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 63 of 82.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have got the Floor at the moment and I am asking questions.”
“I am asking him now some other questions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am asking the Prime Minister whether ---”
“So I ask the Prime Minister, "Would he do that if it is his genuine desire to have an Opposition in Parliament?" Then he could go on and consult all political parties on the rules governing the elections. Is he prepared to do that? Is he prepared to extend the time for election campaigns?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am talking about giving access to the media for political parties outside this House. Please try and understand what I am saying. We are wasting time. Please try and understand. The other thing, Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Prime Minister is genuine about this, would he allow all those who were forced to leave this country to evade arrest under the Internal Security Act because they dared to criticize the Government and because they raised dissent, would he allow them to return to this country with the assurance that they will not be detained under the Internal Security Act? I do not, of course, speak for the others, but I do speak for our candidate in the 1976 elections. I ask the Prime Minister now and will he answer the question? "Will you allow Mr Ho Juan Thai to return to this country, if you say that you genuinely desire an Opposition in Parliament, so that he may come and help to bring about this?" The fourth is, I have asked the Prime Minister, Mr Speaker, Sir, in some meeting before this when we were talking about the Electoral Boundaries Delineation Committee about giving political parties representation on this Committee. What was his answer then? His answer was, "No. Opposition parties will have no part in any of these Committees." I tell him, Mr Speaker, Sir, that if he is really genuine about this, I ask that he should appoint an Elections Commission from outside the Government to conduct and oversee elections, so that the Opposition parties may make representations to this Commission and have a say in the way elections are conducted. This is the norm in all countries which profess parliamentary democracy. It does not remain the preserve of the Prime Minister's Department.”
“I shall come to discuss the details of this Bill, but let me first of all outline how you can get your Opposition Members into Parliament, if you really believe in it; not toothless Opposition Members, as you would have them, but genuine Opposition Members chosen by the electorate, who will come here to serve the citizens of Singapore. For a start, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister may consider withdrawing the ban on political parties holding public rallies. After all, the PAP, the ruling Party, has a monopoly over the press and radio and TV. If you believe in giving Opposition parties a chance, an opportunity, well, I say, "Will you withdraw your ban on political parties holding public rallies?" We are prohibited. The second thing is, would the Prime Minister allow access to radio and TV for Opposition political parties. Would he direct the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation to find time, not just during the eight days, but to allow other Opposition parties --- The Prime Minister: May 1, on a point of information, ask him whether he had noticed that we had a television monitor here to see whether we could broadcast the proceedings of this House without extra lighting because we thought it was of great educational value?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is important that we should know whether this is a genuine change of heart or whether this is a sham. I think the electorate want a clear answer from the Prime Minister and the Government on this. If he says now, and we know confessions are good for the soul, Mr Speaker, Sir, "i am sorry. I think our attitude in the past was all mistaken, misguided. We now see the benefits of an Opposition and we really, sincerely, and genuinely want to encourage opposition", then perhaps the public might see that there is some sincerity. But if he wants to say that, then there are a number of things he has got to do (and I am coming to that) if this is a real genuine change of heart and it is not a sham, a ploy, a trick, which are the words that are being bandied about outside this House. They see it. The electorate in Singapore see this as an attempt to buy them off from voting for any Opposition Member in Parliament. They see it as an attempt to lull them, as a message to them, "Don't you worry. You know, we are a good Government. You vote us into power first and then because we have provided you with everything we will also provide you with Opposition Members." That is how they see it. But they do not want anything of that sort because they have learnt enough over the last 2 1/2 years. Their eyes have been opened. Yes, I say their eyes have been opened since 31st October, 1981. I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this Bill is a fraud on the electorate. If the Prime Minister is genuine in his desire to see Opposition Members in Parliament and therefore bring about parliamentary democracy in Singapore, then may I tell him that there are other ways of doing this, far better ways than this sham Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I