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 50 of 82.
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in so far as this Bill takes measures to reduce the accidents on the roads and to increase the safety of other road users, we of course support the Bill. But whatever measures we take, Mr Deputy Speaker, should not be seen or construed as being discriminatory of any particular user or users of the roads. This is why I ask, by way of clarification more than anything else, the position of all the motor cyclists who at the moment hold provisional driving licences. I see in a report that was published in the papers sometime in April of this year when the Police, I think, announced the decision to stop issuing PDLs, that there were about 21,000 holders of provisional driving licences. The report went on to give some figures of those who passed every week, and giving the maximum passes that the Police were hoping would result, there would still nevertheless be a balance of about 3,000 to 4,000. Now, what will be their position when this law comes into force? This law, when it comes into force and if it penalizes those who are already in possession of provisional driving licences, would make it retroactive, That in itself is a bad principle. I would ask the Minister to consider whether it should be made retroactive for those who are in possession of valid PDLs at the time the law comes into force. I do not know whether I misheard the Minister or misunderstood him, but I understood him to say that, after the coming into force of this amendment, motor cyclists would be given their proper licences, ie, not provisional driving licences, after they had completed their course and passed the test.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I shall be very brief. I rise to assure Mr Wee Kim Wee of my and my Party's support for his nomination as President. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we note that he moved over to the Straits Times soon after the PAP took control of Singapore. It is a moot point, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, whether the Straits Times has served the people of Singapore or has served the Government, but we are not going to hold it against Mr Wee Kim Wee, and we welcome his appointment as President. Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my Party and I join my colleague, the Member for Anson, in congratulating Mr Wee Kim Wee for his appointment to this very high and prestigious office. I am sure he will be known as the President of the people and he has made a point that he wants to lead his normal social life, and I believe he is the one man who will probably succeed in that - holding a very high office and at the same time leading the life of an ordinary person. I welcome the appointment of Mr Wee Kim Wee to this very high office.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am sorry, a clarification again.”
“On a point of clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. The Minister first of all, gives an assurance that the travel document issued under this Convention of 28th July 1951 will not be treated as a travel document for the purposes of Article 135(l)(c). I am grateful to him for that assurance. He goes on to say, "But he asks for an assurance that persons who have held this will not be deprived of citizenship. I cannot give him an assurance." I would ask him to be quite explicit and give an assurance that anyone who has held this will not for that reason - I am not talking about Article 135(l)(c) but I am talking about Article 135(l)(b) - will not be deprived of their citizenship solely on the ground that they have travelled under the travel document issued under this Convention of 1951. Secondly, I am afraid he has really not answered my point about the clog on the Government's power. I referred him to Article 129 where you have a specific clog on the power of the Government in clause (7) of this Article. You have no such clog in Articles 134 and 135. The Minister says, "Of course, we will pay regard to this." But I am saying that is not good enough. Why do you have an entrenched right in the Constitution for persons who become citizens by registration or by naturalization but not for people who are born citizens? Why do they not have this entrenched right? That is my point.”
“Finally, Sir, he concluded by making a very vague allegation that sometime in 1977, many persons were deprived of their citizenship and, to use his words, they were persuaded to give up the right of appeal to a Committee of Inquiry, The Member, if he really wants to be responsible, ought to give us facts and figures and I give him the assurance that I will investigate these cases. But I think it is wrong for him to come here and say that many persons were deprived of their citizenship without reference to a Committee of Inquiry, because the right to a Committee of Inquiry where prescribed under the Constitution is a right available to the citizen and I do not see how anybody can be persuaded. But if he has substance for any allegation that any wrongdoing has taken place, he should come to this House and substantiate his allegation. Sir, that is all I have to respond.”
