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 56 of 82.
“We must not demean the office of the Prime Minister and the office of Ministers of this country by making it mercenary. The impression is that they will not serve as Ministers or Prime Ministers unless they are paid. That is demeaning the office. And that would be a totally wrong thing to do. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not that our Ministers and the Prime Ministers are in need of greater salaries. When I came to this House in December 1981, in my very first speech, I asked that a provision be included in the Prevention of Corruption Act for a declaration to be made by all Members of Parliament setting out all assets owned by them, by their spouses and by their children, so that the public may know the financial standing of the Ministers and all Members of Parliament. I was not suggesting that they were corrupt. Far from it. I was saying that the public should know. The Prime Minister in replying to that said [Hansard, Vol. 41, Col. 332 of 22nd December, 1981]: 'I know exactly what each Member in this House is worth. They make full disclosures to me.' May I commend to the Prime Minister that it is not a question of him knowing what his Ministers are worth. Far more important is whether the public knows.”
“May I respectfully and humbly submit that they should not allow themselves to be inflated with a sense of their own importance. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not for a minute questioning the capabilities of the Ministers in the discharge of their duties. But I would ask them that they should consider whether they are setting an example to the citizens of this country in the salaries they draw. We are already, it would appear, paying very heavily for the cost of administration of our population of 21/2 million. In fact, if one makes a comparison, we would find probably that we are paying far more than anybody else. So it is my own view, Sir, that our present salaries are more than adequate and if any revision is to be made, the revision should be downward, particularly in view of the present recession in the economy. We have heard that said and I do not think that has been doubted. It would be completely wrong and it would be, I repeat, mocking at our workers, at our civil servants. And I am not talking about the Permanent Secretaries and the Staff Grade I and Staff Grade 11 officers. I am talking about our officers in the junior section of the Civil Service, that whilst they are being asked to tighten their belts and our workers are thrown out of employment, there should be any thought of increasing the Ministers' salaries. We are opposed resolutely to any increase in Ministers' salaries. We are opposed on principle, not on anything else. We think it will be wholly wrong to try and compare salaries paid to Ministers with the private sector. It is a service to the country and I hope Ministers will accept that as a service, an honour, a privilege to serve the country.”
“And I would like to know the comparison made between the salaries paid to Ministers and the number of times by which it has gone up and the number of times by which the junior officers' salaries have gone up. I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, we seem to be mocking at them and I think that is wrong. We do not want to give them that impression. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have prepared a Table (Cols. 1239 - 1240) comparing our Ministers' salaries with the salaries paid to ministers in countries outside. And with your permission, may I ask the Clerk to distribute them? Table - COMPARISON OF MONTHLY SALARIES (Cols. 1239 - 1240) [Copies of Table distributed to Members.) May I say, Sir, that these figures have been obtained from the respective High Commissions and the United States Embassy. And what do you find there, Sir? You find that except for the President of the United States who is the Chief Executive, our Prime Minister earns far more in excess of the salaries paid to the Prime Ministers of Malaysia, Australia, the United Kingdom and New Zealand. I may mention here, as I say in the note, that in Malaysia, the Prime Minister does not take home that pay. He has forgone $1,000 of his pay temporarily because of the economic recession. I think, Mr Speaker, Sir, a more useful comparison will be the comparison between the salaries we pay and the salaries paid in other countries. I would commend to the Prime Minister and to the Cabinet that we should have a sense of proportion about ourselves. We should not think that our duties and our offices are so important, far more important than the corresponding offices in other countries that our holders of the office should be paid far more.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I share my observations and views on Ministers' salaries. This is not the first time I have spoken on this subject. I spoke on this subject on the 31st August 1982 when the Parliamentary Pensions (Amendment) Bill was debated. I then said that our Ministers were being paid higher salaries than ministers in a number of other countries. After that, we, in the Hammer, published a table showing comparative salaries. So this is not the first time. We have always taken the view that our Ministers are paid adequately, perhaps a little bit over-adequately. Mr Speaker, Sir, we start from this premise, as I said then, that you cannot equate public service with the private sector. It is no good saying that because somebody in the private sector is drawing more than the Minister, the Minister must be made to jump over him. Public service is an honour and it is a duty and a service to one's country. Sir, I remember, when we were debating the allowances paid to our national servicemen, more than one Member said it must not be looked upon as a payment of salary or allowance. The soldiers must look upon it as their duty and their service to the country, Well, we seem to be mocking at them if we say that they must give service to the country and when it comes to Ministers, they must be paid adequately and not expected to give service to the country. And it will be misleading in my view, Sir, to compare the salaries with the top sector in the private service. Salaries of Ministers have gone up. I do not know how many times since we first introduced ministerial government in this country. I would like to look at the salaries of our junior officers in the Civil Service, not the top but the junior officers.”