propose to continue with my speech. I do not want to be interrupted because I do not have the time to say what I want to say. And I say, with respect, Mr Speaker, Sir, all this is relevant. Sir, I was going to talk about my request to the Chairman of a statutory board. I was an Opposition Member of Parliament and I said, "May I come to see you?" I knew him, and I said, "May I come to see you to discuss something?" He said, "What about?" I said, "You know, something concerning your board." He said, "Well, Mr Jeyaretnam, I really don't know. I've got to find out whether I can see you." Fancy that, Mr Speaker, Sir. So that is the sort of attitude. When I write to Ministries, I do not get the information I want. I write to the Housing and Development Board. Previously, Mr Speaker, Sir, they used to write back to the constituents. Now, I get a one-sentence reply and it is not even sent to the constituent. What happened in the case of the grassroots organizations? Overnight the rules relating to RCs were changed so that I would not have anything to do with them. All I am saying, Mr Speaker, Sir, is this, that when they got an Opposition Member in Parliament, when the electorate gave them an Opposition Member in Parliament, how did they react? Did they say, "Well, it is good now that we have got an Opposition Member in Parliament. Let us, not help him, but at least let us not stand in his way, in his attempt to discharge his functions."? Oh, no. He had to be obstructed. He had to be prevented from discharging his functions. And my Party has been harassed since then. I would not go into all the details. The Prime Minister knows about them.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with respect, it is relevant to the Bill. Here is the Prime Minister coming with his heart on his hand saying, "We really want an Opposition in Parliament. We think it's good." But I am trying to pose the question whether this is a trick, this is a ploy, or whether this is really a sincere intention of this Government. Therefore, all this is relevant.”
“What about the record after Anson? I have spoken of the record of this Government, determined effort, determined suppression of dissent, putting down of all political parties by restrictions on them. What about afterwards? Mr Speaker, Sir, 1, speaking in this House in an Adjournment debate, asked about the role of Parliament in Singapore and I asked about my exclusion from all and every Committee of this House, and I referred to Standing Orders. But, of course, the Leader of the House interprets them differently. So even after the people of Anson decided that there should be an Opposition Member in Parliament, this Government was determined, Mr Speaker, Sir, not to allow the representative of the people from Anson to fulfil his function in Parliament as an Opposition Member. I was excluded and I am still excluded from all Committees of this House. Mr Speaker, Sir, as any Parliamentarian will know, the most important work of Parliament, perhaps not the most important but a very important work of Parliament is in its Committees, and particularly the Public Accounts Committee. And normally the Leader of the Opposition heads the Public Accounts Committee. [Laughter]. I know Members find it very funny. But I can understand that because we have not been used to the tradition of Parliamentary government at all. So I can understand this inability to accept it. Not only that, Mr Speaker, Sir. Was any attempt made by this Government to facilitate the discharge of my duties as an Opposition Member of Parliament? No. On the other hand, every attempt was made to close all doors. Sir, may I tell you of a request that I made to ---”
“Well, it was in your papers. Is it not true? He got them into a huddle and he tried to explain to them. And what were his remarks? "Opposition was all right for parliamentary theatrics but didn't make any difference to good government. And we've been blessed with good government all these years." Mr Speaker, Sir, I can understand that the Prime Minister must now find comfort in living in the past. His speech was a living in the past, if I may say so. I am sorry for him. But the people of Singapore are now looking forward into the future. It is the future that matters. I know there is the past, but the future is more important. It is the future for our children and our children's children. And the people of Singapore are looking towards the future. So the Prime Minister said that Anson was a big calamity, the whole thing. And then we had other Ministers. The Second Deputy Prime Minister said, "It (Opposition) makes for bad government." Such utterances were made one after another. People began to think that a national disaster of the biggest magnitude had befallen Singapore. In other countries which are mature and civilized, they would have taken it in their stride. But we had to behave, or the Government had to behave as it did, not the people of Singapore. I should have said the people of Singapore, from what I heard, were over-joyed. I am sure Members must know this. I had reports reaching me, Mr Speaker, Sir, from all quarters. And not only from people in Singapore but from people outside Singapore. I was told of parties in London. I was told of parties outside Singapore - when they heard that there was now, after 16 years, a Member of the Opposition in Parliament. The people were overjoyed that they were at last on the road to parliamentary democracy.”
