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 47 of 82.
“If you are serious about encouraging them to own their own homes, it is no good saying, "Well, we will give you a loan, my man" if it is going to saddle him for the rest of 20 years or more with having to make large payments from his salary which he can ill afford. That is not going to help him to make up his mind to buy the house. He wants to know whether it is being offered to him at a cost which he can well afford. The other aspect, of course, is the method of payment of the price for the apartments. I was very glad to note from the mover of the motion that he had in mind, or he was recommending to the Government, that the HDB should consider lowering the interest on loans given to those in the lower income group. We made the suggestion at our National Day Rally in August of this year, and I am glad to find that it is being considered, if not by the Minister for National Development, by at least the PAP Backbenchers. So it is not true that we do not make suggestions that are not worthy of consideration. He has also suggested that loan terms for repayment should be extended and that there should be a reduction in the downpayment that is required from all purchasers. Those are some measures and, of course, one can think of other measures to help the lower income group. But my plea is this: I think it is time we had a public inquiry into the whole question of public housing.”
“I know the Minister for National Development still continues to deny that the HDB is making a profit on the construction and sale of these apartments. But may I tell the Minister that very few people believe that. We do not believe it and we have been saying this right from 1981, after I came in. I pointed out, in my first appearance in this House, that the service and conservancy charges collected by the HDB were far in excess of what they were spending on the service and conservancy for these flats. And, of course, after that, the notes to the accounts were rewritten to show that the accounts also included a number of other items which were paid. But let us not forget that last year (was it?) $40 million was transferred from the service and conservancy charges to repay loans. If any illustration was needed, that provided ample illustration that the HDB was collecting far more than it needed for service and conservancy. So if the Government intends to promote purchase of HDB apartments among the lower income group, something must be done to inquire into the cost of the HDB apartments so that the fears of the public may be laid at rest. There should be an inquiry, and I have suggested a Commission of Inquiry under the Inquiry Commissions Act with quantity surveyors and the Commission receiving evidence from members of the public and from people who are in the construction business about the cost to the HDB inbuilding these flats and at what price they should be sold. There should be an examination by this Commission into the justification for the present prices, whether there is not a case for a reduction of these prices. That is one part of it. You have got to try and bring down the cost, particularly for the lower income group, of the HDB apartments.”
“Ever since the HDB took over the task of providing public housing for our citizens, prices have been increased for these apartments without any public justification or control over the increase in the prices. Before 31st October 1981, every year prices went up, sometimes it went up by 10%, 15%, and in 1981 the prices went up by as much as 38%. The Minister for National Development, in presenting the increase in prices for 1981 (this was before 31st October 1981) mentioned that the HDB would go bankrupt if it continued to sell the flats at the prices they had been selling them. But, as I pointed out, when I later came into this House, when he made the announcement he was not able to tell the public what was the unit cost to the HDB for the construction of the apartments. He was not able to do that because the accounts prepared by the HDB did not show a costing of the flats. And so all that the public had was a statement by the Minister that the HDB was selling at prices below the construction cost, below the cost to it, and it could not go on doing this and there had to be an increase. I pointed out to the Minister, way back in 1982, that before he appealed to the public he should have gone to them with proper figures to justify the need for the increase and that he could only have done that if he had a costing of the flats unit by unit - 3-room, 4-room, 5-room, 6-room. I say this, Mr Speaker, Sir, because the HDB is a public body, a statutory board made accountable to Parliament and to the public through Parliament. But it has over the years completely disregarded its obligations to the citizens and to the public. It has become a law unto itself. It has increased its prices without considering whether it should justify these prices to the public and to the purchasers.”