“I would like to take them separately. But I would like to speak on this amendment. I understood that I would be given adequate time for this.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two amendments* myself under a different Subhead. I understand I will be allowed to speak on this amendment and can take my other two amendments later. My two amendments do not relate to Ministers' salaries but to specific points. The Chairman: You are entitled to five minutes, unless you wish to dwell on your two amendments.”
“You may want the Leader of the House to be reminded.”
“It is a term of art "due process of law".”
“- is where you are produced before a tribunal, a court of law, and you are found guilty on evidence admissible in a court of law. Detentions under the Misuse of Drugs Act, detentions under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act are a gross violation of the due process of law. I hope I have made that clear to you, Leader and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Community Development. I have said, again and again, that these provisions in these two Acts are a negation of the rule of law, and I stand by that. You try and disprove it. The Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I was minding my own business until the Member for Anson specifically referred to me and asked me to put my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Community Development and Leader of the House, right. But since he has asked me to join the fray, let me say that it is clear that the person who has to be put right is the Member for Anson. We can, of course, come to this House with our own preconceived notions of various phrases and slogans and then construct an argument on one's preconceived notion.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems to be a case of the Leader of the House wishing to provide entertainment in this House. Perhaps he got a bit bored with the proceedings, and decided that he would throw in this entertainment. Due process of law, for his information -”
“I am not giving way, unless it is on a point of order.”
“This will go on ad nauseam. Does the Leader of the House want an education on what is meant by "due process of law"? Perhaps his colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs, will put him right on what is due process of law. Mr Dhanabalan rose -”
“I suggest you go back to the University.”
“What I am trying to imply is that the needs of the pensioners are forgotten. No one seems to be concerned very much about their needs, and about their sufferings. What is wrong with that? The Leader of the House wants to know whether I am saying that people are put in prison without due process of law. Really, I am amazed. Does he not know of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act? Does he not know of the Misuse of Drugs Act? Where is the due process of law? Perhaps he does not understand what "due process of law" means. He'd better go back -”
“Didn't you hear me? Are you deaf? What I said was, "Pensioners, like the prisoners that we put away behind bars, would appear to be a forgotten lot."”
“I am not giving way. Is it a point of order or a point of clarification? Mr Dhanabalan: Point of clarification. Please repeat exactly what you have said.”
“Sir, may I say I am amazed at the intelligence of the Leader of the House. Sir, I said the pensioners were a forgotten lot. And we have heard it said - Mr Dhanabalan rose -”
“I really rise to give my support to what has been said by the Member for Punggol. Pensioners, it would appear, like the prisoners that we put away behind bars, are a forgotten lot in Singapore. No one seems to be really concerned about their welfare, once they have given their contribution to the country. And may I reiterate what he said, is there no way o expressing our gratitude to these people who have served us well. May I ask the Minister whether there has been any thought of pegging pensions to the cost of living index?”
“Sir, I do not have an amendment on this Head, but may I speak for five minutes or less than that?”
“Even if they are not permanent residents?”