“Opposition parties were only allowed a maximum of eight days and, of course, the ruling party could go on making propaganda throughout the year from the end of one election to another. But in spite of all that, the electorate in Anson returned an Opposition Member into Parliament. And as I have said before, and I say it from this House, the electorate of Anson have done the people of Singapore and this country a service which I hope future generations will not forget. They have set Singapore on the road to parliamentary democracy. And as I have told them, I salute them, the voters of Anson. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, when that was achieved, after the electorate sent a Member from the Opposition party into Parliament, what was the reaction of this Government? It was as if a calamity had befallen Singapore. The Prime Minister got all the Members of his Party into a huddle for three days in this House.”
“I shall later on ask the Prime Minister specific questions about this, but let me move on. Then we had the 1980 elections, I could go on and mention, Mr Speaker, Sir (but I know time does not allow me) about all the restrictions that were put on political parties by this Government. I mentioned before about election rules being changed and being made public just on the day of nomination, when the PAP knew all about it and had everything ready. But I would not go on to all those matters. But let me just talk about what happened in the 1980 elections. Again, there were utterances by candidates who were also Ministers and other candidates about the great dire calamity that would befall Singapore if so much as one Opposition Member was elected into Parliament. One Minister went on record as having said that if an Opposition Member were elected into Parliament, immediately all foreign capital would flee. Laughable, Mr Speaker, Sir. There was another candidate then, I think, who said about troops marching down Malaysia even if one Member from the Opposition were elected into Parliament in Singapore. So the public were regaled with such nonsense, trivialities. But the pressure was maintained on all Opposition parties. But, in spite of all that, Mr Speaker, Sir, in spite of all the difficulties, the harassment, the restrictions, the Opposition parties strove, not to make the PAP Government a better government, but to serve the people of Singapore by introducing into Singapore parliamentary democracy which would serve as a check on the exercise of power. In spite of all this, in spite of all the difficulties, all the threats, in 1981 we succeeded. I remember the campaign during those nine days. That is another matter.”
“Of course, he was protesting then at, what he saw, the measures to kill the Chinese language in Singapore, in Nanyang University for one. That was his crime. He is publicly an anti-Communist. So they could not stick that label on him that he was a Communist. So he was arrested for chauvinism. He languished two years in prison, Mr Speaker, Sir, and for the crime that this Government now advocates - promotion of Mandarin. Mr Speaker, Sir, there was yet another man. There was a candidate from my Party for Bukit Panjang. He was not arrested on polling night. An attempt was made to arrest him some two or three weeks after polling night. The ISD members swooped down on him. But he managed to escape their clutches, fortunately for him, and he fled from Singapore. He is still outside Singapore. What was his crime, Mr Speaker? His crime again was that he was protesting against the attempt to conduct examinations in English in Nanyang University. He was a graduate of that University. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, those are the deeds of this Government against anyone who tried to oppose it. They cannot hide them. This man is still in London, kept away from his parents, from members of his family. I have asked in this House, Mr Speaker, Sir, twice for an assurance that he should be allowed to return to Singapore. He is ready to face trial under the law, but what he does not want to happen to him is to be locked up without any trial under the Internal Security Act. So I have asked whether the Government would give an assurance that he would be allowed to return to Singapore to serve this country because his main purpose in entering the elections was to serve this country. And what answer did I get, Mr Speaker, Sir? "Oh, no, we won't give that assurance." So the man has not returned.”