“Sir, a playwright in the 16th century, I think, wrote about good wine needing no bush. I do not know why it is necessary that the HDB be praised. If that is necessary, then it has not served the people of Singapore. I have complained in this House several times about the draconian powers exercised by the HDB over the lives of our citizens through this home-ownership plan. It is some kind of home-ownership plan, Mr Speaker, Sir, ownership where the owner has really no rights over his home. If one looks at Part IV of the Housing and Development Act, Mr Speaker, Sir, one finds that the owner of an HDB apartment is only an owner in name. The HDB is given powers under the Act for a host of reasons to dispossess the owner and to re-acquire the property. And when it does, it pays him whatever it thinks fit he should receive for the property. A philosopher wrote about the state becoming a leviathan, Mr Speaker, Sir. Here in Singapore we have a veritable leviathan in the Housing and Development Board, notwithstanding that it has, as I said, built these homes for our people. The last part of the motion, Mr Speaker, Sir, deals with the question of encouraging our low-income group to own their own homes. It is only the last part of the motion which deals with that. Ostensibly it was intended as a motion to encourage our citizens to own their own homes. Sir, as I said, it is, of course, desirable that everyone should own their own home, and it is to this end that I have proposed an amendment to this motion because we can then inquire into the cost of the HDB apartments that are made available to our citizens.”
“That seems to me to be the real purpose of this motion because from the motion itself you will see, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the first three parts, as I said, sing a chorus of praise for the HDB's achievements. And, as I said a little while ago, I am not averse to giving praise or recognizing the contribution where it is due. But let us not forget that whilst it provided houses for the citizens, the HDB has been used as an instrument of political control by the PAP Government. That is quite evident from the powers that have been given to the HDB under the statute and also from the powers that the HDB has arrogated to itself outside the Act - its list of people who are forbidden to apply for HDB apartments, its powers to throw people out, its exclusion of people from alternative accommodation when they are resettled. A number of these powers have been used to the misery and unhappiness of a lot of our citizens and, as I said, it has been useful because, through the HDB, people could be controlled. If they should attempt to be a little troublesome, as the word is, they can always be brought to heel through the HDB mechanism by a visit to their flat by HDB officers with a simple hint, a suggestion that they are there just at the pleasure of the HDB and that they owe their residence to the pleasure of the HDB and to the PAP Government. So it is not all a matter of the people's welfare and serving the people. The Government, of course, recognizes the effectiveness of a statutory board like the HDB to serve its purposes to maintain political control and in that respect the HDB has done very well. Mr Speaker, Sir, as was mentioned by the mover and perhaps the seconder, the reason for this motion is that the HDB is celebrating its 25 years of existence.”
“That seems to me to be the main problem at the moment in Singapore, not the question of whether they can buy an HDB apartment or not. There are now at least 7,000 to 8,000 of our workers who are retrenched. And particularly those who come from the lower income group, those who occupy the 1-room, 2-room flats, they are finding it very difficult, a struggle, to make ends meet. The question of buying their own homes is furthest from their minds at the moment. So I wondered why the Members, no doubt at the instigation of the Government, have tabled this motion. I suspected it was probably because the HDB wanted praise for the HDB's achievements. They wanted praise from this House, acknowledgment of the contributions made by the HDB over the past 25 years. I am not against giving praise where it is due and no one can deny that there have been a tremendous number of apartments built for our people over the last 25 years. That was the reason for this motion, and it became clearer as I heard the mover of the motion and his seconder and others speak after that. The purpose clearly was to sing a chorus of praise for the HDB, and not only for the HDB but also for the PAP Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems to be assumed from the Government side that the history of Singapore only started from 1959, that Singapore's progress only began in 1959 and before that there was nothing really to speak of. One is to forget that the people were enabled to buy their own houses because of the foresight of the government, before the PAP took over, in introducing the Central Provident Fund for our citizens. But that is all lost and forgotten. Whatever the SIT did should not be mentioned. All attention should now be focussed merely on the HDB and, of course, the PAP Government.”
