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 55 of 82.
“We were told a year ago about a course that was being run now by the Institute of Education, but I am told that that is not an adequate course. The teachers that are sent there are not trained teachers or normal teachers, but untrained teachers. It is unlike -”
“If I may now speak on my amendment No. (11), Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. That deals with the allocation for Welfare Services for Physically and Mentally Disabled Persons. Sir, for the last three Budget sittings, I have raised this matter and I have also raised the other amendment that I propose to speak on, and I could not let this year's Budget sittings pass without making my plea again. No doubt, I will be told, "We've heard this before." But it is worth repeating. I am now talking about the physically and mentally disabled persons, and I am particularly directing my words to the children who are physically and mentally disabled. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my first point is that these children are educable; they can be educated. Second, that education of them is not a handout. It is not a charity. It is an economic necessity because otherwise they will become a burden where they need not necessarily become a burden. And thirdly, that the parents of these children have as much right as the parents of normal children to expect their children to be educated. And it has been my lament in this House for the last three years that this Government has shamefully neglected its responsibilities in the education of these children. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I understand that there are seven specialist schools which cater for children who are mentally or physically disabled in one way or another. And they all have a sorry tale to tell. They just cannot cope without Government intervention, without Government help. They do not have the trained staff. I heard the Minister of State talking about 71 teachers being seconded to the institutions. But I understand that they are not trained, specialist trained staff.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have two amendments.* May I move them one after the other? Is that all right? They are (11) and (14).”
“All right, Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 12.15 pm”
“There seems to be a determined reluctance to understand what I am saying. I referred to the rules because I said they were absurd rules and quite unnecessary. The unfair way in which the election was conducted was exemplified or illustrated by me in what I said happened in Anson. Are you denying that the candidate for Anson was accompanied by officials from the Housing and Development Board and other officers? And the First Deputy Prime Minister talks about intimidation. Do you know what the whispering campaign in Anson was?”
“May I ask the First Deputy Prime Minister, how does he think the affixing of the stamp on the posters is going to prevent a candidate from displaying more posters than he is allowed? He can display them without the stamps. The answer to it is to send your men, the Police, around to see if there are more posters than allotted, and to take them down. That is how you prevent it. I do not see how affixing stamps will necessarily prevent them. The second question is this. Did you lodge a complaint with the Returning Officer? Was it brought to the notice of the Workers' Party?”
“He was not from the Workers' Party then.”
“Are you giving us a lesson on that history now?”
“Why don't I challenge it in court? I keep getting this thrown at me: "Why don't I challenge it in court." Well, I am challenging it here.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid the Leader of the House, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Community Development, completely misses the point. I can only repeat what I said yesterday, that I am amazed at the intelligence. Mr Speaker, Sir, I referred to the rules to show how ridiculous they are. I do not see any need for these restrictive rules in our election activity. We have grown up now, we are no longer little children, and I say that we can be trusted without these little rules for us. Now, the Minister says I have not referred to any other unfair practices. Well I did. I referred to a host of them. i mentioned two unfair practices that were carried out in Anson during the last elections. If you think that does not give the People's Action Party an advantage, what does give them an advantage? An hon. Member: Why don't you challenge them in court?”
“It was not heard because the A.G. took advantage of a technical point.”
“That speaks for the courage of the Anson constituents.”
“I am coming to that. Will you be patient, Leader of the House? Even before his appointment, the PAP candidate was accompanied by officials. There was the Senior Estates Officer of the HDB Area Office going with him from house to house. There were other officials. I have mentioned this in the House. I asked the Prime Minister about it. The community centre was being used to promote the PAP's chances in Anson. And what was the Prime Minister's reply? At least he admitted it. He said, "It is the business of the Government to win elections." So to him, it is perfectly in order. But I say it is not in order. That is why we need an elections commission to see that the scales are held evenly between the ruling party and the other political parties. And that can only come about if we have an elections commission which is independent of the Government. The future of Singapore does not depend, let me say, on everything being entrusted to the Prime Minister's Department. The future of Singapore depends on the people of Singapore and their participation in the future of Singapore.”