“Sir, may I ask, by way of clarification, about these foreigners who are graduates and who have been invited to the SDU's functions and cruises. Am I to understand that they may include those who are not even permanent residents and who have just accepted a job in Singapore? My question was: what is the justification for paying out of public funds for their enjoyment? I know what the Minister has said, but may I register my protest against that. Secondly, I asked about these audited expenses because of a letter in the Straits Times, which would suggest that the participants did not pay the full cost of the cruise.”
“Thank you. I wish to ask the Minister about the Social Development Unit again. Will he inform this House whether foreign graduates, who are not Singapore citizens or even permanent residents, are invited to go on cruises and to functions organized by the SDU? And what is the basis or the justification for spending public money on people who are not even permanent residents of this country? Secondly, may I ask the Minister whether he would make available the audited expenses spent by the SDU on a cruise, showing how much were the contributions made by the members, and how much was spent by the Unit itself?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have an amendment under this subhead but may I have five minutes?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps the Minister may not be able to give these figures now, but I wonder whether he will be good enough to pass on to me the breakdown of these figures.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Minister say what was the common reason or cause for the exercise of these powers by the HDB?”
“I thought you said you offered them jobs.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Minister produce, in each of these eight cases, the offer of jobs made by the HDB to them?”
“I am surprised that the Minister says the HDB does not know the reason why these families could not pay their rents. Is the Minister saying that no investigation was made by the HDB before these people were thrown out?”
“I didn't say "thousands of people". Produce the paper.”
“On a point of order. The Minister is grossly distorting what I said. We have distortions from Ministers ad nauseam in this House. What I said was "some people". I did not say "thousands of people". Will you please produce the paper? Some hon. Members: Yes.”
“Sir, why has this not been brought over all these years?”
“He misinterpreted the whole thing. He does not understand it.”
“All right. Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Sir, the Member for Anson has alleged that the HDB has become a monster and the HDB is making a lot of rules and regulations which, to him, are unreasonable and unfeeling, and that there is a need to have a committee formed by Members of Parliament to investigate the HDB rules and regulations. Sir, I am the Minister in charge of HDB. Any of the Members here can raise a question, either oral or in writing, in this House, to ask HDB to justify any rules and any regulations. And I will have to justify it because I am the Minister in charge, and I will give Members the reasons why HDB need to have such rules and regulations. So I see that it will be a total waste of time to form a committee. Anybody who is dissatisfied with any rules of the HDB can bring it up and I will justify the rules and the regulations made by the HDB. On the question of the MP's office, each Member of Parliament is entitled to one office. I myself have one office. In fact my Constituency, Geylang West, covers a very wide area and I only have one office. I am not entitled to more than one. And if I want to have another office, I have to rent a shophouse somewhere in my constituency. So there is no different treatment between the PAP MPs and the Opposition MPs, as far as the HDB is concerned.”
“May I tell the Minister, as the Member who has just spoken, said, "I am not here to compete. I am worried for this woman." So whether she goes through an MP or not, if she produces that document herself to your officials, will you accept it? Please.”
“Why wasn't I told this when I first took up her case?”
“You said that every one who is resettled, or whose house is demolished because of resettlement, is entitled to alternative accommodation. So she qualifies for it, and she has got two children who are Singapore citizens.”
“Oh, my gosh. It goes from one thing to another. Well, she qualifies for it, Mr Minister, in every way. An hon. Member: She has to wait.”
“I see. All right. So if she produces a separation deed and goes to see your HDB officials, she will be given an alternative accommodation. Is that what you are saying?”
“What is it that you want? You want a divorce from the court or a separation deed? Let us have this clearly spelt out.”
“May I just ask, by way of clarification, because it is no laughing matter for this woman. Am I to understand from the Minister that if she produces what - a separation deed, is that what you want?”
“So I will send her to you with the separation deed.”
“I hope the Minister will give us some answers to these questions.”