“We have had it time and time again, lip service to the idea of an Opposition in Parliament, not only from the Prime Minister but from the other Ministers and other Members of Government. But secretly everything was directed towards suppressing any form of dissent in this country of ours. The press was controlled. TV and radio was completely controlled. Any public meeting was banned. Any form of dissent was prohibited. As Amnesty reported, the Internal Security Act was used against persons who tried to bring up any questions by way of dissent. So those are the deeds of this Government in spite of its oft-repeated protestations that it too liked to see parliamentary democracy in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1972 there was a campaign, just before the elections, led by Ministers that Opposition parties were proxies for foreign powers. And there was a monstrous lie broadcast over radio that my Party, the Workers' Party, had received $600,000 from a foreign power. So these were the tactics that this Government employed, using media at its disposal to try and stop any Opposition Member from being elected into Parliament. It did not matter how. Fair or foul means had to be adopted to stop Opposition Members from getting into Parliament. Then, Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may move on, we come to 1976. The position was no different. In fact, it was worse. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the night of the polling itself, even before all the results were declared, a candidate who had dared to stand against the Government was arrested under the Internal Security Act. And what was his crime? His crime, Mr Speaker, was that he said every one had the right to learn his mother tongue.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister there, on that appearance over TV, was throwing out the idea of university seats because there were no Opposition Members in Parliament elected. So there was all this lip service, and we have had it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not want to be interrupted unless it is on a point of order.”
“Well, let us go back and listen to this.”
“Are you denying that you said that you were going to create university seats because you were very sorry about not having had any Opposition?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir unless it is on a point of order, I am not giving way.”
“It soon set about destroying the conditions under which parliamentary democracy with an Opposition to the Government may emerge. But whilst doing this, of course, it paid lip service. I remember, Mr Speaker, Sir, watching the election results over TV in the year 1972, the first year that I contested the elections in Farrer Park on behalf of my Party I remember on election night the Prime Minister coming over the TV after the results were all declared, and the Prime Minister saying, in mournful tones, how sorry or how grieved he was that no Opposition Member had been elected into Parliament. The Prime Minister: On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. These are ---”
“Some hope. So I ask, why the haste? Would it not be better, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this Bill should be left now? Let us see what the electorate will do at the next general elections. I am sure, Mr Speaker, Sir, they will do their duty by Singapore. They may not please the Government. They may disappoint this Government. But we are convinced that the electorate of Singapore will do their duty by Singapore. They know what is good for Singapore. They do not need the Government to tell them what is good for Singapore. They have seen it, and they know what is good for Singapore. So I say to the Prime Minister. Take this Bill back. Wait, and there will be time enough after the general elections. If no Opposition Member is elected into Parliament, then there will be time enough for you to introduce this Bill. But not now. So I would like an answer from the Prime Minister as to why this unseemly haste in introducing this Bill. The second question, Mr Speaker, Sir, is more important, and that is, the whole question of credibility. What is the motive behind the introduction of this Bill in Parliament? Does the Prime Minister not know, and I will tell him if he does not know, that this question is being asked in the market place in Singapore? What is the reason behind this? Words are bandied about - is this a trick, is this a ploy on the pan of the Government? They want to know whether they can trust this Government, its sincerity of purpose, its sincerity of intent. They want to know whether the Bill is a manifestation of a political dishonesty of which this Government has stood convicted. This question arises, Mr Speaker, Sir, and very rightly arises, because of the record of this Government ever since it took power in Singapore.”
“I am sorry I have to remind him. And not only him. There were other utterances: "Oh, no. There is no way. Anson - we had an 84% majority. How could the Workers' Party change that?" Well, the Workers' Party did not change that. The electorate changed that. The voters of Anson changed that for you. An hon. Member: We will change that.”
