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 54 of 82.
“Is it on a point of clarification or point of order?”
“If it did not, then it shows the depth to which our press has sunk. They are so frightened, it would appear, to make any criticism of the Government that they take it upon themselves to withdraw the criticism. Either way you look at it, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a scandal. May I know from the -”
“All right. Then may I start on the other matter first, and that relates to the Information Section of the Ministry, and it is the Regulatory Services of the Ministry which exercises control over the press. Now, I hope I will not be told that I am casting a slur or a smear on the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have maintained from the moment I came into this House, and even before it, that the press in Singapore is totally under the control of the Government. So it is not a slur, it is a statement of fact. Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to ask the Ministry about a matter that has been brought to my notice, and that is this. The Business Times for its issue on Friday, 22nd of this month, came out at first with an editorial. The editorial is headed "Feedback for Government". This editorial dwelt on the statement made by the Minister for National Development on the priority that would be given to PAP constituencies. The editorial called this statement "a bald stupidity" and said that that would result in people in Singapore crying, "Foul". 3.00 pm This editorial of the Business Times, Mr Speaker, Sir, only lasted for half an hour. I am told that within half an hour all the issues of this paper which had been distributed to the newsvendors were recalled. And the Business Times made another appearance, this time with another editorial, completely innocuous and flattering to the Government, "Trade Improves, Hopes Fade." May I ask whether the Ministry had anything to do with this recall of the Business Times with its original editorial which, as I said, was a very pungent attack on the Government, centering as it did on the statement made by the Minister for National Development? May I know whether the Government had anything to do with this?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have an amendment under (8)* but before I move that, may I ask your permission to speak on another matter which also comes within this Ministry and on which I have not moved an amendment?”
“Sir, I do not have an amendment under this Head but may I add my plea, for five minutes, to what has been said by the Member for Buona Vista. Sir, speaking on the Budget, I mentioned about life being driven out of the streets of Singapore. I was, of course, referring to the hawkers. The Minister, however, in replying, deftly turned it to suggest that I was referring to some other life. But I am not cavilling at that. I would ask the Ministry to consider seriously whether some itinerant hawkers may not be allowed on our streets subject to conditions as the Member has pointed out. They do add colour to our life in Singapore, as has already been pointed out. The sarabat man, sitting under a tree and surrounded by people chatting away, does add colour. I would ask the Minister to consider this. I have one or two itinerant hawkers in my constituency and one of them, in fact, sells Chinese rojak which, may I say, is very good. He peddles this on a bicycle and I really cannot see the objection that the Ministry has to granting him a licence. The poor man is persecuted all the time and I feel very sorry for him because that is the only livelihood he knows. Can we take a more enlightened look on our itinerant hawkers?”
“Yes, Sir. My question is: would the Minister please say what is the future for Class C patients? Are you going to continuously run them down now?”
“May I tell the First Deputy Prime Minister that if the Government has got nothing to hide, it has got nothing to be ashamed of. So the only answer is, to make it public. Answer the questions.”
“Sir, I do not owe anybody an apology. My purpose in this House is to ask questions. I keep saying this again and again. And it is for the Government to explain. You have a private company selling drugs and medicines at the hospital and I mentioned that it appeared to be owned by a Howe family. I asked the conditions under which this company was allowed to set up business in the hospital. So I think it is incumbent on the Government to set out the terms and conditions and how this company came to have a store in the hospital.”
“I am afraid the Minister of State has completely misunderstood me. I am not speaking here on the subsidy for non-citizens in this amendment that I have moved. I referred to this worthy gentleman, the apologist for the PAP Government, declaring in the papers that he could not afford to stay any longer in Singapore because his medical care was costing him too much. I am not asking the Government to subsidize his medical care. I was merely saying that he is lucky he has got somewhere to go to. But our citizens are not so lucky. I do not understand this interruption.”
“I merely wish to ask the Member for Anson whether he possibly sees any contradiction between his arguments this morning when he was belabouring and berating the Minister for Education for indeed heavily subsidizing the education of non-Singaporeans in University, and the Minister for Health this afternoon, who is the same person, for subsidizing this time too little, or rather not enough, the medical expenses for non-citizens in Singapore?”