“It appears that the HDB had over-estimated in the sum of $42 million for maintenance. they have that much of money to transfer. May I know why was there this over-estimation for service and conservancy? Is it an admission that the HDB is perhaps collecting far too much by way of service and conservancy charges? I am surprised to see that the 1983-84 accounts still show a deficit in the Service and Conservancy account. But they transferred $42 million out saying, "We've over-estimated it." Perhaps the Minister will try and enlighten me on how this was done - that you can transfer $42 million and then still show that you are in deficit. The other thing is the profits of the HDB from the MND Holdings. The Minister maintains all the time that the HDB is not making profits. But we do know that the HDB has stashed away $98,558,159 in profits. This is from its shareholding in MND Holdings. This amount of $98,558,159 was at the end of 1983, and I am sure it must have gone up now to more than $100 million. This profit is not shown in the accounts of the HDB. The Auditor-General drew attention to this, and I have drawn attention to this last year, and the year before. I pointed out that this would be an offence under the Companies Act. I know the answer would be that, "the HDB is not a company. So just keep quiet." But in principle it is wrong. May I know why is the HDB hiding this profit of $99 million, not showing it in its accounts? A more pertinent question is: why has this amount not been brought over to the HDB? Why has it been left with the MND Holdings? If it has been brought over, it could have been utilized. It could have been invested. The HDB could have earned on these profits. Is this not a gross dereliction of its duties as trustees of the monies?”
“The answer would appear to be "No" to everything. So may we have it from the Minister whether that is going to be the Government policy. Because he is talking as a Government Minister, and I hope perhaps the First Deputy Prime Minister will reply on this: what is going to be the policy of the Government, as regards requests from the Opposition MPs? If you say you are not going to grant anything, well, say so. I will leave it to my colleague on this side of the House to bring his problems up. But I understand even he has not got his office yet. It took the HDB eight months to give me an office in Anson after 1981. When I asked what happened to the office that was occupied by the previous MP, they said, "Oh, no, we've given it to somebody else." What has happened to the previous office occupied by the MP in Potong Pasir? Well, I will leave it to my colleague on this side of this House. If I may now take the final amendment, Mr Speaker, Sir, under the Development estimates. The Minister forestalled me by making his statement about the switch in the accounting system. I am sure he anticipated that I would bring it up in the debate on the estimates for the HDB. I am glad to see that, at last, we shall see accounts in the new form in 1986 and we will then know the costing of flats on which, till today, we have still not been fully informed, I took up the costing of the flats the moment I entered this House in December 1981 and I have been pressing for this every time. But I am not going to say anything more about the costing of the flats. I have some questions for the Minister on the accounts. First of all, may I ask him about the transfer of $42 million from the Service and Conservancy provision in the budget for 1983-84 to Repayment of Loans.”
“Thank you. I am not asking for a racing track. But I wrote to the Housing and Development Board asking that I be given office space now in a part of my constituency which is separated from the major part of my constituency. This is Bukit Purmei, where there are 10 blocks. I said, "May I have a room there in which I could see the constituents?" It has taken the HDB two months to reply to my letter, and the answer is, "No. You've already got one, so we are not going to give you another room." Mr Speaker, Sir, another Party would seem to have no difficulty at all in getting HDB accommodation all over the country, in all the constituencies. I see that in some constituencies, there is not just one office for the MP but there are two offices for the MP. And there are, what I call, educational centres. In Bukit Purmei there is one educational centre. On polling day, this Party had full use of this centre. I am told that the classes there are run by this Party. May I know what is going to be the attitude of the HDB with regard to providing premises for the Opposition Parties? Here we have, on the one hand, the First Deputy Prime Minister saying, "We are not going to be obstructionist. We will let the Opposition MPs do whatever they like to do in their own constituencies." And here is the HDB saying, "No, you are not going to have it." Not only did I ask for an office in Bukit Purmei, I also asked for additional rooms where I could hold my classes. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am providing free classes for the children of poor parents in my constituency, classes in English and Maths at the Primary 3 and Primary 6 level. My present office is completely inadequate for that. I asked whether the HDB would help me by providing me with some more space.”
