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 5 of 82.
“Sir, I am afraid the Minister has not answered my question. May I ask him, finally, whether he has looked at annual statements to see what profits these bus companies have made over the last few years and whether they have been decreasing or whether they have been increasing every year? Has he looked at the accounts?”
“Sir, does the Minister of State remember that in his statement he said that the drivers had suffered pay cuts during the recession, and it was only fair that they should now have their salaries increased, or words to that effect? May I ask the Minister of State whether he looked into the accounts of the bus companies during the recession to see whether their profits had gone down a substantial level that required the salaries to be cut, if they were indeed cut? Had he made those inquiries?”
“The Minister keeps saying it is for investigation purposes. Is there going to be an investigation if someone complains that the speaker, while speaking, had made some very critical and pungent criticisms of the Government or any official? Will there be any investigation as to why the man said it?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister why is it thought to be transparent about the need for registration when in other parts of the world no registration is required at all? Secondly, what is going to happen to these records? My question was an unequivocal assurance that it will not be released to anybody. How long are you going to keep it, and under what secrecy will these records be kept?”
“May I ask whether the Ministry, or the Prime Minister, is aware that these CISCO personnel were given these little sums of money without them asking for it? They were given at the end of their task.”
“Sir, Question No. 20. Before the Question is answered, may I say that I acted, before I ceased practice, as a lawyer for two of these men. But I have no pecuniary interest in this Question at all.”
“May I ask the Minister: what is he afraid of about public debate? Is he afraid of the public of Singapore or is he afraid of the Workers' Party? Is that what is worrying him? Secondly, may I ask the Minister: is he aware that it is not just Hyde Park where the people of London are allowed to speak up? They can speak up anywhere else, and not only just in London but in any other part of the country. So it is nonsensical to say that London has only got one Speakers' Corner. Thirdly, why is there any need even for registration? May we have an assurance that the particulars of the speaker will not be sent to the Internal Security Department?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister, and I hope it is not to be thought impertinent, but because of the view expressed by the Deputy Prime Minister that this was merely symbolism, whether the Government is seriously intent on promoting free speech in Singapore or is this just another mere show? If it is seriously interested in promoting free speech, would the Minister agree to an open debate with the Workers' Party outside?”
“Does the Minister not agree that it will make for greater transparency if we had a Board of Ethics which investigated and reported it publicly? Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: My speech this afternoon and the response are as transparent as he can hope to have. I do not see what else he wants to do. MANAGEMENT OF OVERALL CREDIT RISK 2. Mrs Lim Hwee Hua asked the Deputy Prime Minister, given the changing nature of the provision of financial services, especially where a more timely extension of online credit may mean that credit risk assessment lags approvals, how overall credit risk will be managed. 3. Mrs Lim Hwee Hua asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether there are signs, anecdotal or actual, of excessive consumer credit, given the recovery in confidence and the advent of online services, and how the Government will act to curb such excess, if necessary.”
“Having heard the Minister, may I ask whether the Minister does not think it right that perhaps it is time that a Board of Ethics be appointed to investigate any misconduct or malpractices of any sort in the business sector in Singapore?”
“Why do we not have a comprehensive study on what the problems are and how much it will cost the Government to provide the answers to these problems?”
“Sir, my concern is something which I have constantly raised and that is the cost of healthcare, and I say this, particularly, for our people who are not well off. I am concentrating on those whose income is below $2,000 a month. I once previously asked for a breakdown of the cost to the Government of maintaining a patient in a Class C ward. I got a general answer, there was no breakdown given, but a general answer about the land cost that goes into the cost and what else goes into it. Can we not have something which the ordinary man can understand, a White Paper on how much it costs the Government to keep a patient in a Class C ward for a day, saying exactly what the cost is, and how it is provided for so that the citizens may then understand the problems of the Government and be able to appreciate what the Government is trying to do? So will it be possible now for the Minister to seriously consider putting out a White Paper on the cost to the Government of providing healthcare in Class C and Class B2 wards because that is where they say the subsidy is the greatest? Then we will understand what the subsidy is. Finally, before I sit down, may I again renew my plea to this Government? Will it consider seriously setting up a committee to study the implementation of a health insurance for the whole of Singapore? Why can we not even study it instead of dismissing it? The object must be to provide, as has been stressed this morning, healthcare at effective cost. Is it not possible that a national healthcare insurance might provide healthcare at effective cost? Will the Government please consider setting up a committee? It would appear, from what I heard this morning, that the Government attacks every problem as it arises.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I understand the Minister, he seems to attribute the long queues partly and for a greater part to the reluctance of people to go and see their own family physicians. Does he think that perhaps cost may be a factor in this? Has his Ministry ever considered getting private doctors into a scheme of voluntary service? The specialists outside could help and the Government could subsidise their fees, if they would only collect a certain amount from the patients. Has the Minister thought about this at all?”