“May I now speak on the motion and then on my amendment, Mr Speaker, Sir. When I saw this motion that was tabled, I wondered why the motion was tabled at this point in time. It is not, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I am against the principle of home ownership. I am all for it, and I think it is very desirable that as many of our citizens should be helped and encouraged to own their own homes. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, that is not the burning question at the moment in the minds of many a Singaporean. I do not think for a minute that their priority - and, of course, we are talking about those who are not owning HDB flats and the motion is directed to helping them - I do not think their priority at the moment is whether they can buy an HDB flat or apartment. Indeed, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say that one of the problems that many residents in HDB apartments are facing now is whether they will be able to continue with their instalment payments to the HDB in this time of recession. Mr Speaker, Sir, only last night somebody came to see me in my office in my constituency, someone not from my own constituency but from outside the constituency. It was a woman. She said she had come to see me with a letter on behalf of retrenched workers. Their problem at the moment is how to meet the HDB instalment payments and the fear that was looming over them was whether they would lose their HDB apartments. Her suggestion was that I should say something in Parliament that the HDB should consider very seriously cases of these retrenched workers who find themselves unable to make their instalment payments and to give appropriate relief to them - either suspend the payments for the period of their unemployment, spread the payment and or reduce the amount of the instalments.”
“Do it now? As you please, Mr Speaker, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move an amendment to the motion standing in the names of the Members for Chong Boon and Paya Lebar: To delete all the words after the word "Government" appearing in the 8th line and to insert thereafter the following words - 'to appoint a Commission of Inquiry:- (1) to inquire into the present prices charged by the Housing and Development Board to purchasers; (2) to examine the justification for these prices and whether they cannot be reduced; (3) to examine and recommend proposals to facilitate the purchase of publicly subsidized housing by citizens in the lower income group; (4) to examine all the powers at present exercised by the Housing and Development Board and their justification therefor'. Sir, I beg to move my amendment.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have an amendment to this motion but I do not propose to move it now. I propose to speak, first of all, on the motion and then move my amendment half-way through, and then speak on the amendment. Or would you like me to move my amendment first?”
“Would he tell us what stand did he take in the discussions, not on the report he gave to reporters afterwards about whether he favoured sanctions or not? May we know quite categorically what was the stand that Singapore took?”
“I see that the Prime Minister finds all this very funny. It must be his particular brand of humour. May I move on to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference in the Bahamas. Because very little has been reported about the Prime Minister's utterances in this conference, may we know from him what stand he took on this question of sanctions against South Africa? Did he, for example, stand with the Prime Minister of a neighbouring country, one of the members of Asean, or did he line up behind the British Prime Minister?”
“Are we to understand from the Prime Minister that he is not desirous of keeping this area nuclear free?”
“Did the Prime Minister discuss with President Reagan the dispute that the United States is having with New Zealand over the visit of nuclear warships to New Zealand? The Prime Minister: No.”
“Did the Prime Minister express his concern and the desirability of keeping this area nuclear free?”
“All right, Mr Speaker, Sir, if you rule that he does not have to answer. May I move on to his discussions with President Reagan. Did he discuss with President Reagan the question of stability and peace in this part of the world? Did he discuss it or not? Let us have a straight answer.”
“Not in China, outside. I take it that the Prime Minister proposes not to answer the question about the communist threat to Singapore and about the continued detention of Mr Chia Thye Poh. Is that what I am to understand?”
“I have, Mr Prime Minister, if you will listen. Were you not reported as having said that you were satisfied with the assurances that they would not export communism into this part of the world?”
“I am, Mr Speaker, Sir, trying to fathom the Prime Minister's mind ---”
“It is in relation to the communist threat, communist subversion, which at one time the Prime Minister himself said originated from China.”
“If, from what he said that he had no reason to doubt their assurances that there is no communist threat here, may I ask what is the continued justification for the detention of Mr Chia Thye Poh?”
“It must have been obvious. I suppose it was not obvious to the Prime Minister.”
“Is the Prime Minister saying that there was no discussion at all with the Chinese leaders about stability in this part of the world? Is he saying that?”
“Did you not? I thought that you were reported as having got these assurances.”