“" Empty words, Mr Speaker, Sir. They were forgotten the moment the Minister left this Chamber, and year after year these monies collected by way of payroll tax were paid into the Consolidated Fund, and nobody was the wiser about it until I came here and raised it. [Laughter]. You may laugh, Members of Parliament, but it is there in the pages of Hansard for anyone wishing to read. So we can see the benefits of an Opposition and I say the electorate in Singapore can see the benefits of an Opposition, and they are convinced whatever the Government may say on this. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill by the Government - and it would appear that the prime mover of this Bill is the Prime Minister - raises a number of serious questions and I only wish the Prime Minister were here to answer them when he replies. My first question is this. Why the haste? Of course, he says there is no haste in this. But I ask: Why the haste in introducing this Bill at this point of time when we have been told that the general elections are not very far off? In fact, the speculation is that the general elections may be held this year. So why the haste? That has to be answered. Is the Prime Minister so sure that the electorate will again only return PAP Members, or is he misguided? Is he getting wrong reports, or is he perhaps going to take steps to ensure that only PAP Members are returned to Parliament? Why is he so sure? Mr Speaker, Sir, may I remind the Prime Minister and the Government that they were so sure before 31st October 1981. They were absolutely convinced that there was no way - this is quoting the words of, I think, the First Assistant Secretary-General of the Party, now the Minister of Defence - there was no way in which I could get into Parliament through Anson. Those were his words.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill purports to introduce into this House Opposition Members of a sort, and I rise to oppose the Bill. It is not, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we are against the idea that there should be Opposition Members in this House. My Party, since its founding in 1957, has striven to bring about parliamentary democracy in Singapore. Of course, we cannot conceive of parliamentary democracy in Singapore unless there are in this debating Chamber Members from more than one party. Otherwise the whole thing becomes a sham, a mockery. So my Party welcomes and wishes to see parliamentary democracy in this land of ours and, as we say, because we cannot imagine parliamentary democracy without Opposition Members in Parliament, without Members of another party besides the party forming the Government, we are all for opposition in Parliament. Of course, the electorate can see now the benefits and the advantages that can be gained from having Members from another party in this debating Chamber. They have, since October 1981, seen that an Opposition in Parliament can expose the lies of this Government. I know the Prime Minister, moving the Bill - I see that he is not here, probably having his cup of tea - has said about my Party cheating this people and that people. But let it go on record, Mr Speaker, Sir, that in this House I have raised a number of things on which this Government has gone back, and they are there for the electorate to read and to see. There was the instance of the Workers Fund for which a solemn declaration was given by a Minister of the Government in 1965 in this very House. He made a solemn declaration saying, "Oh, we are against the payroll tax. We would not take it into the Consolidated Fund. We will set it aside into a Workers Fund.”
“I ask that it be referred to the Committee of Privileges.”
“Yes. It is before the High Court on appeal and therefore it is still pending before the Court. The Prime Minister: That is one conviction.”
“He has in this House referred to proceedings which are before the court, talking about convictions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a point of order. I have made a complaint against the Member for Tanjong Pagar that he is in breach of Standing Orders. I have asked that it be referred to the Comminee of Privileges. I would like your ruling.”
“Because you fill it up with ISD members here!”
“You consider the residents of Blair Plain to be the depths, do you? Is that what you are saving?”
“Would you like a public debate with these residents?”
“On a point of order. Again, Mr Speaker, Sir, a deliberate misleading of this House - "several convictions". Does he know what the word "several" means, Mr Speaker? Does he know? I ask that this matter be referred to a Committee of Privileges. And I see under the Standing Orders that if a complaint is made, it must stand referred to the Committee of Privileges.”
“This is not the first time that this Member has referred to convictions in Court. He is aware and he should be aware that the only conviction involving these accounts or book-keeping into which he directed an inquiry by the Commercial Crime is now before the High Court. There was an appeal and judgment has been reserved. And yet we have the Member for Tanjong Pagar in this House consistently disregarding a Standing Order which says that no mention shall be made of any proceedings that are before the Courts. Mr Speaker, Sir, I ask that this maner be referred to the Committee of Privileges.”
“If that is your ruling, I accept that. All right.”
“That is your answer, "Take you to court"?”
“The point is whether they have got dignity.”
“I will move it later then. Thank you, Sir. 3.38 pm.”
