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 57 of 82.
“This was in August or September last year when her house was forcibly demolished, with the result that she is now carrying her two children from house to house, staying with some friends for a period of time, and then moving on as soon as the friends discover that it was becoming inconvenient for her to stay with them. She appealed, through her own MP (she is not from my constituency) and also directly, to the authorities but all these appeals have fallen on deaf ears. I even wrote on her behalf to the Housing and Development Board about her plight. I have not received any reply to my letter. I wonder whether the Minister has directed the HDB not to reply to any letters from the Opposition MPs. If that is so, let's have it. Mr Speaker, Sir, we hear so much about this Government taking care of everyone who is in need and, particularly after the elections, that it would adopt a less austere face, wear on a human face and attend to the needs of its citizens. Here, we have a stark situation of a mother and two children who have been denied a basic human right of shelter over their heads. May I know from the Minister whether this woman and her two children will be provided with alternative accommodation? We were told by the Minister only yesterday that his Ministry considered it is its duty to provide alternative accommodation in resettlement cases. Well, why has this mother and her two children been denied, what I say, this basic human right? And the Minister said, "If there is genuine hardship, HDB will relax its rules." I was very glad to hear that. I hope I am not going to be told by the Minister that, because she had married this man, she is forever to be, as it were, banished from any of the benefits that she is entitled to enjoy as a citizen of this country.”
“All right, Sir. Thank you. Mr Speaker, Sir, under this subhead, I am not raising, as it were, the scenic views from windows or the speed along sliproads to expressways. I am raising, which I hope Members will accept, a far more basic right affecting an individual citizen of this country. And I wish to raise before this House, Mr Speaker, Sir, the case of a mother and two children who have been denied their right of alternative accommodation when their house, in which they were living, was torn down under the clearance plans of the Ministry of National Development. Mr Speaker, Sir, this mother, who is a Singapore citizen, was living, as I understand, in Lorong Ah Thia in a temporary hut or structure, and the area came up for clearance and she was thrown out of the house in which she and her two children were living. I understand from her that one of these two children that she has is a permanent invalid. He has got to be constantly looked after and he is incontinent. He. has a tube or something to serve him. So she is really in dire straits. She was thrown out of this house and she was told she would not be given any alternative accommodation. The reason, it would appear, was that she had married somebody who was working here on a work permit. She is a Singapore citizen and she misguidedly contracted marriage with this man. When the Commissioner of Employment found this out, they swooped down on him and sent him back to Malaysia. He thought, "Well, here is good riddance of my burden. I will take my freedom". And he is, I am told, gone permanently away, and she has lost all touch with him. He has abandoned her and her two children. So she was left to look after the two children and she was told she was not eligible for any alternative accommodation.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. May I take the first amendment in the order that it appears in the Order Paper Supplement, and this relates to Subhead F-01. Mr Speaker, Sir, I move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced $10 in respect of Subhead TF-01. The Chairman: There is no need for you to move your amendment, Mr Jeyaretnam. You can carry on.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am a little puzzled as to the order in which you are taking these amendments. May I move my amendment No. (8)?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. I am sorry. I want your ruling whether all this is relevant to the second question asked by the Member for Potong Pasir. A clarification is asked for and he goes on into electioneering propaganda.”
“What is the basis for discriminating between PAP constituencies and Opposition constituencies? You do not understand the word "basis".”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on this very point again. I have other amendments but I want to take up this point. This is a scandalous statement we have heard from the Minister for National Development. We see now that the PAP is coming out in its true colours. Is this what you want the people of Singapore to know - that the PAP is only interested in people who vote for the PAP? Is that how you function as a Government? I say to you, Mr Minister, that if you try discriminating against the people of Anson, you are in for some trouble. An hon. Member: That is a threat!”
“Sir, may I just reply to the threat from the Minister for National Development about discriminating against Opposition constituencies? I know what the answer will be. We will stop paying the service and conservancy charges. You take us to court.”
“"Look, in this country you do not have to worry. If you feel that the Government's policies are wrong, you may vote against the Government at the elections." BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, can I just go on to deal with the points raised by the Member for Punggol. I do not really want to add anything more to the discussion, except to say that it is rather strange for a Member of the Opposition to ask the Government to propagandize on its behalf. I would have thought that they had enough confidence in themselves. But to take the point of the Member for Punggol. Training areas, yes, they are critical. We must have them. Land is scarce in Singapore. There are many demands on the land. We have Housing Board flats, we have catchment areas, we have expressways, we have business districts. But we must have land for training. If we do not have land for training, we cannot train an army; we may have the equipment but we do not have an Armed Force. We are trying. We shall make sure that there is sufficient land put aside for training in Singapore. Development expenditure, yes, we do invest in our soldiers. We invest adequately, We invest carefully. I cannot tell you exactly how much all the equipment we buy costs, but we do take the line that it is more important to spend the money and equip them well, rather than to equip them shoddily, and let them go to war and be killed because their equipment was not adequate.”