“Sir, again, I am, more than in the previous case, not satisfied. May I state that and could it be put on record. But I will withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $34,432,080 for Head B ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $12,079,400 for Head B ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head N -”
“Defend the truth. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: If that is the truth, then he does not need to look at what he has written because that is the truth. The truth cannot vary. The truth is the truth. So the law evolves. If there is no risk of the accused tailoring his defence according to the statements he has previously given to the police, and this is the case of Ronnie Tay, then the High Court says that there is no objection to disclosing the police statements to the accused. Sir, the bottomline is this. The interest of justice is served by ensuring that the truth emerges during the trial, not by enabling a guilty person to escape punishment by looking at his long statement and having the time in the comfort of his office, or elsewhere, to think of a defence that is consistent with the long statement so that he has an advantage. So long as an accused person, as I have said just now, tells the truth at every stage to the police, to the courts, he has no need to fear about not being able to see his own police statements before he gives evidence. 3.15 pm”
“The Minister is making statements without having attended any trial conferences.”
“May I seek clarification? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I want to finish my speech. He has taken his full 10 minutes.”
“So during the PTC, the court will generally attempt to identify the disputed issues for trial and this would include the disclosure of the accused statements if the prosecution indicates that it intends ---”
“From business enterprise. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Not true, because the latest poll by the Subordinate Courts polled not just business people, but Singaporeans. 1,500 Singaporeans were polled and they expressed full confidence in the fair administration of justice. Other polls were also conducted. The legal administration in Singapore has also come for high mention. Indeed, in some countries, the pendulum has swung too much the other way. We do not want that to happen in Singapore. For example, in UK, the Criminal Procedure Investigating Act was enacted in 1996 in part to address the imbalance that existed before then, ie, too much in favour of the prosecution. Therefore, remedial steps were taken. So let us not go down that path. Mr Jeyaretnam knows that, in a criminal trial, in order to succeed, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. And this is already a high burden, which is placed on the prosecution. Like I said just now, any trial is to uncover the truth, not to trip anyone up. So even if the prosecution does tender the long statement of the accused during trial, it is not to trip the accused up. But it is to uncover the truth, that is, the prosecution must impeach the witness' credibility because he has said something which does not match with the statement he has given to the police. I think it is beholden on the Public Prosecutor who seeks the truth and justice to tender that statement. Sir, the current practice on the furnishing of police statements to the accused person is already a balanced one. In fact, it is evolving over time. For example, I understand the pre-trial conferences (PTC) have introduced greater openness to the process.”
“Also, let me remind him that every society must find its own balance between how to protect this public interest and ensuring that the accused has a fair trial. And the system that we have in Singapore is a system that is open for all to see, for all to critique. The legal system and all the processes in the system are part of the criminal justice system that has received high praise, not from Singaporeans alone, not from PAP backbenchers, but from objective ---”
“" There was an observation by Justice Rajendran some time ago when he took the prosecution to task for not releasing the statement made by an accused when the defence asked for it. His words were, "Do you realise that you are suppressing evidence?" So that is the position. May I ask that the Attorney-General's Chambers be asked to give this real consideration and see that they do not try and obtain convictions by any unfair means. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, in his usual grain, Mr Jeyaretnam wants to shift the balance more in favour of the accused. That is his enduring theme all these years. Sir, first, let me say that, in Singapore, accused persons do not have a right to copies of statements made to the police apart from the first information report and the cautioned statements they themselves have made to the police. That is a matter of practice which has been done. It is quite different from the question of admissibility. Admissibility goes to whether a statement can be admitted in court. Here, we are talking about whether an accused person is entitled to have a certain statement that he has made. So that is the first point. Indeed, there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) for the automatic disclosure by the accused persons of documents in the possession of the prosecution. There is clause 58(1) of the CPC. But this is only where the accused is able to satisfy the court that the document is necessary or desirable for the conduct of his trial that he may be able to obtain a copy of the statement. Sir, let me also remind Mr Jeyaretnam that, in prosecuting a case, the Attorney-General's Chambers, first and foremost, seeks to protect the public interest, not just to win cases. There is a much wider stake that is at issue.”