“What is the point? Prof. Jayakumar: There is no international law which proscribes the right of countries and carry out the measure such as that which we are seeking to do. Sir, the Member for Anson also asks whether I could clarify if the phrase "travel document or certificate of status issued by the competent authority of Singapore" does or does not include a travel document issued under the United Nations Convention on Refugees. Of course, it does not. The plain meaning of the words must be clear even to a non-lawyer - a certificate of status or travel document issued by the competent authorities in Singapore. It does not include any other travel document than that mentioned in this provision. He also seeks an assurance from me that persons who may possess this travel document issued under the Refugees Convention will not be caught under this provision. I cannot give that assurance because, on the plain reading of this provision, any person who has been away from Singapore for 10 years or more and who fulfils the requirements will come within the ambit of the provision. So I cannot give that assurance. The Member for Anson talks about statelessness. He talks about Articles 134 and 145 being applicable to all categories of citizens. I should like to point out that Articles 134 and 135, even as they stand under the present Constitution, make no distinction between citizens by birth and other categories. They apply to all categories. In that sense, we have not differed in the approach. Secondly, the present Articles 134 and 135 are not subject to the condition of the persons not being rendered stateless although in the implementation of this provision my Ministry will take into account the question of statelessness as one of the factors in arriving at a decision.”
“In this respect, Sir,l support the Amendment Bill, but I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that he will consider the case of those persons who are currently abroad and who may be affected by the enactment of this Amendment Bill - that these people who may be caught by the change of events be given a period in which they can rectify their status so as not to be caught in a position whereby their citizenship can be deprived. On that note, Sir, I support the amendment to the Bill. 12.43 pm”
“Hear! hear! Mr Heng Chiang Meng: That is not the intention. The intention is for us to work hard, to achieve our prosperity and our success, and to continue to work hard to maintain that level of success. So for those people who have chosen to stay away from our shores for a long time and who only want to come back when the going is rough in other places; or where life is better here that they wish to come back to enjoy the fruits of other people's labour, it is right that their citizenship be deprived. We should care for the people who remain here with us through thick and thin, good or bad, people who will eventually be the sons of the soil that will make Singapore a successful place. In this regard, I think what is considered the fundamental concept of birth right, as a fundamental right to citizenship, is not something that is universal.Only in countries,like the United States, where they are rich, full of resources, bountiful and perhaps because of this, more charitable to others than small barren countries like us, do they enshrine the right of birth as a fundamental right to citizenship. Here in Singapore, I think we should look at birth as an entry point. It gives you the right to be a citizen at the entry point, but thereafter I think everyone of us must continue to work to keep that right and to earn that right. The right is not something that, once you have it, you can have it for the rest of your life regardless of what you do.”
“They are Singapore citizens I am talking about. You do not understand.”
“On a point of clarification. Would the last Member, as I asked his colleague on the other side there, point out in which part of my speech I spoke about non-citizens? And if he cannot, will he withdraw his baseless allegation?”
“Then I rise on a point of clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.”
“Sir, on a point of order. May I ask the Member where, in the speech that I have just made, have I taken up the cause of people who have renounced their citizenship? The Member does not appear to know what he is talking about.”
“May I ask the Minister whether he has any figures as to how many persons were deprived of citizenship in the early part of 1977 and were persuaded to give up their right of appeal to this Committee? I know a number of people were deprived of their citizenship and, in a number of their cases, they were not referred to a Committee of Inquiry, and my information is that they were persuaded to give up their right of appeal to this Committee. May I ask the Minister whether he will take steps to see that no one will be persuaded by anybody to give up his right of appeal to the Committee?”
“And, secondly, he should not be deprived of his citizenship if the result is to render him stateless, "not a citizen of any country". Now, Articles 134 and 135 in this Bill are not restricted to persons who become citizens of Singapore by naturalization or by registration. It applies to everybody. The proposed Article 134 reads, "The Government may by order deprive a citizen of Singapore. .". And that includes persons who are citizens by birth or by descent, besides including those by registration or by naturalization. Likewise, Article 135 says, "The Government may by order deprive a citizen of Singapore of his citizenship". So it catches everybody, not just those two groups. But you do not find any clog on this power of the Government in Articles 134 and 135. So it would appear that whereas the Government may not deprive a citizen, who is registered as a citizen or who became a citizen by naturalization, of a citizenship if he is rendered stateless, the Government may deprive a citizen by birth or descent of his citizenship even if it renders him stateless, and even if the deprivation of his citizenship is not conducive to the public good. May I ask why this favoured treatment for persons who acquire citizenship by registration or naturalization against persons who are born in Singapore and who have a greater claim to Singapore citizenship? It is their inherent right. Perhaps the Minister would like to look at that. As far as I can see, there is no clog on the Government's power under Articles 134 and 135. Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before I sit down, the Minister referred to this Committee which is set up under the Constitution.”