“Well, to answer the Leader of the House. I mentioned this report by the army psychologist - that soldiers laboured under this fear that they had to vote with the Government. Well, tell us: are you doing anything to dispel that fear among the soldiers? Were they told- An hon. Member: "Vote for the Opposition."”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Leader of the House perhaps does not understand the whole technique of parliamentary procedure and what a debate is. We have only got to come here, may I tell the Leader, and ask the questions. The Government will have to give as full answers as possible to these questions. If you say that no compulsion or no persuasion has been brought to bear on the soldiers to vote in any particular manner, well, say so.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I point out that it is really a threat, an attempt to try and stop Members from asking questions in this House - if Ministers keep saying, "Go outside and repeat it." We are here in this House to ask questions and it is your duty, may I tell you, to answer the questions in this House. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Community Development and Leader of the House (Mr S. Dhanabalan): Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Member for Anson is alleging that national servicemen are being influenced, I think it is only proper that he gives some facts, and the basis on which his questions arise. He should say which company, which camp, who said what, and perhaps then an answer can be forthcoming.”
“I am asking a question. If you did not, say, "No, we never gave any instructions." BG Lee Hsien Loong: It is an offence to influence anybody's vote. The Government does not do this. Mr Jeyaretnam: Good. Thank you. The people will see that answer. BG Lee Hsien Loong: If the Member for Anson wishes to make any such suggestions, wishes to make such hints, he should not be coy about them. He should state them openly. He should not demand an answer because he should know as an experienced politician, that such questions are so much more effective if they are not answered. So make them outside this House. 12.30pm”
“And I think if such a statement should be made, it should be made publicly outside of the privileges of this House, with facts. State who gave whom an instruction to do his. We do not have to answer.”
“I want an assurance. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will deal briefly with the other points from the Member for Anson and the Member for Punggol. Liability of permanent residents for national service. The principle of national service is that whoever has grown up here, whoever has benefited from our education, from our society, should contribute his share in national service. If a man comes here as an adult, takes up residence and becomes eligible for permanent residence, he comes whole. And there is no strong reason for us to tell him also to do his national service, aged 35 or aged 45. If a person grows up here as a permanent resident because his parents were here, and reaches the age of 18, it is reasonable for us to say, "Yes, you should do national service. And if you do, we will consider whether that should in return give you citizenship because you have committed yourself and this is your country." It is not automatic. It is not universal because permanent residents are a very varied group of people. Some come to do business. Some come because they belong here, and by accidents of law or accidents of political developments, do not have citizenship, So, yes, permanent residents do by and large, do national service, but that is no reason for any employer to say permanent residents are better and Singaporeans are at a loss. Secondly, voting habits. This is another question which the Member for Anson has no doubt raised before. We would be disappointed if he had not. To suggest that the Government would give guidance to national servicemen as to which way to vote, after he has won a seat in this House, is to cast disrepute on our election system.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said, first of all, we must have an assurance from the Minister that he will attend and answer all the questions.”