“Within this space of 10 minutes, just as he was about to leave, he was presented with a bill for the services rendered to this boy and it was $40 or so, I am told. "What is surprising," he said, "was that it was already marked as paid." So the Government had already collected its fee for the service rendered to this boy. He had no opportunity to query any of the services or the charges levied for it. So one now sees starkly how useful Medisave is to the Government. This is what we have always maintained. It was not a scheme to help the poor pay for their medical care and treatment but simply to help the Government recover its fees. I said about the pensioners who were given prescriptions and told to buy their drugs from outside. They have given me, Mr Speaker, Sir, the bills and these drugs were bought from a chemist and druggist who has set up business, I see, at the Singapore General Hospital and it is Somedico Chemist and Druggist. May I ask the Minister how this company came to set up its business in the Singapore General Hospital? I see it is owned by a Howe family. And may I know when this company was set up in the Singapore General Hospital and whether tenders were called? Far more importantly, whether patients who are given prescriptions are directed to go and purchase their drugs or medicines at this druggist store at the hospital? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may make my point of clarification now. I do not wish to dwell on the substance of the Member for Anson's comments because the Minister for Health and the Minister of State will deal with them.”
“Well, I am not giving way, if it is a clarification. Please raise it later. As I said, he is lucky that he can go to a country where he gets free treatment. But our Singaporeans are not so lucky, and may I say he has paid the greatest tribute to the British health service which this Government is always denigrating. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have with me bills for drugs paid by patients who were at one time bed patients in the hospital but have had to go back for repeat medicines and for drugs. I think they are both pensioners and, in one case, the man has had to pay a sum of $811.30 between the 12 April 1984 and the 8 November 1984. This is for the cost of drugs that he needs for his condition. The cost is $811.30 because the hospital says it will not supply these drugs to him. So he is asked to purchase them outside and is given a prescription. May I know why the hospital refuses to supply these drugs to these patients who are in need of them if they were previously patients in the hospital and have been requested to return for further treatment? Is it because the hospital finds it too expensive to stock these medicines for supply to its patients in the hospital? 3.00 pm So the cost to this pensioner is almost crippling, Mr Speaker, Sir. And Medisave does not really help him at all. Medisave, as we have maintained right from the beginning, is only a scheme to enable the Government to recover its fees, its charges. This was brought home to me when somebody told me the other day that his nephew had been taken to the General Hospital and he was admitted into the ward and then, within 10 minutes, it was discovered that he should be transferred to another hospital because the service could not be provided at this particular hospital.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I had intended to speak also about the privatiza tion of the University Hospital but I see quite a bit had already been said by other speakers. All I wish to ask is about the future for Class C wards. I see from the announcement that this new Hospital will have no provision for Class C patients. And with the announcement that other Govern ment hospitals may also go private, may I know what is the future for patients who are at the moment receiving Class C treat ment at the hospitals. Is it the Govern ment's intention to do away entirely with Class C treatment? Is it because it is no considered economical for the Govern ment to give treatment on those rates? Mr Speaker, Sir, the cost of medical treatment in Singapore, and I am particularly speaking for those who are earning below $1,000 a month for a family, is very, very high. Not very long ago it was reported that a gentleman who is an apologist for this Government has decided that he can no longer live in Singapore because he cannot afford the cost of medical treatment for himself. Well, he should consider himself lucky. He has got a country to go to, where he will be given free treatment at no cost to him. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification.”
“About the ban on girls doing technical studies in Secondary 1 and Secondary 2. As I understand it, it is a total ban. Will the Minister say whether they would allow girls to do technical studies in Secondary 1 and Secondary 2 if they can also combine it with Home Economics course because, I understand, they are prevented altogether even if they can do both. Secondly, I was hoping that the Minister would say something about the standard of English teaching. What is the Ministry doing about that?”
“In clarification, may I ask the Minister of State two questions, Sir? The Chairman: Yes.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister by way of clarification, if he would say something about the need to subsidize foreign students to the degree that we are subsidizing them. Is he saying that if he raised the fees for the foreign students they would not be coming here? As I said, in Australia the foreign students are paying 25%, and UK has raised its fees. My question is, why are we subsidizing foreign students and grudging our own students lower fees?”
“Where is the loyalty? BG Lee Hsien Loong: And in due course, I am sure many of them will develop loyalty, just as others who have come to Singapore from distant shores have developed loyalty. So the problem really is to find ways to increase the number of students at 'A' levels, to find ways to increase the number of students who are deserving of university places. And then as our economy expands, as the needs of society develop, to find ways for more of them to go to University. We shall expand our University's facilities. And then, if one university is not big enough, we shall have two. But that is very different from saying, 'Why don't we just have a second university and let us solve our problems thataway?' Mr Speaker, Sir, that is what I would like the Minister for Education to confirm - that these are complicated problems and not susceptible to simple-minded, simplistic, solutions.”