“They say they want it because they want to see whether they can trip him up when he gives his evidence, to see whether he has said something differently in the statement to the police. That seems to me to be taking a very unfair, unjust advantage over an accused person, and that is coming from the prosecution chambers in this country. 3.00 pm May I say to this House, which I have said to the court several times, that it is no duty, no part of the prosecution to win its cases. This has been said over and over again. The prosecution owes to the accused to be fair and just. It has the duty to see that the accused gets the fairest trial, not trying to obtain a conviction by means of withholding statements which might be able to assist him. May I quote to this House what a very learned prosecutor in England, Mr Christmas Humphreys, a devout Buddhist, said in one of his public lectures that one of the first things he did when he was assigned a case to prosecute was to ring up the defence counsel, counsel for the accused and say, "Is there anything I can do to assist you? You want any information, you want to know anything?" That is how prosecution should be conducted. Prosecution should not be conducted by withholding information and evidence that might be useful to the accused and then springing it on him. That is simply not being fair to an accused person. So I would ask that the Attorney-General be told that they should consider this practice because the law is that it is admissible. We have asked the courts over and over again to rule, but the courts have said, "We cannot, because it is for the Attorney-General's Chambers. We wouldn't rule against that.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head B of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. My question in this House is the propriety of the Attorney-General's Chambers in withholding from an accused person statements taken from him in the course of police investigation. The law is quite clear. The law is that any statement taken from any person, whether it be an accused or a witness, by a police officer above the rank of Sergeant is admissible at the trial. Of course, if the accused or the person making the statement says that it was obtained against his will, it was an involuntary statement, then the court has to consider whether it should be admitted or not. But the law is that it is admissible. Despite what the law is, the AG's Chambers has consistently denied lawyers acting for the accused the right to look at statements made by their clients during police investigation, particularly statements under section 121 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This is where the Police spend hours questioning the man and then taking his long statement, as they call it. The prosecution keeps that statement. If they wish to use it, then they make it available to the accused just before the trial. But if they do not wish to use it because that statement does not help them, but it may help the accused, they refuse to release it to the accused. That seems to me, without any doubt, to offend the rule of natural justice. It denies to the accused evidence that is in his favour which he can use. Of course, I shall be told by the Minister of State - I see he is going to reply - that yes, we do release it, but it is only released after the accused has given his evidence. And they make no secret of it.”
“I am not satisfied at all. But, nevertheless, I will withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $62,764,240 for Head E ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $53,554,500 for Head E ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head B -”
“The accused person is taking it up, not the Public Prosecutor. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: If the accused person takes it up, then the law is quite clear what he has to satisfy. He has to convince the Court that there is a point of law of public interest, the resolution of which has affected the outcome of the appeal, and the High Court has to consider the application. Even though it is the court that decided the case - I think we must give it to our Judges - Mr Jeyaretnam will not be fair if he says that because a particular Judge decided the case, he will not want that point to go up on reference to the Court of Appeal, because he must justify it. It is all in the records. So people can look at it, read it, other Judges can look at it, academics can write on it. So he will be exposed to ridicule if he does not comply with the requirements set out in section 60 which incidentally is well-illustrated in our cases.”
“May I clarify the point that I am worried about?”
“All right, Sir. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, as Mr Jeyaretnam himself says, he has made this point many times before and I have replied to him many times before. All these are in the Hansard. The situation has not changed. The losing party, whether the Public Prosecutor or the accused person, indeed has a right of appeal. Regardless of which party is appealing, there is only one level of appeal, because there must be finality and the process stops there. Mr Jeyaretnam rose --- Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Let me continue, Sir.”