“I know what I think. But I want to know from the Minister. You will recall, Sir, that some two or three years ago, the psychologist in the Army, in a report, mentioned the quite irrational fear under which the soldiers laboured - that they had to vote for the Government. So I would like to know whether they were put right on this, or whether their fears were reinforced, in the last elections. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is about the question that I raised in August or so last year in this House, and that concerns the promotion of an officer in the Army. I was then threatened to repeat or ask my questions outside. I took up the challenge and I held a press conference, and I said, "I will ask the questions outside if the Minister promises to attend and give full and adequate answers to all the questions." Well, we never heard anything from the Ministry to my offer. We have just heard from the Minister of State that all offers made from that side of the House are serious. We have made several offers to the Government from time to time and none has been taken up. They have all been ignored. May I say, Sir, that I thought I was helping the Government in asking the questions in this House, because the questions were being asked outside. I thought the Government should be given an opportunity to lay bare the whole facts about this. May I know now from the Minister whether the Government proposes to lay bare the whole facts?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have an amendment* in respect of Subhead KB-01. Sir, I wish to raise three matters, very briefly. One is the liability for national service of persons who are permanently resident in this country. I raise this because of the dissatisfaction that is being felt by our own citizens that people who are granted permanent residence perhaps get the advantages, and not the disadvantages. I understand that there are quite a number of foreigners in our University. I was given the numbers last year. What I would like to know is: what is the policy of the Ministry as regards graduates from the Universities and others who are granted permanent residence? Are they made to do national service or not? There is, I understand, quite a bit of dissatisfaction among our own boys that perhaps permanent residents are getting away with an advantage which our boys do not enjoy, especially when it comes to reservist service. Private employers, I am told, are more ready to accept permanent residents if they know that they have no liability for reservist service. The second matter concerns elections and voting habits of the soldiers. May I ask the Minister, Sir, whether any guidance was given to the soldiers, be it ever so softly or gently, how they should vote at the last elections? An hon. Member: What do you think?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister what is the purpose or object behind this exercise of the HDB selling land back to the Government, the land which it already has, and then buying ii back from the Government. Is it to push up the prices of HDB flats or to justify their sale prices?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I clarify something that I said to which the Minister replied? The Minister takes up my charge that the tax structure is discriminatory. But I am afraid the Minister has completely missed the point of my remarks. I was referring to the personal reliefs that are allowed. I mentioned that they are much lower than what they were in 1947, and I made a comparison with what they were in Malaysia. And I repeated that the Minister, I am afraid, misled the House two years ago when he said that because the rates were different they evened out. The families in Singapore were worse off than in Malaysia. It is no good producing these figures. We know that those who have the money will have to pay more. That is an elementary principle.”
“Will you give an assurance to this House?”
“Will you tell them to review it? Some hon. Members: "Not to impose".”
“May I ask the Second Deputy Prime Minister by way of clarification? If the Ministry of Communications' calculations are proved wrong, will the Second Deputy Prime Minister assure the House that he will urge the Cabinet not to impose this diesel tax?”
“I think these questions need to be answered because our people want to know the answers to these questions. It is no good saying, "Well, we know how to manage your monies. Leave it to us. Don't ask any questions." We hear so much talk about an open government. Well, let us see it in action, Mr Speaker, Sir. Sir, I said I was going to express my disappointment. This Budget is discriminatory as all the previous budgets had been. It does not meet the needs of everyone in our community and I shall vote against it.”
“I remember two years ago, or was it three years ago, the Member for Rochore was talking about the scarcity of information that was coming from the Government. Is there a report from the Government Investment Corporation about its activities together with a balance sheet? The reserves belong to the people. The Prime Minister himself said that sometime ago. So let us have more information on these reserves. They, we are told, guarantee our CPF savings. So they are of vital concern to our people who have savings in the CPF. Then there is the petrochemical complex. We asked these questions during election time. We never got an answer to them. Will the Minister say what is the future of this petrochemical complex? We have sunk a lot of money into this and we now hear that there is competition from Saudi Arabia and other countries, which would suggest that we are never going to recover from this investment. There is the immense servicing cost of the debt already incurred in this complex. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, about the MRT. We now understand that it is no longer intended to finance the MRT by the sale of Marina South, because they cannot sell Marina South and that it would be financed by revenue. The question is: is this going to be a viable project? The taxi drivers suspect that the increase in the taxi fares is to prepare commuters for very steep fares in MRT. The chairman or director of the Hong Kong MRT Authority was reported as having said in May 1984 that their current debt of HK$14 billion was expected to increase to HK$22 billion and that a policy of annual fare increase could not be avoided. So have we worked out what is going to cost our commuters to travel on the MRT when they are ready to run?”
“One of the restrictions is that the aged parent or grandparent must be living with the person claiming the relief. Why is it necessary? Why do we not trust our people sometimes? Why should two brothers not be allowed to share in this relief if they are helping to maintain the parents and the parents are only living with one of the brothers? I mentioned about the Government's withdrawal from participation in the private sector, from some companies which they propose to select. I said that that was commendable. May I suggest to the Government that they should seriously consider offering some of the shares to the workers? I have brought this up in my speeches in this House in the last two years. Sir, you have got to give our workers a stake in the companies that they work for. I suggested last year that we should also move towards giving them representation in the boardrooms of companies so that they have a say in the management of the companies. You want increased productivity, you give the workers a stake, and so I would ask that you consider seriously if you are divesting your shares, that a certain proportion, if not the whole lot of it, be given to the workers first. The lead must be taken by the Government. You cannot wait for the private sector to take the lead in this. I hope the Government will set the example here. I started my speech this morning, Mr Speaker, Sir, talking about the lack of information, and I said that I had some questions for the Minister. The first of these questions concerns our foreign reserves. We are told of the huge amount of foreign reserves but nothing very much else is said. Will the Minister say how much of it is held in gold and how much of it is held in foreign currencies?”