“After the 1980 elections, a voter in Telok Blangah brought an election petition asking for an inquiry into a missing ballot box. That inquiry was never heard because the Returning Officer, represented by the Attorney-General, and the candidate himself took objection to a technical point, that the petition had not been served. So we never had a full inquiry into the whole conduct of the elections at Telok Blangah. Now, coming to the last elections, I was complaining about the unfair advantages and I could tell you, if you like to know and the people in Anson will tell you if you go and ask them, the unfair advantages which were enjoyed by the People's Action Party. Even before election day -”
“Only the Prime Minister's Department can do this? Mr Goh Chok Tong: It is the integrity of the people in charge of the elections that counts. And they have been running elections for years since 1959 when the PAP was in charge of Singapore. Has there been any single allegation or accusation that in each election, whether it is a by-election or general elections, that anyone has been dishonestly returned? Has there been any shred of evidence that ballot boxes have been tampered with, have been stuffed? Has anyone any evidence to doubt the integrity of the system? Mr Speaker, Sir, we should not go in for form as practised by other countries. If we want form, form can be created but form can also be created to hide the truth. And the truth is, in fact, to have a system that everybody can see is well managed and well run. For that, we go back to basic and the basic is: how do we ensure that in Singapore there is always a team of people who are honest, clean, dedicated, and who can run the system honestly, and that any malpractices, misdeeds, can be seen and challenged by anyone. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is important that we re-emphasize this point. I know that the Prime Minister has emphasized it before. But it is a point which I would also emphasize, that the future of Singapore depends on whether we can continue to get good, honest men to be in charge of Singapore. And that is the objective - the substance, not just the form. As regards rules, procedures, which the Member found absurd, these rules are necessary to prevent any malpractice. Has a rule interfered with any -”
“There is the rule that was introduced which required posters to be stamped with the stamps issued by the Returning Officer. I asked the Prime Minister why, and I do not think I " ever got a satisfactory answer to that. Then there is this puerile rule which says that at election rallies, the speakers should be listed beforehand, in the application for the permits for the election rallies. What is the need for all these puerile rules? There was the Minister for Home Affairs holding forth sometime ago about the great freedom of speech, great freedom of this and that, that we have in this country, and yet when it comes to election activities, you have these rules. Even before anyone can speak, his name and his identity card number must be submitted to the police. If he is not on that list, then he cannot speak. It is an unnecessary restriction. There are a number of other things. At the moment we cannot complain about any improper practices practised by the ruling Party in the conduct of elections. I think if you have a proper Commission, or you have a committee, then you will get elections conducted fairly in Singapore. 11.45 am”
“All right, a show of hands, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Committee divided: Ayes, 2; Noes, 48. Amendment accordingly negatived. Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, my next amendment is under UB-01. And I beg to move, Mr Speaker, Sir, That the sum to be allocated for Head U be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead UB-01 of the Main Estimates. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Subhead concerns the Elections Programme of the Government. Was it two years ago or perhaps only a year ago, I suggested to the Prime Minister, who was then here replying to amendments on the supply for his Ministry, that it was high time he brought our election machinery in line with other democratic countries of the world and ought not to run the elections as though they were a private preserve of the Prime Minister and his Department. And I make that call now, again. I think it is high time that there should be set up an Elections Commission which will supervise and oversee the elections in this country and give all political parties a right in determining or deciding how elections should be held and the conditions and terms governing election activity. For far too long, the conduct of elections has been looked upon as a preserve of the Government and, in particular, of the Prime Minister's Department. It is time for a change. The winds of change are blowing through Singapore. So let us change. Mr Speaker, Sir, as was pointed out by my colleague on this side of the House, there are three parties represented in this House now. And I say that not only these three parties but other parties, which are not represented, should have some say in how elections are to be conducted. Now, there are some absurd rules in this Parliamentary Elections Act.”
“I am not withdrawing my amendment, Sir. Question put, "That the sum to be allocated for Head U be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead UA-01 of the Main Estimates."”
“Well, the Minister for Home Affairs must know that every public office appointment is provided for by Staute. Does he not know that?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the fact that ii has not been raised before does not mean that it cannot be raised today. And I am raising it today. The Minister for Home Affairs asks: what is this principle that says that there must be a provision somewhere for every appointment?”
“Well, I am challenging it here in Parliament. And Parliament is the High Court of Parliament. [Laughter]. Well, I am afraid people who do not know anything about Parliamentary tradition will obviously laugh. But it is the High Court of Parliament. Anyone will tell you. And I am challenging it here. I say this is an abuse of public funds.”
“We get the stock reply from Government Ministers, "Why don't you go and challenge it in a court of law?"”
