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 46 of 82.
“Did I hear rightly the Minister to say that it was not appropriate or prudent for him to reveal the names of the four companies? May I ask him why? Is it not a matter of public concern, and particularly for the investors, that the names of companies who are involved in these transactions should be made public?”
“I am obliged to the Hon. Minister for the prompt answer. May I ask the Minister whether he was present at this Cabinet meeting when the decision was taken? And when the decision was taken whether the report of the consultant, Dr Gitlow, was before the Cabinet?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Minister say whether the decision to seek parliamentary approval on the 31st August last year for payment of the pension to the ex-President was taken at Cabinet level or was it decided at Ministerial level? And if it was at Ministerial level, which Minister took the decision?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Minister ask the HDB to consider doing away with the tender system for rentals of shophouses and fix the rents according to the needs of the area?”
“I am not making any excuses. He is giving wrong information.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has not answered my other question, the second question, whether the four other cases also related to motorcars of PAP MPs. And on the question about the repayment of this $10 that was proferred by the senior officer to this man, may I assure the Minister that I knew about this long after the man had returned the $10 to this officer. [Laughter] I know you find it very funny. There is no question of this man having been advised by me to return the $10.”
“Was it deducted? Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Has been deducted.”
“Is the Minister aware that it is not a question of the officer paying the $20? It was deducted from him. Is the Minister not aware that there is a subtle difference between the man paying up $20 and it being compulsorily deducted from his salary? The other question is: will the Minister tell us whether these four cases that he referred to related to vehicles of PAP MPs? The third question is: would the Minister tell us whether this particular Member has a season parking ticket which he was required to display in his housing estate car park where the car was parked, and whether or not it was displayed at that time?”
“Does the Minister not understand my question? Has he not realized that I am not asking him to send me the Instruction Manual? I was asking him to read to me the specific rule which provides for the HDB to slap on a penalty of $20 on an alleged negligence, or otherwise, of an officer.”
“Would the Minister please disclose the rule or regulation under which this penalty was imposed?”
“Are we to understand from the Minister that the HDB is an authority unto itself that it can punish anybody without even telling him what the offence is, what the evidence against him is, and without hearing him? Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as HDB staff are concerned, the disciplinary action against the staff is clearly laid down in the HDB's administrative rules, and its staff is following these rules. The action taken against its staff is in accordance with these rules.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I sometimes despair of Ministers answering the questions put to them. Will the Minister answer the question: was there any inquiry conducted? Was the statement of the Member of Parliament about whether he had displayed any parking label on the car brought to the notice of this officer?”
“Would the Minister, first of all, confirm that this member of the public is also a Member of this House? And, secondly, would the Minister say whether any inquiry was held and the officer in question informed of the evidence against him before the penalty of $20 was slapped on him?”
“Before I dispose of this question, may I ask the First Deputy Prime Minister whether the American businessmen or whoever attended this lecture asked for an assurance that the PAP Government would continue to rule Singapore before they would continue to invest in Singapore?”
“I have another supplementary question, Mr Speaker, Sir.”
“May I inform the First Deputy Prime Minister that he is quite right in what the Prime Minister said: that they would consider it. But the question this morning is: Will you go to the people on a referendum? We are asking for a referendum. There is no question of considering it. You said you will go to the people on a referendum if there is a demand for it, and I say we are asking for it.”
“The question is whether it will be thrown to the public for discussion. That is my question: whether the public will be invited, whether there would be public meetings and discussions on this matter?”
“Could the First Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether this proposal will first be published in a White Paper and then thrown open to the people of Singapore for discussion?”
“Is the First Deputy Prime Minister in a position now to define these areas? That is what I am asking.”
“I was just saying that the First Deputy Prime Minister mentioned "areas". "Areas" is a plural word. Would the First Deputy Prime Minister define the areas in which it is proposed that the President should have veto powers? Does he not realize that the Prime Minister, speaking on this sometime last year, or was it the year before, confined it to purely the use of foreign reserves? Did the First Deputy Prime Minister enlarge these areas before the Americans?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the First Deputy Prime Minister if he is not aware of the distinction between my speaking in Jakarta or in Penang and the First Deputy Prime Minister speaking to foreigners about how we propose to govern ourselves in the future, without the matter first having been discussed with the people? I would respectfully suggest to the Minister that there is a distinction. The First Deputy Prime Minister himself this morning says that he told the Americans that there were certain -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a supplementary question for the First Deputy Prime Minister. But, first of all, could I ask him whether he does not think it improper, or perhaps uncalled for, to take issue with me on what is reported in his own paper, the Straits Times? I never saw any correction of this report from the First Deputy Prime Minister. But I will let that pass. May I ask the First Deputy Prime Minister, first of all, was there any reason why he went to the other side of the world to speak on a matter that concerns the people of Singapore primarily, without first discussing the proposals with the people of Singapore?”