“Under that Article, the Government may deprive persons who are citizens by registration or naturalization for a number of reasons. One of them is if they had made a speech which would appear to be disloyal towards Singapore - I should have said "disloyal towards the Singapore Government" rather than Singapore. But the important thing is this. If one looks at Article 129, clause (7), one finds this safeguard for persons who have become citizens of Singapore by registration or by naturalization, and it is a very important safeguard, Article 129, clause (7) reads as follows, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir: 'No person shall be deprived of his citizenship under this Article or under Article 130 unless the Government is satisfied that it is not conducive to the public good that that person should continue to be a citizen of Singapore; and no person shall be deprived of his citizenship under paragraph (b) of clause 2 [that is Article 1291 or under paragraph (a) or (b)(i) of clause (3) [again Article 129] or under clause (4) or (5) or under Article 130 if the Government is satisfied that as a result of the deprivation he would not be a citizen of any country., And since reference has been made to Article 130, 1 should perhaps read that. Article 130 applies to the children of citizens who have been deprived of their citizenship under Article 129. That is all that Article 130 does. So in the case of persons who are naturalized or registered, there is a clog on the power of the Government to deprive them of their citizenship. And the clog is that the Government must be satisfied that it is not conducive to the public good that the person should continue to be a citizen of Singapore.”
“Coming back to the category of persons who are born in Singapore, who are Singapore citizens, and who travel abroad on Singapore passports and who have no intention at all of giving up their Singapore citizenship, what is the reason, may I ask, for taking away their citizenship if they for good reasons do not return to Singapore for ten years? I think it is not good enough merely to leave it to the good intentions of the Government. The Minister should make clear what the purposes are. How are they considered disloyal to Singapore if they are away from Singapore for more than ten years? Is that an act of disloyalty? Is the Government not aware that they are perhaps contributing to the economy of Singapore - if they earn abroad and are able to remit home monies. They are an asset to Singapore - and to deprive them of their citizenship would be most illogical and retrogressive, particularly if they are rendered stateless if, by that Act, they are no longer eligible to become nationals or to acquire citizenship of any other country. And, of course, if they were born in Singapore and were Singapore citizens by birth and travelled out of Singapore on Singapore passport, they would be stateless if by this amendment their citizenship is taken away. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Articles 134 and 135 are not the only Articles in the Constitution which enable the Government to take away citizenship. There is Article 129 of the Constitution. If I may beg your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in referring to some of these provisions in Article 129. Article 129 applies in the first place only to persons who became citizens by registration or by naturalization. It does not apply to persons who are citizens of Singapore by birth.”
“What about those who have not? I know myself cases of persons who have been clamouring to come back, who have not taken up citizenship but who have been kept out by the Immigration Department refusing to issue them with travel documents to return to Singapore. Are they now going to be told, "There, my man, look, you haven't come back for ten years. So you are not going to get your citizenship."? That would be dishonest on the part of this Government because these people have been clamouring to come back. So I hope there will be no blanket application of this amendment, even in those cases where they have not taken up Singapore passports but are now claiming to be Singapore citizens and to be recognized as such. But I am more concerned, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with persons who are Singapore citizens and who have gone abroad on Singapore passports. Now, the proposed amendment under Article 135, clause (1)(c), as the Minister has pointed out, gives this Government the power to take away their citizenship if they have been out of Singapore for ten years and have not, during that period, entered Singapore on a travel document issued by the Singapore Government. I have a clarification, first of all, to ask of the Minister. Would this travel document include a travel document issued to refugees under the Convention of the 28th July, 1951? 1 should have thought not. But may I ask for an assurance from the Minister that Singapore citizens who travel under these documents will not be caught by this amendment? Because, as the Minister should be aware, travel documents issued under this Convention are not passports and they are not nationals of the countries which issue these travel documents. I would like that assurance.”