“I am getting my thoughts right, Mr Prime Minister. It is you who is having difficult getting your thoughts right. The question is: do you now consider that there is any communist threat to Singapore?”
“May we take it from the Prime Minister that he is fully satisfied with their assurance that they would not export communism nor any insurrection into these areas? And is he then satisfied that there is no communist threat to Singapore?”
“Surely the Prime Minister must accept that he will have to justify every cost to the taxpayer. But let us move on to the next question. Was the Prime Minister satisfied in his talks with the Chinese leaders that they would not export communism to this part of the world nor encourage any insurrection in this part of the world?”
“What insights did he bring into the problems that you were discussing with the Chinese leaders?”
“Would the Prime Minister please enlighten this House a little bit more? These things cannot be kept secret. May we know what was the function and the role of the Senior Minister in his Office?”
“I am asking you. Are you saying that you did not take a team of 30 to China with you? And if you did not, how many did you take? It is as simple as that.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, supplementary questions for the Prime Minister. First of all, if I may take the trips in their sequence. On the China trip, may I know what was the reason for taking such a large delegation and, particularly, what was the role and purpose of the Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Office in this delegation?”
“I am not going to move a motion to adopt that Report.”
“Is it? Here is a member of the public who writes to Parliament. Should not Parliament consider his petition and give him a reply? Is he not entitled to that courtesy at least?”
“That is so, Mr Speaker, Sir. But I am saying to the Leader of the House and to the Members here that this is a matter on which the House should consider the Report. I rang up the Clerk and I was told that there would be no consideration, ie, there would be no motion from the Minister on this.”
“It concerns the privilege of this House that the petitioner prays that the legal proceedings instituted against him for defamation arising from his representation submitted by him to the Select Committee on the Companies (Amendment) Bill be declared a breach of the privileges of Parliament. It concerns the privilege of this House.”
“It does say so, Mr Speaker, Sir. If you look at the Report of the Public Petitions Committee ---”
“I am aware of that, Mr Speaker, Sir, but the petition concerns the privilege of this House.”
“When it comes to a question on the Committee of Privileges, there is a requirement for the Leader of the House to give notice of a motion expressing the opinion of Parliament in regard to the Report. That is a question concerning privilege and this petition was a question of the privileges of Parliament. Mr Speaker: No. This petition is a matter for the Public Petitions Committee and not the Committee of Privileges.”
“--- from this Public Petitions Committee to Parliament and Parliament must consider that Report. Parliament has not considered that Report yet.”
“It is my contention, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it has not.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, will you hear me on my complaint about the way in which ---”
“' --- before the end of the session in which the Committee was appointed, and if a Committee finds itself unable to conclude its investigations before the end of the session, it shall so report to Parliament.' [Interruption]. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I carry on in spite of all these interruptions?”
“It is Standing Order 100. It says: '(1) Every Select Committee shall make a report to Parliament upon the matters referred to them ---' .”
“It is not. With the deepest respect, Mr Speaker, Sir, to you, this is not a reply of Parliament. As I understand Standing Orders, once a Select Committee of this House ---”
“I was only sent this Report from the Public Petitions Committee of this House. But that is not the reply from Parliament. This is the point that I am making, Mr Speaker, Sir.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no specific provision in the Standing Orders. [Interruption]. May I carry on, Mr Speaker, Sir?”
“No. There was a Report to this Parliament from the Committee. I am talking about a reply to the man who presented the petition.”
“I say it is a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir, because it concerns Standing Orders of this House.”
“It is on the Standing Orders that I am asking.”
“The question is simply this, Mr Speaker, Sir. There was presented to this House, not just to the Committee but to this House, Parliament, a petition from a member of the public to the peoples' representatives gathered here. I understand from the member of the public concerned that he has had no reply to the petition that was presented to this House. My first question then is: should there not have been a reply to the man? ---”
“That is the question I am asking, Mr Speaker, Sir.”