“May I ask the Minister on this statement that he has made about subsidy. Do foreign students at the University get the same subsidy?”
“All right. Well, the help they need is either provision of teaching aids or capital outlay to buy the teaching aids, even if you do not want to run the schools yourselves. Would the Minister say whether that is being done?”
“Now, the other problem is the lack of proper equipment. I understand the Minister to say that there are reasons why the running of these schools must be left to these organizations. They may be better motivated. Well, I can see that there might be better motivation coming from people who are dedicated to the afflicted. But they tell me that they sorely lack the necessary equipment. Well, is the Government providing them with the adequate equipment? Take the School for the Deaf. I am told -”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I just take up two matters referred to by the Minister of State. Firstly, about the shortage of teachers. I was very glad to hear from the Minister of State that remuneration of the teachers is not the stumbling block or obstacle to the recruit- ment of teachers. May I know from him that has been the rate of resignation from the Education service then of existing teachers, and has the Ministry found the underlying cause or reason for the resignation from the teaching service or the reluctance of people to come into the teaching service? Secondly, about the education, of mentally disabled and physically disabled children. The Minister has said that the Government is doing enough. But may I tell him that that view is not shared by these organizations which are coping with this problem - that the Government is doing enough. They feel that there is a greater level in which the Government could involve itself in the education of these children. This course for teachers for the special schools that the Minister has mentioned, I am aware of it. He mentioned it last year. But I am told that the teachers who were sent there were all untrained teachers. I would like to be corrected on that because, I am told the teachers who go there are not normal trained teachers but untrained teachers. I am told that in other countries people who go on these specialist education courses are all trained teachers in the first place. And they are sent to acquire the specialist knowledge to teach children who are disabled one way or other. I am told that at the end of the course in Singapore, they will only get a diploma and not a degree in specialist education. That is why the feeling is that these courses are not as good as those provided by other countries.”
“Well, may I move the other amendment later then, Sir.”
“Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, on this amendment, may I bring up the education of the mentally disabled and physically disabled children. When I spoke on this on Friday, I was asked whether I would take it up with the Minister for Education. So I am taking it up now. On Friday, I gave some figures about the recurrent cost that was calculated in 1981 if the Government took over the seven specialist schools that are being presently run by private organizations for these children. And I said the recurrent cost was under $4 million. May I know what is the insuperable difficulty that the Government feels there is in taking over these schools and taking over the responsibility for the education of these children. I said, on Friday, it is their birth right, and it will be discrimination and a cruel and callous discrimination of these children if we are to deny them this birth right. As I said then, the parents of these children have as much right as the parents of normal children to have them educated. So I hope the Minister will respond to this.”
“Perhaps if the Minister thinks that a commission is not necessary, I would commend to him quite seriously the appointment of Parliamentary committees to study the specific issues with which a lot of dissatisfaction is felt among our electorate. 12.45 pm We can have a committee on the streaming issue, and not just listen to the Ministry officials but listen to the parents, what they feel about it; listen to the teachers so that they can express openly what they feel about it; listen to the students what they feel about it. We can also have another committee on the policy of admission of children of graduate mothers. What I do appeal to the Minister is that he should not dally too long. He will find that the longer he delays, the more difficult it will become for him to take the decisions. He will find that the system will just draw him into it and he will not be able to change the system. The answer lies in speedy decisions being made. I said I would like to say something about the shortage of teachers. I asked the question sometime ago about the shortage of teachers, and I was told that the primary schools are short of 352 English-medium teachers. The shortage, I was told, is mainly in the English-medium, and that the secondary schools are short of 300 English-medium teachers, and that three-quarters of the secondary schools have about three vacancies for English-medium teachers. That is an alarming state of affairs, Mr Speaker, Sir. May I know from the Minister what steps are being taken to remedy this shortage of teachers? English is an essential subject. I shall talk about that in my other amendment, Sir. And that does explain the very low standard of English at the moment among our students.”