“The Minister would appear to have confused people,who are Singapore citizens and who stand to lose their citizenship as a result of this amendment, with people who, he said, are claiming to be Singapore citizens and whose right to citizenship has not as yet been recognized by the Government of Singapore. I should have thought they were in a different category. If their right to Singapore citizenship has not been recognized, then there is no question of depriving them of their citizenship. It is where a person has the right of Singapore citizenship who stands in danger of being deprived of that citizenship. He has given us some figures of these people who are claiming to be Singapore citizens, and they come up to more than 1,000 persons, or nearly 1,500. May I ask him, what will be the position of these people who have already made these claims to be Singapore citizens? Are they now going to be told, regardless of any good reason they may have, that they are not Singapore citizens because of this amendment? If their claim is that they were and have been Singapore citizens by birth, then they have a legitimate claim to this right of citizenship. The Minister is, of course, aware that under the old Citizenship Ordinance, the Singapore Government recognized the right of jus soli so that mere birth in Singapore gave the person the right of citizenship. That was amended in 1968 by a qualification that one of the parents had to be a Singapore citizen before the child acquired Singapore citizenship. So, what about these persons who had citizenship under the old Citizenship Ordinance. If they were citizens, then they remain citizens. I can understand them losing their citizenship if they have taken on a foreign nationality or citizenship of a foreign country.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Minister has, in his speech, said that the main purpose of this Bill is to introduce yet another reason or ground for depriving Singapore citizens of their nationality, and he assures this House that it is not the intention of the Government to take away citizenship in every case but that it will be used wisely and judiciously. I am glad for that assurance from the Minister for Home Affairs. But may I tell him, as he must know, that nationality and citizenship is a personal right and it is a very valuable right of the individual. He must know that Oppenheim refers to it as one of the rights of mankind and, in the same book, Oppenheim states his view that it would be a very retrogressive step to deprive anybody of their nationality unless there were very good reasons and, particularly, if that step would render the person being stateless. He regards that as very retrogressive and offending against what he calls the rights of mankind. If that is so, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, and I hope the Minister will accept that position, then I would commend to him that it cannot just be left to the intention of the Government. The reasons for deprivation of citizenship must be spelt out quite clearly and a citizen must be told quite explicitly when and in what circumstances he will stand to lose his citizenship. It is no good telling him, "Don't you worry. We would not do it although we have got the power." That is not going to help the citizen. He must know exactly in what situation he will be deprived of this right of mankind which he shares along with all other people of this world.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Acting Minister has said about access to the CPF funds if they are unemployed for one or two years, reiterating what the Prime Minister said. May I ask whether the Ministry intends to use some of the $1 billion which was collected by way of payroll tax and which the then Minister for Labour pledged in Parliament in 1965, would be turned over to the workers as a welfare fund.”
“How does his Ministry expect these persons (there may be a few hundreds) to tide over these months of unemployment? How are they expected to pay their house instalments to the HDB? Does the Ministry realize that, if they do not pay, the HDB will come breathing down their necks and throw them out? How does the Ministry expect them to provide for themselves and their families during these months of unemployment?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my question was: has the Ministry any figures? I take it from the Acting Minister's answer that the Ministry does not have any figures. May I tell the Acting Minister that I personally am aware of people who have been out of job for quite long periods of time, for six months or more. This is what I was enquiring from the Acting Minister.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, supplementary question for the Acting Minister. His statement is that there is practically full employment. But would the Acting Minister say whether the Ministry has any figures of workers who have been unemployed now for more than six months?”
“Is the Minister of State seriously suggesting that we are in a situation of war at the moment? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am not suggesting that. VACANT LAND AT PINE GROVE (Development) 3. Encik Abbas Abu Amin asked the Minister for National Development whether there are plans to develop the vacant land at Pine Grove, next to the Ulu Pandan Canal, facing Blocks 1C,lD and 1E.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, does the Minister not realize that the answer lies in repealing Section 14 of the Government Proceedings Act which would then enable a serviceman, who loses his life as a result of any negligence, either in the equipment or in the inadequate care taken for his safety, to bring an action in our courts and claim the full measure of damages? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think this has been debated before, and the then Minister for Defence, now also the First Deputy Prime Minister, has explained why it is not practical for the Armed Forces to be in a position where it can be sued by individuals. In war, there are a myriad circumstances in which a person may be injured or lose his life, and it would be impossible for the Government to deal with the millions of claims afterwards. It is against standard practice and it is nothing new.”