“I remember in 1982 when I mentioned to a foreign reporter that there were some people in Singapore who were starving, it was suggested that I had committed an act of treason. But now at least I see that the Government recognizes, and I am glad it does, that there is a sector which needs to be helped. There is nothing in this Budget Statement about what the Government proposes to do towards this sector. The Government offered last year $10,000 for the purchase of an HDB flat and the intention, as was announced, was to bring them out of the poverty trap. May I say to the Minister and the Government that it would not do that at all. It would not achieve its object. The best way of bringing them out of the poverty trap is to see that their children are educated. Just burdening them with an HDB flat is not going to help their children's education. I think it is time we thought of introducing a child allowance for families earning below a certain level of income. This is done in a number of countries, and it is commendable because it helps those who are really in need of it. So I would ask the Government to give serious consideration to helping families who, they say, they wish to help - and I say that there is more than 15-20% in our midst of this group - by giving a child allowance. Limit it to two if you like, to families who have children in primary schools or secondary schools. In that way, you see that the children are helped with better textbooks, better nourishing food and other aids to learning. Whilst I am on income tax reliefs, may I also mention briefly, Mr Speaker, Sir, the restriction that is placed before a relief for aged dependants is granted. At the moment, the relief is only $1,000 but there are restrictions imposed on it.”
“He had given it to a minority of our population, the wealthy. I complained then, and I have complained every time since I came into this House in December 1981, about the absurd tax reliefs, personal tax reliefs, that are being allowed under our Income Tax laws. It really is a mockery, Mr Speaker, Sir, these reliefs that are allowed. As I pointed out, the amount is much lower than what was given in 1947 when income tax was first introduced into this country, and is much lower than what is being given in the neighbouring country across the Causeway. And the Minister in reply to that said it did not really matter because the rates were different. I told him the last time, last year, that he was not right when he said that, and there was a substantial difference. The cost of living in Malaysia, I am told, is much lower than it is here. I talked to somebody who came from Penang only the other day, and he I find Singapore far too expensive." So why are we denying our people adequate reliefs from the incidence of taxation? The whole of our tax structure is discriminatory. I have said this not once, not twice, I have said it a number of times: Your tax structure favours the rich. It is against the poor and the working class, and this is a Government that came to power on the backs of the workers. What a betrayal? There is. nothing, Mr Speaker, Sir, in this Budget speech of the Minister about what the Government proposes to do towards helping this 15-20% of those in our midst who are not well-off. I am glad that at least now the Government recognizes that there is a substantial proportion in our midst who need to be helped.”
“They opposed it but then they retained it, saying they would give it to the workers (but they do not) and then in the end the workers get nothing out of it. So if that is not politics of hypocrisy, I would like to know what is. May I suggest to the Government that the only fair thing to do now would be to give an assurance that the diesel tax would not be imposed, would not be brought into effect, if it is shown within the next six months that there is a sharp drop in the number of passengers using taxis. And if that continues, that something would be done to revise the taxi fares again. I say that is the only fairest thing they can do; it has been suggested, and I would commend it to the Government because then you show your sincerity and your determination to take into account the wishes of the people. Now, this and the other road tax, we were told, were not intended as revenue-raising measures but simply to relieve congestion on the roads. Well, there have been suggestions galore in the papers about how congestion can be relieved without having to resort to these measures. May I again commend to the Government that perhaps they should suspend the imposition of the road tax as well, whilst other measures are looked into? I am sure there will be no lack of suggestions that will be put forward to the Government if the Government is seriously interested. But in all this, you show your sincerity about it. You say this is purely intended as a measure to relieve congestion on the roads and not as a revenue-raising measure. Well, why don't you examine those measures? Now, if I may move on, Mr Speaker, Sir, about reliefs. The Minister in presenting his Budget said that last year in his Budget Statement he had given substantial personal reliefs. Of course, he had.”