“Sir, may I just say a few words about the suggestion that has been made by the Member for Whampoa, that we import foreign men graduates for our women graduates in this country. He says he is quite serious about it. I am surprised. Is he really suggesting that the Government take out full-page advertisements in New York, London and in other capitals, "Wanted Male Graduates for Singapore's Women Graduates"? Is he suggesting that our women graduates and our men graduates in Singapore should be held up to further ridicule? We have already been held up to ridicule in other countries by some of the policies we have adopted in this country. I would ask the Member for Whampoa whether he is really suggesting that. I hope that our women Members of Parliament will perhaps say something about this. I was very pleased to see the report in the papers after the first Schools Council meeting that the Minister had said, not his exact words, that he had not a closed mind on these issues and that he was prepared to consider representations and to review the policies. Well, that is a very good start. But may I tell the Minister that he should not dally too long on this. I think decisions have to be taken quite speedily. The Member for Leng Kee has spoken about the impatience that is felt outside on some of these policies. I would commend to the Minister that he should not just listen to his Ministry officials and to others connected with the Ministry, the systems engineers, on these policies that have been found to be most unpopular with our people. Was it last year I suggested that a commission be immediately appointed to study the whole education policy of this country?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I move my amendment now? Although it is under a different subhead, it covers the main grounds that we have already covered. Sir, first of all, may I say that we are debating the monies to be provided for the Ministry of Education and, as I have said once before, education is the most sacred trust that can be placed on any government. The education of the children is the most important duty of the Government. I would really place it more than anything else. And yet we see, Mr Speaker, Sir, that for this very important task, the Ministry of Education only merits one-third of the Minister. The Minister is saddled with two other Ministries. May I say, having said that, without any attempt to flatter the Minister or without any disrespect to the other Ministers, we have got the best man in the Ministry of Education. But I would appeal to the Prime Minister who is here that he should immediately relieve the Minister of his other portfolios and allow him to get on with the serious task of the education of our children. That there are a number of things basically and drastically wrong with our education system, I do not think anyone will seriously dispute. I do not want to repeat what has already been said. Strong feelings have been aroused as a result of the streaming, the priority admission for children of graduate mothers and the acute shortage of teachers in the schools, which I shall also mention. So there are things very wrong at the moment with our education policy. I see in the Prime Minister's Office there are three Senior Ministers whereas the Ministry of Education only rates one-third of a Minister. I would ask the Prime Minister to seriously allot the other Ministries to his other Senior Ministers so that they can have some work to do.”
“Does the Minister not know what this is? Would the Minister assure this House that the Comptroller of Property Tax will take note of the substantial reductions in the rentals of properties, particularly in the Central Business area?”
“May I ask the Minister what is the sufficient evidence that he says that the Comptroller of Property Tax requires before he takes steps to amend the annual value?”
“All right. HDB HOUSING ESTATES (Measures to eradicate problem of rusty water) 2. Mr Chew Heng Ching asked the Minister for National Development (a) what measures are being taken by the Housing and Development Board to solve the problem of rusty water in existing housing estates; (b) whether HDB has a comprehensive plan to tackle and eradicate this problem; and (c) what measures HDB will take to ensure that the problem will not happen in new housing estates.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not a supplementary question. But may I make a clarification?”
“Yes, Sir, All right. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Will you withdraw that and I will bring it up before you.”
“What was the Prime Minister saying? Well, get him back here. What was he saying? I thought he was saying, "You've got to pay us more, $30,000 is not enough."”
“What is the point of order? Mr Dhanabalan: The Member is not telling the truth.”
“He says he has to be paid more. His Ministers cannot live on $21,000 a month and yet we think -”
“Sir, I was talking about the public assistance that we are giving. $90 for a single person, $140 for two, $180 for three, $220 for four and above. How magnanimous we are! Sir, as I said yesterday, we are mocking at our people, people who are in receipt of these public assistance amounts. Yesterday, we were told by the Prime Minister that he cannot live on $30,000 a month. An hon. Member: He never said that.”
“I am not giving way. I gave way to the First Deputy Prime Minister. I am not giving way. I am carrying on.”
“I have just brought this letter to highlight the desperation that is felt in some quarters at the neglect by this Government of their needs.”
“Signed, thank you. I do not know whether perhaps the First Deputy Prime Minister can now tell us whether he replied to this poor man and I do not know whether this poor man is still alive. But there we have from a citizen of this country a cry of despair about the neglect by this Government of the aged, poor and sick. Sir, we are at the moment doling out - The First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Sir, on a point of clarification.”