“Does the Minister of State not realize that under the SAF (Pensions) Regulations, all that his family will get, besides pension for the widow, is a year's salary? But if he is in the private sector, the dependants, the family of the person in these circumstances, will get much more, far more than is provided for under the SAF (Pensions) Regulations. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if the Member for Anson feels that the Pensions Regulations are inadequate, then we should have a debate on the Pensions Regulations. I believe today's question is on the accidents.”
“Does the Minister of State not realize that there were two crashes about a year ago? Also, the same planes, I believe, Now, my next question for the Minister of State is this: if these planes were found to be defective - that there were some mechanical defects in them - would the family of the pilot who lost his life be paid adequate compensation as is provided for under the law where an employee in a private employment loses his life as a result of any negligence in the equipment or in the care taken over his safety? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in all cases, SAF personnel are paid adequate compensation.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Minister of State has said that these three crashes were unrelated, but that the planes have been grounded. May I ask for an assurance from the Minister of State that if it is found that these crashes were due to mechanical defects in these planes, or they had not been airworthy at the time that they were taken to the air, that finding will be made public? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Such findings shall be made public as it is in the public interest to make public.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I know on what grounds are they privileged? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Board of Inquiry proceedings are privileged, following British practice, for two reasons. Firstly, legal difficulties, because witnesses appearing before a Board of Inquiry are not protected by the same rules of evidence which, apply in the Courts. Secondly, because there could, in some cases, be security objections. It is not parliamentary practice to release Board of Inquiry's findings and reports. Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, does the Minister of State not realize that he has not answered my question? May I ask him why is it necessary to follow the British practice? Secondly, may I ask him: does he not realize that all the answers that he has given are completely irrelevant and evasive? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson may yet regret his supplementary question. We follow British parliamentary practice when it makes good sense to do so.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have a few supplementary questions for the Minister of State. First of all, I see that there are Boards of Inquiry that had been appointed. May I ask again whether the findings of these Boards of Inquiry will be made public or, if not, at least released to the Members of this House? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as has been explained in this House before, the findings of Boards of Inquiry are privileged documents and will not be made public.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we were informed that Parliament would meet on the 4th of September this year. The Clerk of Parliament, as usual, sent out notices fixing the times for the submission of Questions and Notices to Parliament, and the last day for submission of Questions was the 24th of this month. Suddenly, after 5.00 pm on Friday, the 23rd, I had a notice saying that the sitting of Parliament has been brought forward to today. As a result of that, some seven Questions for Written Answer which I had proposed to send to the Clerk on the morning of the 24th, missed out. May I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, whether there were any compelling reasons for bringing forward the sitting of Parliament?”
“To ask the Prime Minister when does he propose that Parliament should elect the next President for Singapore.”
“Do I understand the Prime Minister to be saying that he saw these two principal directors before the meeting on the llth of July and explained to them what his thinking was? And then they came up with this draft?”
“Would the Prime Minister say or confirm whether this agreement, drafted or initialled, as he says, by these two chief executives in these companies, was presented to the other directors for the first time at the meeting in his office on 11 July? And were they then asked to initial or sign the agreement then and there?”
“Would the Prime Minister be good enough to say whether he saw them at their request, or whether they saw him at his request?”
“Question No. 2, Sir. MERGER OF NEWSPAPER COMPANIES (Prime Minister's meeting with directors) 2. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Prime Minister if he met all the Directors of Times Publishing Berhad, The Straits Times Press and the Singapore News and Publications Ltd on the afternoon of the llth July 1984 before their merger into a holding company - Singapore Press Holdings - was announced in the press on the 12th July 1984.”
“Does not the Prime Minister think that is pure speculation at the moment?”
“I ask the Prime Minister for his views. Would he try and answer that question? Does he not think that, in view of the fact that the percentage of voters at the last election was below 66%, it is necessary and an act of wise statesmanship to refer a matter like this to the electorate?”