“I thought how ingenuous of the Minister. I had not thought of that. Perhaps next time I want to take a taxi, I will ring up the Minister and ask him if he would try to find me three persons to share the taxi with me. This is completely problematical, Mr Speaker, Sir. We are speculating on the spending habits of the consumers, and that is dependent on how much they have. So no amount of graphs is going to convince anyone at this stage that there is going to be enough for the taxi driver after he pays the increase in the diesel tax. They are very, very indignant about this. They feel bitter. Mr Speaker, Sir, after the elections, there was so much talk from the Government that there would be more consultation with the people before any measures affecting them were introduced. May I know whether there was any consultation here with the people who would be affected, or should be affected, by this measure - the taxi drivers and the commuters? I hope I am not going to be told that the Second Deputy Prime Minister, in his capacity as the Secretary-General of the NTUC, and he has something to do with Comfort, advised the increase in the taxi fares, because he would appear to be against it. So I want to know what was the consultation. It makes a mockery, Mr Speaker, Sir, of the Government's often stated intention after the elections that there would be more consultations. The taxi drivers suspect the motives of the Government in this. They see it as being hypocritical, completely, and I do not blame them. We hear, from time to time, from the Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Office about the politics of hypocrisy. And I mentioned last time that if anyone is guilty of that, it is this Government. There was the question of the payroll tax which I mentioned.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when the House rose just before lunch, I had come to this imposition of the diesel tax on taxis, coupled with this increase in taxi fares intended, no doubt, as a palliative measure for the taxi drivers. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have a situation here where the taxi-drivers are being offered an increase in fares but where the majority of them are indignant about the increase in the taxi fares. Almost to a man, every taxi-driver, that I spoke to has voiced his view that the increase in the taxi fares would only drive those who are using taxis to buses. And there would be a sharp drop in their earnings. They are convinced about it. And the few others that I spoke to, the commuters have also voiced their opinion that they felt that the increase in the taxi fares was much too steep for the ordinary working man and his family. So here, we have an offer being made by the Government which is resisted by the taxi drivers who are intended to benefit by this offer. It is a strange sort of situation -you are giving them something and they are saying, "No, we don't want it. Thank you very much." The Government seems convinced that with the increase in taxi fares, the taxi drivers are going to make quite a bit more. But as I said, the taxi drivers are far from convinced, I am not going to come out with figures and statistics to show who is right. But I was told - I did not watch this - that the Minister for Communications over TV on Friday was full of advice on how people could save by travelling on taxis. He was suggesting that somebody who is going on a journey of six kilometres or more, should first line up three others so that there will be four persons to share the taxi, and then it would work out to just a little bit more than bus fare.”
“All right, it does not matter. Do not get excited. Perhaps you can bring the paper. He thought it should not have been introduced at this time. May I tell the Second Deputy Prime Minister that he is a member of the Cabinet and there is such a thing as collective responsibility. Perhaps he might tell us whether, when this matter was brought up in the Cabinet, he registered his protest and his vote against it. I would commend to him that if he disagreed with that decision, then the only alternative is for him to resign from the Cabinet. Then at least he will be shown to be standing up for his principles. I am sorry. You cannot as it were agree to this tax in the Cabinet and then go out and say, "i do not agree with this. It is not a wise measure" or words to that effect. Perhaps the Second Deputy Prime Minister will tell us what he proposes to do about this.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we are collecting by way of tax from the motorists a sum far in excess of what we need to provide the roads on which they run their motor vehicles or cars. I see that the revenue from taxes on motor vehicles comes to something like $764 million. The expenditure on roads - this is the development expenditure and the recurrent expenditure - only amounts to $258 million. So we are collecting from the motorists and users of motor vehicles something like three times what we spend on the provision of roads. Our motorists and car owners, as has been pointed out more than once, are the most heavily taxed people in the world at the moment. If I may move on to the diesel tax on taxis coupled, as it were, as a sort of palliative to the taxi drivers, with an increase in the taxi fares. I was surprised to see, Mr Speaker, Sir, in yesterday's Sunday Times a statement by the Secretary-General of the NTUC that he thought it was unwise --- The Second Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Ong Teng Cheong): I never said that.”
“First of all, if I may deal with the increase in road tax of 15% and the increase in petrol tax which, as has been rightly pointed out, is more than just 10% - it is 10% ad valorem - but it works out to 25% for the motorist over its old price. Mr Speaker, Sir, the private motor car still remains the most convenient and the cheapest form of transport for a family. What is wrong about this tax is that it is discriminatory. The Government, time and time again, resorts to the price mechanism. That may be the most efficient and the most convenient method of regulating the use of any article or service, but it is not the most equitable method. Yet I find the Minister says that that is the most equitable method. This measure hits at families who can only afford one car and who need it perhaps for the man's business and also for the family's use. It does not strike at the wealthy, far from it. There are people in our society who own not just one car, who own not just two cars, but three or four cars. This tax is not going to be any restraint for families in that category. But it will certainly be a blow to the people who need cars for their business and who can only manage just one. There are some businesses, Mr Speaker, Sir - I do not have to elaborate or illustrate - where a car is essential, especially for the small businessman. He cannot just simply rely on taxis or on buses to conduct his business activities, and it is that person that you are going to hit and you are going to make his position worse. Likewise, with the increase in the petrol price. It is not going to affect the rich and the wealthy. The people it will affect are those who find it already a burden to pay the present petrol prices.”