“So it is these things that demean this House - when Members are frightened to stand up and to be counted for what they believe in or what they profess to believe in outside, when Members sheepishly follow the Party dictate because they are frightened to lose their seats in Parliament because of a loss of monetary gain. Is that not conduct which demeans the dignity of the Members of this House? Or is it conduct where a Member is seen to stand up for the principles that he espouses? We, on the Opposition Bench, have nothing to be ashamed of. We have stood up time and time again for the principles that we have espoused, and we are prepared to stand up and to be counted. So I would ask Members to think carefully about what conduct demeans the dignity of this House and of themselves as Members. The Member for Siglap, as I said, was obliquely referring to an appeal that we had made. I could see that that was what he was driving at and that was what the motion was directed at. I am well aware of the Standing Orders that reference must not be made about proceedings in courts. I could speak on it if you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, will excuse me from the observance of that Standing Order. I could talk about these proceedings. So let us not smugly point an accusing finger without knowing the full facts. If you want to know the full facts about that prosecution, I will be very happy to enlighten you on it. I have tried to do it outside, in the courts. So I would be very happy to do it here, but I am aware of the constraint in this House because these proceedings are still before the courts.”
“Ya, ya, ya! Listen. But what demeans the dignity of the Members of this House? Have you considered that? Does it or does it not demean the dignity of the Members of this House when you have Ministers who cannot and will not answer questions directly? Does it or does it not demean the dignity of this House when Ministers do not give even truthful answers to questions asked of them? That is the sort of conduct that demeans the dignity of this House to the people outside? Secondly, does it or does it not demean the dignity of this House when Members of Parliament do not and will not stand up to be counted according to their conscience? I have seen several instances in this House, since I came in here in 1981, when Members of the Government Party have been strident outside this House, telling their constituents that they are opposed to measures. And they come into this House to try and speak up. But when we put it to the vote, what happens? What happens? I have never had a single Member from the Government Party standing for what he has been voicing outside in protest to his constituents. May I ask whether it is that conduct that demeans the dignity of this House? Or is it the conduct where a Member is seen to be standing up for what he believes to be right, for the principles that he espouses at whatever cost to him? I would ask Members of this House to consider that. Which conduct demeans the dignity of this House? Which conduct demeans or attacks the privilege of this House? We have had someone complaining to this House about his being intimidated when he took part in parliamentary proceedings. Are we not going to uphold the privilege of this House?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Siglap has not got the courage, it would appear, to come quite clean with what he has in mind. That is the sort of conduct we have had from PAP Members in this Parliament. That is the sort of conduct that demeans the dignity of this House. He keeps talking about examples like this and like that. Like what? Why does he not have the courage, if he is a Member of Parliament, to say exactly what he means instead of trying to hide behind mumbo-jumbo? Sir, I am in full agreement that Members of this House should comport themselves with dignity and decorum, not only in this Chamber but outside it. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!”
“Point of clarification. Would the Member be honest and say what acts he is talking about? Mr Deputy Speaker: Is the Member giving way?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, although he did not specifically refer to it, it is quite clear what conviction he is referring to, and that is being dishonest.”
“The point is, as I said, this would appear to be directed at a particular act or conduct on the part of my Party. It is an imputation on my integrity here and, what is more important, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it touches upon matters which are before the courts at the moment. The courts are inquiring into the whole matter at the moment. And here is a Member - I do not know whether he knows what "sub judice" means - who is touching on matters which are strictly sub judice, talking about people convicted, of persons having been convicted in courts. I know what he is driving at and I ask for a ruling. Because if he is allowed to speak on that, then I shall claim the right to speak on the whole facts of the prosecution.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if I may proceed without the Leader interrupting.”
“If the Leader will only be patient. He has been told he does not know his Standing Orders.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. As I expected, this motion would appear to be directed at ---”
“Why don't you tell that to the Member for Chong Boon? Mr Teh Cheang Wan: --- which the Opposition Member was insinuating just now. Over the last two decades, the real income of Singaporeans has gone up continually. As a result, there is a constant upgrading by tenants of HDB flats to become flat owners. Statistics from the HDB showed that in the last five years, about 55,000 tenants have, on their own efforts, upgraded themselves to become home owners. In addition, more than 14,000 tenants are presently on the waiting list to purchase HDB flats. In other words, within the short period of five years, 70,000 of the tenants become flat owners on their own efforts. Singaporeans' incomes are continuously improving. It is not, as some people suggest to the foreign correspondents who are totally ignorant about Singapore, that thousands of Singaporeans are starving. However, notwithstanding the fact that there is already a constant stream of tenants upgrading themselves, the Government is now considering various measures to provide further assistance to low-income families so that more tenants will be able to become home owners, earlier. I am very grateful for the various useful suggestions made by PAP Members, both inside and outside this House, concerning the further assistance that could be given to help more tenants and low-income families to upgrade themselves. Continuous studies are presently being carried out by my Ministry and the HDB on this issue. It is hoped that a comprehensive announcement will be made on this in the next few months.”
“We should have a chorus for the Minister.”