“I have said that in a number of other countries, particularly the Commonwealth countries, the prevailing norm is a two-tier appeal. In our country, it is just one-tier, but there are these situations where even this one appeal is denied. In other countries, the Public Prosecutor has no right of appeal where the acquittal is on merit but in Singapore, the Public Prosecutor can appeal where the acquittal goes simply on the merits and not on any question of law. I think it is time we looked at this right of appeal. I personally would like a review of the whole appellate system in Singapore, even in the civil cases. We passed a Bill quite recently denying appeals in civil cases where the amount of the claim is $50,000 or less, but providing that the person who is aggrieved may apply to the Judge who heard the case to grant leave. May I say from personal experience that it is extremely difficult to get leave from the Judge who has heard the case on the merits and who is satisfied that the decision is right. It would seem to be going against the grain to later say, yes, I think the decision may be wrong, I will give you leave to appeal.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head E of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, this is a subject which I have brought up several times in this House. At the moment, in Singapore, for all purposes, there is only a single right of appeal from a conviction sustained in the Subordinate Court. It is a single-tier appeal. And similarly, when a conviction is sustained in the High Court, there is a single tier appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. I have said that this is not very satisfactory. There have been instances in the past, and of course there was my case, where they have been refused right of appeal. Somehow I was able to take it up in another related appeal to the Privy Council where they said all the convictions were wrong. But it is not to complain about my matter that I have raised. I am very concerned about the situation where an accused person has been acquitted by the trial court in the Subordinate Courts and the Public Prosecutor appeals against that acquittal. The High Court decides in its wisdom to set aside the acquittal and substitute a conviction of the man or woman. In that instance, unless the Appellate Court, hearing the appeal by the Public Prosecutor, agrees to state questions of law to the Court of Criminal Appeal, the unfortunate man or woman is left with no right of appeal at all. He is convicted after he has been acquitted, after a full trial on the merits by a Judge of the court and then he is convicted, and he is left with no redress. This has happened at least in two cases or more that I can remember, and it is a most unsatisfactory system. It denies the basic right of an individual to have his conviction tested by an Appellate Court.”
“May I know whether the Prime Minister has any responsibility for advising the Ministers, or it is left solely to the Senior Minister? I think we need more clarification as to why it is necessary for the Prime Minister's Office to have seven Ministers. What exactly are they doing and why is it necessary to pay them what they are being paid at the moment?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Mrs Lim, in moving the debate on the examination of the estimates for the Prime Minister's Office, focuses on the performance of civil servants. I would now like to focus a little bit on the Ministers. I know I have been asking this every year, but I am afraid I have not got any satisfactory answers. I see the provision for political appointments for next year has gone up by something like $3,159,500. May I ask what is this increase for? May I be told where is this money going to? Secondly, something which I have already raised is, do we really need seven Ministers in the Prime Minister's Office for the tasks of the Prime Minister and his colleagues? We have five Ministers and two Ministers of State, besides the Parliamentary Secretary and two Political Secretaries. I have asked time and time again about a greater clarification of the duties of these various Ministers, and I have never been given a proper answer. I see that under the Constitution notification of the responsibilities of Ministers, the responsibility of the Senior Minister is that he is charged with the responsibility for advising Ministers on any of the subjects. When he was the Prime Minister and Mr Rajaratnam was the Senior Minister, I asked the Prime Minister what exactly was Mr Rajaratnam doing, and his answer was, "He advises me whenever I need his advice." I thought then he was paid an unduly heavy sum for that duty. May we know what exactly is the duty performed by the Senior Minister in the office? The notification says he is charged with the responsibility. Does he advise the Ministers when he is called upon for advice? Does he give directives every day to the Ministries as to how they should conduct their affairs and how they should run their Ministry?”
“What are our political imperatives? Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I make a plea for greater transparency in information provided in the management of our finances. Not too long ago I tabled a Question for Written Answer of the Minister for Finance asking whether we could be told about all the losses that have been suffered by wholly-owned Government linked companies from 1965. I got a reply, a long one, but in essence, it does not make sense.”