“So we welcome that and I also welcome the announcement by the Minister that they would monitor the companies over which the Government will retain control more closely when it comes to policy decisions for investment. Sometime ago, Mr Speaker, Sir, I asked the Minister about the acquisition by a Government company of shares in another company which resulted, we understood, in some substantial losses. The Minister then said he was not going to comment because it was a mere commercial transaction. I hope we might have some information now from the Minister on this acquisition by Keppel Shipyard of shares in Straits Steamship, and what led to the losses incurred. We have a right to know this. We also welcome the tax deductions that had been given for certain educational expenses for individuals. That is certainly a step in the right direction. May I bring to the Minister's attention a lacuna in our income tax laws on relief for children, and I hope perhaps he will do something about that. Somebody rang me up the other day and said, "Would you please bring this up in Parliament?" He said he was an orphan, both his parents had died but he has a sister and she is in the Polytechnic. And he is bearing the cost of her fees and her education in the Polytechnic. She is learning a skill, but he said, "i cannot get any relief at all from the income tax authorities for the money I spend on her." He stands in loco parentis, as it were, to his sister - in the position of his parents - and if his parents could have got that relief, why should he not get it? I myself do not see why he should not. So would the Minister perhaps consider this request from this member of the public? If I may now move on to the tax changes that have been introduced by the Minister in his Budget Statement.”
“It is time we sat down and thought quite deeply about what will bring tourists to Singapore. Then the Minister talks about the shortage of labour in Singapore, and he says in of his statement, Section 1, that: 'our indigenous workforce will grow by at most 1.5-2% per annum even if we succeed in encouraging more women to continue working after they have children.' Not very long ago the Government increased the levy on foreign maids.[ hope I shall not be quoted as saying that I am advocating the import of foreign maids into Singapore. But the Minister in his statement mentioned the needs of working mothers, among others, in considering the question of foreign workers in Singapore. Does the Minister propose to do anything to make it worthwhile for mothers of children to go back to work by reducing the levy on foreign maids? Or will it remain at the sum of $120 which was imposed last year? Mr Speaker, Sir, it does not need very much of a calculation to realize that with this levy and the amount paid by way of wages to the maid - and if you take into account the income tax, travel and eating expenses - there is hardly anything left for the working mother. It does not make it worthwhile at all for mothers to consider going back to work. We welcome, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government's decision to decrease its participation in the private sector. There has been a general feeling among our people that not only does the Government intervene and participate directly in what should be the private sector but when it does, it also competes unfairly against the private sector. It has built-in advantages and preferences, and this works against the private sector.”
“What is wrong with doing away with the tax altogether? I am sure the Government does not need that money. The other measure that the Government says it will take to improve the economy is to encourage tourism. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I refer the Minister to an article that appeared in the Far Eastern Economic Review for the 14th March, 1985, under Tourism. It was headed "Sanitized Culture leaves tourist beds empty". The point of that article was that the tourists were not going to come to Singapore to see even a city in the park, which I see is the latest attraction that is going to be put out by the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board. This has been said again and again and it does not need any repetition, but if tourists are to be encouraged to come to our country, we are not going to encourage them to come here to see our parks. There are other parks in other parts of the world for them to go to. They are not necessarily going to fly out to Singapore to see the parks, neither are they going to come here to see the wax figures in Sentosa. They could see them elsewhere. What will bring them here is, if they can see something about the life of the people. And do they find it? We are driving life out of the streets in Singapore. This was a comment made by somebody in an article that I read, in the sense, that there is hardly any street life in Singapore. Hawkers who used to do any trade on the streets have all been driven out. I know they may cause a pollution problem, they may cause an environmental problem, but nevertheless they add something to the life of the city. We have artificial attractions now for tourists, like kampungs that have been specially modelled for tourists and other entertainment. But this is not going to attract the tourists.”
