer peripherals. But what has this got to do with the Government? In the region, commodity prices fell. The palm oil price was US$700 per metric tonne in 1984 and US$500 in 1985. Between 1981 and 1985, the price of rubber fell by one-third. Trading in tin was suspended in October last year because of over-supply. These were external factors, over which we had no control. As our neighbouring countries are having economic difficulties, we are affected too. With the imposition of the exit tax, the number of tourists and shoppers coming to Singapore fell. Of course, there are some internal factors. For example, whilst wage costs have gone up by more than 10% per annum over the past few years, our productivity has increased by only 4.6% per annum. The rise in wages illustrates the fact that the Government has looked after the workers. They enjoy a higher standard of living. The Member for Anson and the Member for Potong Pasir consider themselves as saviours to the workers. But the fact remains that they are not. We have to make changes.”
“The prices dropped. Have not the price dropped? Mr Lau Ping Sum( In Mandarin): The oil prices dropped only in the last two or three years, but not in 1979.”
“Fraud. Dr Arthur Beng: Mr Speaker, Sir, the champion of human rights does not seem this morning to believe in giving anybody a chance to speak besides himself. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not in our style to abandon in times of trouble. It is not in our style that should a mistake be made that the Minister just takes the first flight off and disappears. But it is rather our style that the Minister be made to ---”
“How did you get that mandate? On what promises?”
“Was he appointed by the labour movement, by the workers?”