“Thank you. Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head J be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead JC-05 of the Main Estimates. This letter was written by a man and, as I said, addressed to the Member for Marine Parade, who is now the First Deputy Prime Minister. The letter reads as follows, and I think it is worth reading: 'Honourable Sir, I shall be very grateful if your honourable will not hesitate to enlighten me of our elected Government's action towards a poverty stricken, local-born, active service, volunteered, wounded, aged, soldier is in terms with your honourable pledge [this is the pledge he says that the Member made in his capacity as Minister for Defence,l suppose at that time] that whatever the difficulties, the Government will not abandon the aged. Thanking you, your honourable.' "This pledge," he says in his letter to me "was reported in the Straits Times of the 2nd of May 1984", this pledge of the then Minister for Defence. He says in his letter to me that no reply was received to this letter.”
“Sir, we are now on my amendment on subhead JC-05 and I take it, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there are no further interruptions. Sir, I was referring to a letter that I received at my office, not a few days ago, it came towards the end of September 1984. Dr Lau Teik Soon (Serangoon Gardens): Point of order, Sir. The Member has not moved his amendment.”
“After subhead JC-04 the next amendment is on subhead JC-05. The Member for Whampoa has an amendment on that subhead. All right, let us take Mr Vasoo's amendment first.”
“Sir, you allowed me to speak on this subhead. Are you in charge or are the Members in charge?”
“Sir, again and again, we get this buck passing. We had this last year. We are getting it this year. I do not know whether we will get anywhere with this Government. My purpose in mentioning this is because at the moment they come under the Ministry of Community Development. I am asking the Minister whether he will persuade the Cabinet that the education of these children should now become the responsibility of the Government completely and be taken over by the Ministry of Education. I just want a simple answer, yes or no. If I may now go back to my amendment on JC -”
“Well, I asked you whether I could take it up immediately after, and you said I could. That is why I spoke on it. I can see why they object. They hope to defeat my speaking on it because it would then be half-past Four. Very clever. 4.15 pm”
“Well, you address your objections to the Chair. The Chair told me that I could speak on my amendments. I am speaking on JC-04 and JC-05, those are my amendments.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, perhaps you might give me a ruling on this. I am talking on my amendments, and that is, JC-04, JC-05.”
“I understand that in the 1960s, the Government used to send specialist teachers for training overseas, to be trained in the teaching of handicapped children, whether they be deaf or spastic, or whatever it may be. I am told no teachers are now being sent. Why? Cannot afford the money? We can spend $18 million to proclaim the PAP manifesto but we cannot, it seems, spend $3 million or $4 million a year to give these children their birth right, a proper education, when they can be educated and they can be made an economic asset to the country. Now, if I may now move on to the other subhead, and this is on public assistance and it covers assistance to the aged, the vagrants, the destitute. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I read a letter that was written on the 7 September. I hope the First Deputy Prime Minister (he was not the First Deputy Prime Minister then but it was addressed to him as the MP for Marine Parade) received it because this was sent to me as a copy of that letter which was sent to him on 7 September 1984. And I would give his name; it is here.”
“But I am saying to you, Minister for Community Development, that you should do your utmost now to transfer the responsibility to the Ministry of Education. Get the Cabinet to transfer the responsibility. Do not treat it as a charity to be administered by your Ministry of Community Development. Now, if I may continue where I left off, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, these seven specialist schools, as I said, are sorely in need of proper facilities, teaching aids, teachers, and they are not getting anything like the help they need from the Government. I understand, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that in 1981 a costing was made by a committee about the education of these children in these seven specialist schools. I am told they estimated that nearly $4 million would be needed as recurrent expenditure, every year, for the education of these children. The actual amount is $3,938,906 and the Committee also estimated that there would be a capital outlay of $1,831,924. Now, that is a paltry sum, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I appreciate that the costing was for 1981. It probably has gone up a little bit now. But that is a paltry sum. In 1981, the recurrent expenditure for primary schools was $252,055,000, and the amount to be spent on these mentally disabled, physically disabled children, represents only 1.56% of the total recurrent cost on primary education in this country. Why cannot we afford this money for these children, may I ask? Why should these children be deprived of their birth right? What right has this Government to deny these children their birth right? I say, it is only a government that is callous, that is completely indifferent to the needs of children, can be capable of doing this.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to differ because we are now talking about mentally disabled persons under this Ministry. May I continue?”