“The only thing that can be done is to bring in an Act to repeal the Act or the levy collected for the Payroll Tax. So are we going to see an introduction of new legislation to repeal the payroll tax? That at least would make very clear to our people the intention of the Government as regards a tax which has been a burden on our employers, businessmen, entrepreneurs. So will the Minister tell us what exactly are the Government's intentions on this payroll tax. I pointed out that the Government, when it retained this tax, had declared its solemn promise of using it for the workers. May I ask the Minister whether the Government will now honour that promise, not perhaps altogether to the full extent that was envisaged or contained in that declaration and statement, but at least partly, to help workers who are now thrown out of jobs? Will there be some form of unemployment benefits given to these workers who have been thrown out of employment? That would at least be an honourable way for the Government to redeem its pledge made in 1965 to the workers. We have, as you are aware, Mr Speaker, Sir, no unemployment benefits in this country. And a worker who is thrown out of unemployment suffers great indignity in that he and his family are thrown back on any savings they have, and if they do not have any savings, then they will have to resort to borrowing. So has the Government any plans to help those who may be unemployed as a result of the downturn in the business activities? The other fiscal measure that the Minister announced was this partial, as I see it, suspension of tax on telephone services and trunk call services to West Malaysia. May I ask what is the reason for it being only a part suspension on trunk calls to West Malaysia?”
“Not only that, I see that there was, as reported in this article in the Singapore Business for February, 1983, a statement put out by the Government, and the statement was this: 'it is intended that the proceeds will be paid into a social security fund soon to be established. Out of this fund will be paid social insurance benefits to unemployed workers included in this scheme.' So not only had a declaration been made in this House by the Minister but we have a statement put out by the Government, it would appear. But, as we learnt, this solemn declaration in this House and this statement put out by the Government came to nought. Year after year these monies were paid into the Consolidated Fund. But what I have just learnt, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that the Government which introduced this payroll tax in 1964, ie, the Malaysian Government, repealed this payroll tax in 1971. They obviously took to heart the advice of the Singapore Government that was tendered in 1964, that it was perhaps an unwise tax. Whilst the Malaysian Government repealed this tax in 1971, we however continued it on the Statute book and continued to collect the tax. Now the Minister says he "will suspend this tax." When he said the word "suspend", I immediately became curious as to why the Government was merely suspending it. Is it the Government's intention to hold it in reserve and to reinstate it at some future time when the Government thinks the employers will be able to pay this payroll tax. Perhaps the Minister would clarify this. But may I tell the Minister, I am sure he has been advised by his legal experts, and he has, of course, the Second Minister for Law sitting next to him, but may I tell him that under the Finance Act, he really has no power to suspend the tax.”
“We have got a very sizable balance in this Skills Development Fund. We are not spending anything like what we have accumulated. Is a reduction of 2% the best that this Government could do? Would it not be possible for the Government to suspend the collection of this levy for another two years or three years, until some of the reserves that have been accumulated have been utilized? This Government would appear to be niggardly in whatever it does. Now if I may turn to the Payroll Tax. Mr Speaker, Sir, speaking in this House in 1983 I pointed out the history of this payroll tax. It was introduced when we were part of Malaysia and we here, as I said, opposed this payroll tax when Malaysia first introduced it. We were against it. We thought it was a most unwise measure. When we came out of Malaysia, one would have thought that the Government which had opposed the payroll tax would do away with it. But no. The then Government decided to retain it, and said it would use it for a completely different purpose from which it was intended, when it was introduced in the Malaysian Parliament. And I then read out what was said in this House by the then Minister for Labour. This is what he said, Mr Speaker, Sir [Hansard, 16 Dec 65, col. 205]: 'We intend to set aside the revenue collected under this head to form a fund for the social security of the workers. We will set up a committee to put up recommendations for the implementation of the scheme. As what we have done in all our major labour legislation and policies, the NTUC will be the first we would approach for their views and suggestions on the scheme.' As I have said, Mr Speaker, Sir, there was this solemn declaration by a Minister that the monies collected by this payroll tax would be utilized for the benefit of our workers.”
“There are a substantial number of our seamen who are unemployed, and not just for in-between periods as the Minister said, but for very long periods. Some of them have been unemployed for as long as two years or three years. And I asked then whether the Government was doing anything to help these seamen of ours who are unemployed. I referred to the practice that was adopted some years ago of requiring companies which had registered their ships under the Singapore flag to recruit seamen through the National Maritime Board from the register kept by the Board of Singapore seamen. That was discontinued. I do not know why. But the result is that, as I pointed out, all these companies no longer look to Singapore seamen for their requirements but recruit foreigners who come to Singapore to find jobs on the ships. And the Minister glibly said that it was because Singapore seamen were demanding too high wages. Since then, I have spoken to one or two of them and they say that that is simply not true. And not only our seamen, Sir, there are others who have been out of employment. In some cases, it is far more difficult now for graduates than for seamen to find employment in Singapore. I personally know of people, who have got not just a first primary degree from the University but an advanced degree, who are not simply able to get employment in Singapore. So the position is not merely a temporary slackness but may suggest something far worse than that. The Minister then proceeds to give what he says are reliefs which will perhaps inject some life into this sluggish economy. And he outlines three fiscal measures. One is the reduction in the rate of 4% payable to the Skills Development Fund. I do not want to repeat what has already been said a number of times.”