“Will the Minister concede, without any equivocation now, that there is no power in the Constitution giving the Prime Minister or the President the power to appoint a Political Secretary? There is, of course, in what he has referred to, in the Interpretation section, the word "Political Secretary". But I repeat, "Where is the power of appointment of Political Secretaries to be found in the Constitution?" You will not find it. This was raised by the Member for Farrer Park in 1959 and it was not answered. Now, I say that every political appointment must find an enabling provision in the Constitution - the power to appoint to that political post. And that is why you find it in the Constitution that the President shall appoint the Prime Minister and that he shall appoint Ministers, acting in accordance with the Prime Minister's advice. Then you go on to Parliamentary Secretaries. That is in the section dealing with the Executive. Do you find anything about Political Secretaries in the Executive appointments?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, that Article 2 is an interpretation Article. Before you can appoint anyone, there must be an express power of appointment. Surely, the Minister for Home Affairs, who was at one time a Professor of Law, must know this. Where is the express power of appointment of Political Secretaries? Do not refer us to the Interpretation section.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if I have erred, I would be the first to withdraw my allegation. Would the First Deputy Prime Minister point to the Article in the Constitution of Singapore? I must have been blind when I went through this, because I cannot find it myself. But would he draw my attention to the Article in the Constitution which says that there shall be a Political Secretary appointed? I see under Article 25 that the President shall appoint as Prime Minister a Member of Parliament and he shall also appoint Ministers acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister. That is Article 25 of the Constitution. 11.30 am If you move to Parliamentary Secretaries in Article 31, you find that the President, acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister, may by instrument under the public seal, appoint Parliamentary Secretaries. And it stops with that. It is "Parliamentary Secretaries from ,among the Members of Parliament". Then you have a number of other Articles following that, and I cannot find any Article which gives the President or the Prime Minister the power to appoint a Political Secretary. So would you please refer us to the Article in the Constitution?”
“I am not in the Public Accounts Committee.”
“Under the Constitution, I believe the Prime Minister has every right and authority to decide how his Political Secretary should work. If there is any abuse of public funds, as the Member for Anson seems to have alleged, we have the Public Accounts Committee. We have the Auditor-General, and he would have pointed this out to us. But he has not done so.”
“But it would be a complete violation of the Constitution, of the Finance Act, for the person who is working for the NTUC or any other organization to be paid out of public funds. I can only suggest that if that is the case, then whoever appointed him should be surcharged for the salaries that had been paid. I am surprised that the Auditor-General has not drawn attention to the salaries that have been paid to Political Secretaries in the past. With that, I will sit down, Mr Speaker, Sir, but I would like to come back to the reply made by whoever replies. The First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not an expert on law and I am certainly not an expert on the Constitution of Singapore. But the Member for Anson is a lawyer and I believe he should know the Constitution much better than 1. I take it that he has gone through the Constitution and must have come across the clause wherein the appointment of Political Secretaries, Ministers and other office-bearers is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The terms and conditions of appointment of Ministers, Political Secretaries and other office-bearers may not be mentioned in the Constitution. But I believe the Constitution expressly provided for the post of Political Secretary, and the appointment by the Prime Minister of Political Secretaries is perfectly in order. It is not a Civil Service appointment. It is a political appointment. What are the terms of the particular Political Secretary whom he mentioned is working in NTUC? I do not believe that there is any wrongdoing. If there is, I am sure the Auditor-General who audits our accounts properly would have pointed this out.”
“I have looked through the Constitution, Mr Speaker, Sir, and there is no provision in the Constitution for the appointment of Political Secretaries. I take it that "Political Secretary" is a political appointment and if it is a political appointment, one would find it in the Constitution. There is no provision in the Constitution for the appointment of Political Secretaries. I see that way back in 1959 the then Member for Farrer Park, who is now sitting on the High Court Bench, also asked about this and he pointed out that there was nothing in the Constitution about the appointment of Political Secretary. He said that the appointment of Political Secretary was something which was not known to the Constitution of Singapore. I would like to know where is the authority for this appointment of Political Secretary. If it is not a political appointment, it is then a Civil Service appointment. Is it a civil service appointment? If it is a Civil Service appointment, then what was a civil servant doing, contesting the elections for the PAP in the constituency of Anson? May we have clarification from whoever is going to reply on this too? Secondly, this gentleman who now occupies the post of Political Secretary in the Prime Minister's Office, I understand, is also currently the Assistant SecretaryGeneral, or is it Deputy Secretary-General, in the NTUC. May we know whether he is working full-time with the NTUC or whether he is working full-time in the Prime Minister's Office as Political Secretary? If he is working full-time with the NTUC, which I understood is the case, then how is he being paid out of public funds? I know about the symbiotic relationship between the NTUC and the Government.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two amendments and I propose to take them one at a time. I propose to move first my amendment under Subhead UA-01 of the Main Estimates. I move, Mr Speaker, Sir, That the sum to be allocated for Head U be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead UA-01 of the Main Estimates. Mr Speaker, may I say that I am disappointed that the Prime Minister is not here this morning because I was hoping that he would answer this question that I have for him. All I wish to say is that I hope he was not exhausted by the long lesson he gave in history and arithmetic yesterday and that other pressing business keeps him from the House. Mr Speaker, Sir, my query this morning relates to the appointment of Political Secretary. There is a post in the Prime Minister's Office for one Political Secretary and I think there are such posts in one or two other ministries as well. This gentleman who currently fills the post of Political Secretary in the Prime Minister's Office, I believe, was appointed sometime last year. He was going to lead the assault on the ground that the PAP had lost in 1981. He was going to be the flag-bearer for the PAP into Anson and to give him more clout he was appointed Political Secretary to the Prime Minister. And no sooner was he appointed, he had cards printed with his photograph circulated to all the residents in Anson. "Here I come, Political Secretary to the Prime Minister." That, in the end, did not help the PAP or the gentleman in question. I am not here to talk about him and what he did but rather to query this provision for Political Secretary in the Budget. May I inquire from whoever is going to reply to this, where is the provision for the appointment of Political Secretaries?”