“I ask that it is time that an all-party committee - yes, I say, an all-party committee - of this House should be appointed consisting of Members, not only from the ruling Party but also from the other two Parties represented in this House now, to review the entire policies of the HDB and its decisions, so that a thorough study can be made of their need and the equitableness or otherwise of these rules and policy decisions. And a report be made to this House so that there can be a full debate on it, and the matter can then be put right. That is my suggestion - that an all-party committee be set up immediately to review all policies of the HDB, not only as regards eligibility but as regards the powers of the HDB that it possesses. And I pointed out, these powers are enormous and draconian. They give no right of appeal for the poor tenants. I know the Minister will say, "Oh, yes, you can go to the courts." I have said time and time again that that is very limited, and is not good enough. Another point under this subhead is the attitude of the HDB towards requests from Opposition MPs in the constituencies where they represent the constituents. Sir, again, if I may say what I read as having been said by the First Deputy Prime Minister after the elections, referring to constituencies represented by Opposition MPs. He was reported to have said, "Well, we will let the Opposition MPs run their constituencies as they like. If they want a racing track, we'll give it to them. Let them do what they like. Let's see what happens." Well, I am not asking for a racing track in my constituency. Do you recall that, First Deputy Prime Minister?”
“Yes, all right, I will. I have to ask my librarian to go through the back pages of the Straits Times. I think I saw it. But you will be given that. I tell you that I did see it. Please take my word for it. At least we have this concession from the First Deputy Prime Minister, and I was very glad to note that. Mr Speaker, Sir, the HDB is a public body. It is not a private body. I have been emphasizing this every time I spoke about the HDB. And it is, may I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, scandalous that the HDB should be allowed to make its own rules and policies as to who should be excluded from its apartments, who should be thrown out, without any control whatsoever from this Parliament. As I said, speaking on the Address of Thanks to the President, Mr Speaker, Sir, Parliament should be the sounding board of the nation. Parliament is the conscience of the people that live in this country, and therefore it is only right that policy decisions like this should be subject to constant review and control by Parliament. Funds are provided out of public monies and it is unthinkable, that on decisions like this, it should be left purely to the Board or to its committees. 2.45 pm At a press conference, Mr Speaker, Sir, I called for a committee to review all policies of the HDB, not only in regard to eligibility for HDB accommodation and the rules that debar certain people from applying to HDB but also to all rules that provided for people to be thrown out of HDB apartments because they have broken this rule or that rule . I repeat that call in this Chamber, Mr Speaker, Sir.”
“Well, if the First Deputy Prime Minister wants the exact date, I will try to get it for him. But I tell you that somebody complained and you admitted that he had a point - that the HDB had become indifferent. You conceded it completely.”
“May I know from the Member for Anson the exact date when that remark was made, because I do not recall making that particular remark?”
“That seems to me, if that is going to be the answer, a heartless answer. They have already suffered. As I said, the man has been sent away. He obviously considered it as a conferment of freedom on him, and he has vanished. So what are we doing to do to help this woman and her children? May I know from the Minister whether she will be given alternative accommodation, and soon, because she is desperate. She has been to see me more than once and, may I say, I am not being dramatic, she said, "Shall I throw myself and my children down from one of these high-rise storeys?" I said, "For goodness sake, don't do anything like that." I said, "Our Govern- ment is a caring, compassionate Government, and I am sure something will be done for you." So I hope the Minister will look into this matter, so that my promise to her will be kept. The second matter, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the amendment under Subhead TG-01 of the Main Estimates. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not going to go over all the inequities of the policies and the rules of the HDB. Enough has been said of them, but may I just make this point - in September last year in an Adjournment Motion I spoke on this subject - I said that the HDB had become a monster, completely indifferent to the feelings and sufferings of the people who occupied its quarters. There was an attempted valiant defence of the HDB by the Minister then. But I was very glad to see that the First Deputy Prime Minister, after the elections, conceded that there was validity in this allegation that the HDB had become indifferent to the people's sufferings. So at least we have got somewhere. The First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence (Mr Goh Chok Tong): On a point of clarification, Sir.”