“" But nevertheless, with whatever information they had, they went on to predict that there was more than enough revenue available for the Government, either from direct taxation or through its participation in the business sector, to meet all its objectives. It will be my complaint, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this Budget does not give the information, as that article pointed out, which the Government should give about the people's monies. I have some questions for the Minister which I shall pose to him at the end of my speech. These are some of the questions that are being asked -outside this House and which I think it is my duty to bring to his notice. May I now move on to look at the Budget speech and the proposals contained therein, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Minister in his speech refers to the downturn in our economy or business activities as a temporary slackness. May I suggest to the Minister that he has probably caught the British disease of understatement. Sir, a number of people that I have spoken to think that there is much more than a mere temporary slackness in our economic situation at the moment. We have heard or read in the papers about the failures of businesses, about companies being put into liquidation, about workers being thrown out of employment, and all that within the last six months, and it does not look as though it has come to an end. It looks as though it is going to stay with us for some time. But the Minister merely dismisses that as "a temporary slackness." He mentions the case of workers. He says there is hardly anyone in Singapore who will be unable to get a job if he puts his mind to it. Not very long ago, Mr Speaker, Sir, I raised the question of our seamen.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to express the disappointment that was felt and echoed throughout Singapore at the Budget Statement that was presented to this House by the Minister on Friday of the week before last. Sir, before I comment on the Budget Statement and the proposals contained therein, may I say something about the lack of information that is made available to the public and to this House on the management of the people's finances by this Government. The Government are but stewards of the people's monies, and it is important when they make their report on the people's monies that they should make full and frank disclosures. Sir, I have an article that appeared in the Singapore Business of February 1983 where the authors of that article - that was written before the Budget for that year - spoke about the unavailability of figures and the intentions of the Government on how to improve the economy in Singapore. They pointed out quite rightly that, "before one can try to suggest or think of ways by which the government might achieve its objectives, one must know where those government's finances or the means at its disposal stand at the given time." And they went on to say that, "finding that out is not easy in Singapore." "The public sector's consolidated accounts," they pointed out, "are not published." They say, "the consolidated accounts incorporating those of Government companies have not been published for a long time. One series incorporating direct revenue and expenditure of the Government and those of the statutory boards which used to be published by the Monetary Authority of Singapore has been discontinued.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Minister hold a public inquiry into this?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Minister not realize that his answer misses the point altogether, completely? As he has mentioned, there were adoption proceedings. Is he suggesting that the Order of the Court granting the Adoption Order is wrong and that his Ministry has decided that that Order should be reversed? Why wasn't an objection taken before the Court when the adoption petition was presented? The Minister is aware, I hope, that all petitions for adoption are served on the Attorney-General and investigation is made by the Social Welfare Department. Is the Minister not aware that on the 28th February, 1985, the adopted father of this child was forced by Immigration officials to sign a document that he was willingly handing back the child to the natural father? He was forced with prosecution and imprisonment if he did not. And is the Minister also not aware that, following that, the Immigration officers forcibly took the child out of the home of its adoptive family and gave her to the natural father and told him to beat it out of Singapore?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought the condition was that they should submit to the sterilization programme before they could receive the grant. We have been told that it is not altogether irreversible, and that sometimes the couple do have a child even after undergoing the operation.”
“Sir, I am sorry, the Minister still has not answered my question. Finally, will he make open for inspection the tender documents submitted by contractors for construction of the units?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry. But will the Minister please answer my question? It is very simple. What relationship do the construction costs bear to the selling price? Are the construction costs lower or are they higher and, if so, by how much? Just simply answer that question.”
“Yes, because we are talking about "downward revision of the prices of flats". It is under (b), Mr Speaker, Sir, and the Minister was saying that it is based on three factors, construction cost, land cost and affordability. So my question arises out of that, Mr Speaker, Sir.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a supplementary question for the Minister on the sale of residential flats. Will the Minister be good enough to say what relationship do the construction costs bear to the selling price?”