“May I know how many working class families have a combined income of $1,450?”
“Does his Ministry really expect a working class family to be able to afford $150?”
“May I ask the Minister of State whether these child care centres are being provided for the highly paid people in our society or for the working class people?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister keeps talking about, "Let's have a sense of proportion." This is what I am trying to urge upon the Prime Minister, believe me, to have a sense of proportion. And I think you will get that if you compare the responsibilities and the duties of your office with the responsibilities and duties of office in other countries, and then begin to see what they are paid and what the Ministers are paid here. In my Table that I have presented, the Prime Minister gets nearly four times what the Prime Minister in the United Kingdom gets, and what the Prime Minister in New Zealand gets. And three times more than what the Prime Minister in Malaysia gets. Is the Prime Minister of the view that his salary should be equated to the President of the United States? Because he is the only one who is getting more. He is getting $45,000 while the Prime Minister here is getting $30,976.”
“I am asking you to have a sense of proportion.”
“If you ask me, I think it should at least go down by a third.”
“I have said, and I say it again, that the present salaries are more than adequate. And, as I said, what makes it a mockery is that there are people in this country, in this land of ours, who are earning, as the worthy Member on this side of the House said, less than $600 a month. There are people who are drawing public assistance from this Government of less than $120.”
“But if they are only interested in the money, there is no integrity.”
“Well, I never refuse an invitation. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a question of vital importance and it is a question of principle. It is not a question of money that we are arguing or debating in this House. The Prime Minister more than once said, "Let's be honest with ourselves." Well, let us be honest. What is the Prime Minister saying? Is he saying that his present Cabinet Ministers or the new recruits into his Party would not have come in unless they were promised huge sums of money by way of salaries, high salaries?”
“You keep saying they cannot live on their salaries.”
“What is the objection to the declarations?”
“I have asked the Prime Minister these questions and he has not answered them. He keeps repeating the same thing, Would he try and answer my questions?”
“You are mercenary, That is what you are.”
“You've got to give some greater motives. You've got to give people higher motives.”
“You are suggesting the wrong motivation, completely.”
“I would like to ask him what is it that led him into politics. The other question is this: which does he think carries greater honour and prestige? Being the Prime Minister of this country or being, say, Chairman of the OCBC, the biggest local bank in Singapore? Does he not think that the comparison is completely mis-leading? Thirdly, he has talked about being the poorest in the Third World countries, in the Commonwealth. I put it to him in the 1981 speech, and I ask again, if it is the Prime Minister's view that Ministers are not adequately paid, that they are finding it difficult to live on their salaries. Will he now take up my request and file declarations from all Members of this House setting out their assets?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may 1, by way of clarification of what the Prime Minister has said, put a few questions to him? The Prime Minister was talking about his entry into politics. He was an up-and-coming lawyer in those days, 1959. I hate to think, Mr Prime Minister, that you came into politics because you thought you would get much higher pay in the Government. I would like to think that you were imbued with a greater sense of dedication than that.”
“I think I should have brought in the President of India or the Prime Minister of India.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just clarify this Table on which questions were asked by the Member for Moulmein. This Table, Mr Speaker, Sir, shows the basic salaries plus the Parliamentary allowances and all the other basic allowances that are paid. It does not, of course, include benefits of travel. But do Ministers in Singapore not have benefits of travel if they go abroad?”
“I would ask the Prime Minister whether he would now consider asking everyone to make this declaration.”