“All right. Question on the amendment put, and negatived.”
“Well, it was my motion, Mr Speaker, Sir.”
“May I reply to the speeches on the amendment, Mr Speaker, Sir?”
“Sir, I have asked you for a ruling under Standing Orders. Is this Member allowed to go on making imputations? First of all, it is completely irrelevant to the amendment to the motion before the House. Secondly, he is making imputations, which are quite unnecessary and uncalled for.”
“Sir, on a point of order. First of all, there is an imputation. No names were mentioned. I am asking for a ruling whether the Member should be allowed to continue in that vein. Mr Goh Choon Kang( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder if he has a guilty conscience. I believe the people of Singapore all have a backbone and are straightforward. They could be poor, but they would not beg on their knees from others. They can stand straight, and would not beg for money or to swindle.”
“Sir, point of order. The point of order is: how is all this relevant to the amendment to the motion? It is all very interesting to hear the Member's personal history. But how is it relevant to the amendment?”
“You want ample participation, don't you?”
“He does not know what he is talking about. Will somebody show him the notice?”
“Because you do not know what you are talking about. You really do not know what you are talking about.”
“On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Chua Chu Kang is able to follow what he is saying himself, or he is lost. The simplest way of answering all this, if I may suggest to the Member, is to produce the notices to quit, and then we can talk about them. It is obvious that the Member does not know what is contained in the notice to quit from the HDB.”
“Would he like to ask the Minister to produce the notices to quit? He must know his facts before he speaks.”
“A point of clarification. Is the Member seriously saying that the notice to quit issued by the HDB specifies the reason? Will you produce one?”
“What does it say? Mr Tang See Chim: The Housing and Development Board does not give notice to quit without reason. If they do give a notice to quit, it is because either the tenant has breached a condition of the sale or ---”
“Point of clarification. May I ask the Member for Chua Chu Kang whether he has ever seen a notice to quit from the HDB? Does he not know what it says?”
“To find out the exact cost. Mr Tang See Chim: Naturally a commission of inquiry is to be appointed if you think there is something wrong. The Member for Anson himself recognizes the achievements of the Housing and Development Board and yet he wanted a commission of inquiry. In his amendment, he has asked the Commission of Inquiry to inquire into four areas. Areas (1) and (2) are that the present prices charged by the Housing and Development Board are too high. Area (3) is to examine whether or not Government could facilitate the purchase of subsidized housing by citizens in the lower income group. So far as these points are concerned, they have been adequately answered by the mover of the motion, the Member for Chong Boon. What I would do is to spend some time on the fourth point raised by the Member for Anson, and that is, his amendment "to examine all the powers at present exercised by the Housing and Development Board and their justification therefor." By this, he implies that either the Housing and Development Board has been exercising its powers unjustifiably, for which he really has not given us any evidence, or that the Housing and Development Board has powers given to it which are unjustified. In moving his amendment he made a series of allegations without any substantial evidence to support them. One was that the Housing and Development Board is entitled to give notice to quit to the owners of the flats. I wonder where did he get such a provision which entitles the Housing and Development Board to give notice to quit without cause, without any reason. He did say that Part IV of the Housing and Development Act gives the Housing and Development Board very draconian powers.”
“It is for us, as representatives of the people, to suggest concrete measures to the Government, and a concrete measure towards helping the people would be to inquire into the cost and then to see whether the prices can be reduced for our people who are unable to afford them at the present prices, and also to inquire into how payments can be made easier for them, and then the whole question of the terms and conditions under which they occupy their flats. I have mentioned before that in other countries the tenants sit on the board of the public housing boards. Here, our owners of HDB apartments or tenants have no representation on the Board. Is it not time we moved up a little bit and gave them some representation so that their views can be heard? Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. 3.27 pm”
“We have had 25 years of the HDB providing public housing, and it is good, at this time when most of our people have been provided with apartments, that there should now be an inquiry into not only the prices that are being charged but also on the whole question of public housing - how much that should be subsidized, what should be the rights of the owners of these apartments, how their rights should be protected, what protection should be given to them against the HDB or against anybody else. The whole question should be examined. At the moment, under the law a tenant of an HDB apartment has no protection whatsoever. The HDB has only to serve a notice to quit, giving one week's notice, and if the man does not move out with his family, HDB goes to the court - it does not always go to the court, as I have been saying - and throws him out. It is time to consider whether they should be left completely at the mercy of the HDB. I am sure the Minister will say in his reply, "Well, we do not. We are not tyrants as you have made us out to be. We do not throw everybody out. We consider every case on its merits, and it is only in really bad cases that we exercise these draconian powers." But that is not the answer. The answer is that you should give our citizens their rights, and everything should be spelt out in Acts or in Regulations, and not left to the discretion of the HDB or any other authority. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would ask the movers of the motion to accept this amendment because it gives substance to the motion moved by them. The motion, as it stands, is that it "urges the Government to take suitable measures". That is not going far enough.”