“Would the Prime Minister not think that on an important issue like this, where we are now going to take a departure from the style of government we have pursued since 1959, the Cabinet style of government, that this change requires consultation of the electorate, particularly, Mr Prime Minister, considering that the Government does not have a two-thirds majority of the electorate?”
“My question to the Prime Minister is this: will he consider referring this to the electorate, not just the Accountant-General, the Attorney-General, and the other ministries, for their views? The question is: does the Prime Minister contemplate referring this to the electorate on a referendum?”
“Would the Prime Minister say whether he has considered referring this matter to the electorate on a referendum which he said he might consider, when speaking on this in the last Parliament?”
“To ask for leave to withdraw the motion now so that I can bring it up at a later stage. I can still bring it up, but I want to explain why I wish to withdraw the motion this morning.”
“May I make a statement on that, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir?”
“My question is: how is the public to know which is the Senior Primary Production Officer in charge of veterinary matters, ie, who he should go and see or who he should address? And who is the Senior Primary Production Officer (Agriculture)?”
“May I just ask the Minister a clarification? I see from his motion that there are two posts - Senior Primary Production Officer (Veterinary) and Senior Primary Production Officer (Agriculture). The new title for both those posts is Senior Primary Production Officer. How are you going to show their distinct functions? I take it that they have got separate functions - one is veterinary and the other is agriculture.”
“Is the Minister aware that taxi drivers have to drive far longer hours to earn what they were earning before the 1st April?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, would the Minister tell us how many hours does a shift comprise in the calculation of the Registry of Vehicles?”
“Out of this operating surplus, it had to pay non-operating expenses of $44 million, loan repayments of $141 million, and development expenditures of $21 million, leaving a balance of net income of only $8 million. The figures do not quite add up because of rounding. This $8 million represents a margin of less than 0.5% of the total revenue of $1.7 billion. With this negligible margin, it is clear that, unless there is a further drop in the price of fuel oil, there is no basis for the PUB to reduce its tariffs. TAXIS AND TAXI-DRIVERS (Situation report) 14. Mr Abdullah Tarmugi asked the Minister for Communications and Information and Second Minister for Defence what is the latest situation on taxis and taxi-drivers with regard to (i) taxi-drivers' earnings; (ii) commuters' complaints; and (iii) the number of taxis on the road.”
“Does it? PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD (Downward revision of tariffs) 13. Dr Wang Kai Yuen asked the Minister for Trade and Industry and Minister for Education whether the utility rates of the Public Utilities Board will be revised downwards in view of the significant increases in the various PUB reserves and funds as given in the Balance Sheet in the Board's 1984 Annual Report. The Minister of State for Defence and Trade and Industry (BG Lee Hsien Loong) (for the Minister for Trade and Industry and Minister for Education): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the question assumes that because PUB's reserves have increased, PUB can reduce its utility rates. This assumption is incorrect. The increased reserves do not represent accumulated profits. PUB has two main reserve funds, the "General Reserve" and the "Other Reserve". These reserves are generated for specific purposes, The General Reserve, which stood at $88 million as at the end of 1984, was used as working capital for PUB. The Other Reserve of $120 million is used to finance the fuel stocks held by PUB. PUB has to collect enough revenue to break even. It must not only meet its operating expenses, but must also finance part of its development expenditure. In the last decade, PUB has been able to finance only 55% of its development expenditure. It had to borrow the balance from the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, among other sources. On these loans, it had to pay market interest rates. To remain creditworthy, PUB must stay solvent. To understand PUB's financial position more clearly, we should look at its Revenue Account rather than its Balance Sheet. In 1984, PUB collected $1.7 billion in revenue and paid $1.5 billion in operating expenses, leaving a gross operating surplus of $215 million.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Minister of State perhaps does not understand my question. Where a member of the public makes a complaint about not being fairly treated by a Ministry official, or has been left out of something which he says he should receive, what does the Feedback Unit do? Does it investigate the man's case, the merits, and then order a review of the whole decision? Mr Wong Kan Seng: That is precisely what the Feedback Unit was set up to do.”