“Why do we not do that, so that the public can see? I suggested that perhaps we should consider reducing the period of national service. I see that carries quite a bit of chunk of the operating cost. Do we need to keep our boys for 2-21/2 years in the army to give them the training that they need? Could we not speed it up and cut the cost? Or are we just happy to go on and show that we are spending all this money on our defence? The trouble is that it may be sending the wrong signals to our neighbours to see that Singapore keeps increasing its defence expenditure. So I ask that we explain to the people. If we explain to them, they will accept it. But I am asked by several people, believe me, why is it necessary for us to spend this amount of money in our defence when, as I have said before, the world would appear to be getting a safer place, particularly this region? May I say a little about the provision for the ageing population. I see that the Government plans to provide what it calls a Supplementary Retirement Scheme. That, as the Minister explains, is to be purely voluntary. If you are able to put aside, yes, come and put it aside. What if you are not able to put it aside? If you need all the money that you are earning to keep your body and soul together and you are unable to save, so you are not going to be looked after when you are 65 and over. Instead of all these schemes, when will this Government move on to study a proper pension scheme for all our citizens above the age of 65 so that the cost of this pension is met across the board, everyone contributing towards this national social security? What is wrong with that? What is wrong with a national health service? Why do we not set up a committee to study this? Or are we not interested?”
“" At one time, it was said that I would rather have the Russians come in. That was when I was here in Parliament in 1981 to 1986. But it is time, Mr Speaker, Sir, that Singaporeans were told in plain language why we have to spend such a large chunk of our monies on defence. Why do we have to put a ceiling of 6% of GDP on our defence expenditure, so that we can go on increasing until we reach that? Is that the goal, that we should spend 6% of our GDP on defence? I see that it has gone up every year. From 1995, when it was $5 billion in the chart given, it is now $7.4 billion in 2000. So, what are we going up to next year? In previous years, I quoted the spending in other countries. I have not got the time to do that this year. I pointed out that Singapore was very high in the spending on defence. The only country that exceeded our defence spending were those countries which were in trouble spots. I see that India has suddenly increased its defence spending. I do not know whether expressed in terms of GDP percentage it has exceeded Singapore's. But India is in a totally different position. They have some trouble on their borders. Do we have trouble? I think it is time, Mr Speaker, Sir, that Singaporeans were told where do we expect the threat. Where is the trouble coming for Singapore and why is it necessary for us to spend the money that we are proposing to spend to meet this trouble? We do not want just remarks like, "Oh, the security of Singapore is important or paramount." No one questions it. The Workers' Party does not question it. The Workers' Party is second to none in asserting that the security of Singapore is very important. I suggested, even in the 80s when I was here, that we set up a committee to study the effective cost of defending Singapore.”
“Education and health are the key to the economic progress of a country. We do not need an economist to tell us that. We seem to pay lip service to it. The Minister says that less than half of Singaporeans above 40 have secondary education, and he says steps will be taken to retrain these workers. But should we wait until they are over 40 and unemployed before we begin the process of educating them? Should we not catch them young when they are in the schools? Should our aim not be to see that every child in Singapore has a minimum of secondary education? That is where we should be concentrating our efforts and our money. If we do that and we see that schools turn out every year enough people with secondary education, then we need not have to worry about our workforce. But, obviously, we are not doing that at the moment. We do not want any elitist education. There is no harm in providing elitist education for some. But we want education for all. No one should be left out of this. Let us make that our goal. And then health. A healthy worker is an economically productive person. If he is unhealthy, he ceases to be economically productive. So, should we not be spending more on healthcare? I hope when we come to discuss the Ministry of Health's estimates, I shall have the time to say something about the cost of medical care in Singapore. But because time is moving on, I will move to the expenditure on defence. As I said, Mr Speaker, Sir, we are allocating the biggest share of $7.4 billion of our monies to defence. We have a faithful press in Singapore. I see BG Yeo has suddenly said, "No let up in our control of the local press." I am sure the press will say, "Oh, Jeyaretnam doesn't want a strong Singapore." "Jeyaretnam wants a weak Singapore.”
“4 billion of our monies. Compared to that, we are providing for the general education programme - I am not talking about the entire allocation for the Education Ministry - but the general education programme, ie, educating our children in Government schools, Government-aided schools and other independent schools, we are only spending $3.13 billion for that. Defence takes $7.4 billion. The education of our children takes $3.13 billion, less than half. Then I looked at the medical services, what is provided for the medical care of our people and what do we find? The medical services are allocated $815.4 million, less than one-seventh of the defence budget. So, what does it tell us of our society? We should ponder as to what is the lesson there for someone looking and reading the Budget. Is it more important that we should raise the level of education of our people? Is it not more important that we should see that our people are in good health, that our people who contribute to the economy are able to provide enough medical care for themselves? These are political goods, not economic goods, education and healthcare. Our reserves are not the monies that we have stashed away. Our reserves are our people. It is on our people that we depend for the future of Singapore, not on the monies. So that is where we should be spending the money. I see someone criticised Mr Chiam See Tong. I was not here, but I completely echo what he said. We should be spending far more on education than we are. I will come to the expenditure on defence. I have raised this every year and I shall be missed if I do not touch on that this year. But let me say a little bit about how important it is that we spend more money on education and health, not on a showcase but on our people.”
“So, our economy, it would appear, has turned round largely because of our workers paying the price by accepting cuts in the employer's contribution, foregoing that and further accepting wage cuts and, what is more, accepting being thrown out of employment for months, unable to find any employment. It is to our workers, it would appear, besides external factors, that we owe in a great measure the recovery in our economy. There is not a word about the contribution from the Ministers. I tried to suggest that we could have at least made some show-of contributions and that was turned down as it would not help. We are now gloating over our recovery because the workers have been able to make that happen. The question that we should ask is: should not some of the surplus have been used to alleviate the suffering of the workers? I proposed this when I suggested the voluntary reduction of the Ministers' salaries. It is not good enough saying in fine words about Government appreciating workers, accepting CPF and wage cuts. What is needed is a little more than words. We need to show the appreciation in terms that would really get to the workers. One Member spoke about the possible use of some of this surplus to further improve the economy by reducing costs. That is a good question. Why are we so anxious to show a surplus, that we perhaps neglect the people who need help and do a bit more towards boosting the economy, instead of leaving it just to our workers? May I now move on, Mr Speaker, Sir, to the allocation of our monies for this year. Because here again, it shows the kind of society we are and our political imperatives. In the allocation, I see defence takes the largest share. Somebody mentioned about education taking a lion's share, but defence takes $7.”
“That was a strong boost and the Minister for Finance takes pride in this, and he says that "we are thus back in the happy position of being able to add to our reserves. And we need to accumulate budget surplus in goods years." But I did not think 1999 was a good year. I thought 1999 was a bad year but we somehow were able to accumulate a surplus of $3.2 billion even in a bad year, so I expect this year it might be a budget surplus of $10 billion and then we shall be very proud of ourselves. There is nothing wrong about having a budget surplus and getting Singapore rich. But I am reminded of the study that was made between Singapore and Hong Kong some years ago by a lecturer or professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His conclusion was that Singapore has got richer, by the Singapore Government digging deeper into the people's pockets. Whereas in Hong Kong, he said, it was the true entrepreneurial skill of the people which has made Hong Kong richer. That is something that we have to ponder about. Are we getting richer and richer because we dig deeper into the people's pockets? The Minister cites the factors leading to our recovery. He cites two external factors as I see them - upturn in global electronics and the turnaround in the regional economies. These are both external factors that have helped us to recover. But he said that there was an internal significant contribution made in Singapore and that was the acceptance by our workers of the reduction in the employer's contribution to their CPF and wage cuts.”
“But are we not blinding ourselves to something more important and just looking at the relations between the communities? We keep talking about the bonding of our people, not just cohesion between the Indians, Chinese and the Malays, but the cohesion between all our people, regardless of whether they are Chinese, Indians or Malays. There must be a bonding of everyone, the rich and the poor, the haves and the have-nots, those who are not handicapped and those who are handicapped. That is what we should aim at. And if we can aim and get a society like that, where there is a real bond between our people, then we need not worry about harmonious relations between the different communities. When I was coming to Parliament, the taxi-driver who brought me here said, "Oh, you are going to the Budget." I said, "Yes. Have you read the Budget?" He said, "No, I have not read it." I said, "But you should, you know. You should see what is being provided and then speak." He said, "How can I say? What can I say in this place?" He said, "I have got enough work on my hands, trying to earn my living, trying to get $40 to $50 a day so that I can survive. What am I supposed to say about the Budget?" So clearly, it does not address him. I said about the political imperatives. Reading the Budget, it appears to me that the political imperatives, as I have said earlier, would be the accumulation of our reserves so that we can always end up with a budget surplus. And by that, impress the world with our figures of growth. Our statistical figures will look impressive and significant. And so with this goal, we turned a budget deficit of $5.1 billion into a surplus of $3.2 billion. That is some achievement. And I see part of it came from a stronger collection of the COEs.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, reading the Budget, a remark made by Mr Ngiam Tong Dow came to mind. This was an observation made by Mr Ngiam in an interview that he gave to the Economic Journal of the National University of Singapore and when I read it, it struck me because that was what I thought we have been trying to say. And his observation was that, behind every economic decision lies a political goal or motive and, of course, we do not need Mr Ngiam to tell us that. Economic decisions are not made in a vacuum. Economic decisions are made with a purpose and with a goal in mind and if it is the society that we are concerned with, it must have to be a political purpose. So I ask myself, reading this Budget, what are the political imperatives of this Government behind this Budget that it now presents? I would like to give you what I see to be the political imperatives. But before I do that, may I say a little bit further about the Budget, and that is the question: what does this Budget tell us of our society? Because every Budget must tell something of the society for which the Budget is being prepared and presented. What does it tell us? Does it tell us of a caring society, or does it tell us of a society that is money-minded and is bent on pursuing the accumulation of money and reserves and catering only to those who are able to contribute towards this chase, and leaving out those who, for no reason of their own, are unable to contribute? Those are questions that we should ask about any Budget. Sir, also a Budget has to address itself to everyone. We heard this afternoon from Mr Zainul Abidin about cohesion. He was talking largely about the cohesion between the different races.”
“I thought a quorum is 20 Members or something. I am wondering whether we have a quorum.”
“Would the Minister of State tell us how much it cost the Government to produce a single Restricted Passport? What was the cost per passport? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I do not have the figure here. SALE OF HELLO KITTY DOLLS IN FAST FOOD OUTLETS 2. Mr Goh Choon Kang asked the Minister for the Environment whether fast food outlets like McDonald's will be allowed to continue to sell toys like Hello Kitty dolls.”
“May I ask the Minister whether money was an important factor? The Singapore International Passport, I am told, costs $70, whereas the Restricted Passport used to be only $30. Was that a factor - that the Government could get more revenue? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, Mr Jeyaretnam knows that the Government does not operate this way. We do not raise fees just to get more revenue. The cost-effectiveness part comes in due to the new security features which have made our passport so much more secure. If we had continued producing the Singapore Restricted Passport, then the cost of production for both the Singapore Restricted Passport and the Singapore International Passport would have been equalised. In other words, we would have to charge Singaporeans something similar, whether we issue them a SRP or SIP, and that does not make sense because now, for $60, if a Singaporean applies by post, he gets a passport (96 pages) that would enable him to travel to more than just one country and with added security features at a one-time cost.”
“The Minister keeps repeating his answer. May we have an answer to my question? Is there a drop in Singaporeans crossing into Johore every day or weekly to justify discontinuance of the Restricted Passport? May we have an answer to that question? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, there has been a falling demand because, based on the 10-year period, from 1988 to 1998, the number of SRPs issued annually has dropped by 56%. So, it is a very clear indication, and not by the number of Singaporeans crossing the Causeway, because you can cross the Causeway by using also the SIP. But by the actual number of passports that have been issued over time, there is clearly a falling demand.”
“Did I hear the Minister say that it is not cost-effective because there was a falling demand? I thought that a great many Singaporeans were crossing the Causeway. That is what we hear every day. Is the Minister saying that the number has dropped to an extent that it is no longer productive for the Ministry to produce the Restricted Passport? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I gave two reasons. First, it was the falling demand. Second, it is not cost-effective to continue issuing them.”
“May I ask why does the Prime Minister not openly admit that he fears a defeat at the hands of the Opposition?”
“Does the Minister appreciate that section 24(2A) is purely procedural? The substantive Article is Article 49. In any event, the Article takes precedence over any law in any other Act of Parliament.”
“I will certainly read it. Article 49 reads: 'Whenever the seat of a Member, not being a non-constituency Member, has become vacant [may I repeat, the seat of any Member other than a non-constituency Member, has become vacant] for any reason other than a dissolution of Parliament, the vacancy shall be filled by election in the manner provided by or under any law relating to Parliamentary elections for the time being in force.' Is that not crystal clear? It states that the vacancy of any Member other than that of a non-constituency Member shall be filled.”
“Would the Minister look up Article 49 of the Constitution? I read this on the 6th July debate.”
“May I repeat my question? What is the reason? The law does not prohibit the filling of the vacancy. The Constitution demands that the vacancy be filled. What is the reason for not filling the vacancy?”