“I give notice, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I shall have another amendment if that amendment is accepted, and it is put before my amendment is put. Of course, there would not be any need if my amendment is put first to the House because I cannot for a minute, Sir, imagine that my amendment will be accepted in this House. That is why I asked for clarification. So may I then move my amendment as it appears on the Order Paper now or leave it till afterwards?”
“In which case, I shall have another amendment, Mr Speaker, Sir, which will take care of the motion as amended, if it is amended. I shall have another amendment.”
“Yes. But if that is accepted, then my amendment will be out of order because the words would be different then.”
“As the Member for Rochore said, it was simply that they were asked to deposit the monies with the Government just as you go and deposit the monies with the bank or a finance house. Now, suddenly, the Government turns upon them and there is a proposal that the Government should say to them, "i am sorry, chaps, we are not going to give you the money at 55. You better wait till you are 60 and maybe even then we won't give you the money. We might only give it to you when you are 65." And what guarantee is there that they are going to get it when they are 65? This is not the first time, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this Government would have gone back on its word. I mentioned, was it last year, the workers' welfare fund. There was a solemn declaration made in this House in 1965 when we came out of Malaysia that the payroll tax would be set aside for the welfare of the workers. A fund would be set up. That was a solemn declaration made in this House. And as I pointed out, that was forgotten. There has been no welfare fund for the workers and the payroll tax was paid into the consolidated fund. As I said, this is not the first time that this Government would have gone back on its word to the electorate. So I would ask the Minister and the Government to think very carefully before it embarks on this dishonest act which, as I say, would amount to downright cheating of our citizens. I do not want to repeat what has been said by others. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have my amendment of this. Of these two amendments, may I ask for your guidance as to which amendment you propose to put to the House first? Because if you put the amendment of the Member for Kebun Baru first, then my amendment would be out of order, assuming that that amendment is accepted.”
“Would they be able to do that if they are forced after the age of 55 to take a reduction in their wage with no other monies at their disposal? Then there is the question of the uniformed workers, people who are in uniformed service. Even the Government recognizes that when you are in a uniformed service, after say, 20 or 30 years, you should be retired and allowed to choose some other employment less onerous, less demanding. That is why we have a lower retirement age for our people in the uniformed service. If they are not able to withdraw their CPF savings, how are they going to manage? So I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this proposal is completely iniquitous. By all means, encourage our citizens to continue working after 55, to 60 and even to 65. But I cannot see the need to tie this down to the CPF. It is a completely wrong use of the CPF Act. It is dishonest, Mr Speaker, Sir. If this proposal is accepted, may I say it amounts to cheating our citizens of their monies. Mr Speaker, Sir, only on Friday the Prime Minister in this House remarked that I had let down the voters in Blair Plain. I am afraid the Prime Minister did not know what he was talking about, or he had been given wrong information. They were completely wrong on their predictions as to what was going to happen in the Anson bye-election. But I would not go into that. He was saying that I had let down the voters. What is this proposal? Our citizens have been persuaded to put up with this compulsory deduction of a quarter of their salaries. It has not always been a quarter. It has only just come up to a quarter. But it has been quite substantial. They have been persuaded to put up with this and suffer as a result of that on the promise, on the expectation that they would get it when they reach 55.”
“The employer can very well turn round and say, "Well, if you want to go on working, and I know you have to go on working because you are not going to get your CPF savings, you take this reduction in your salary or in your wages, otherwise there is no work for you with me." This is economically unsound, not only just for the worker but also for the country as a whole. It militates against the employer mechanizing or bringing in automation into his industry or whatever he is doing, because he says, "i can now rely on cheap labour. I only have got to wait till my workers turn to 55." So economically it is unsound. It also does not take into account the fact that there are workers who are unable to continue working after 55, not because they are decrepit but because the sort of work that they have been doing is too tiring, takes a heavy toll on their health that they would be unable to continue with that sort of work. I am, of course, referring to workers who work in hard manual labour. It would be totally unreasonable to expect workers working in manual labour, and hard manual labour at that, to continue to work in that same labour after the age of 55. Is it not time he had some easing of his work? If he is to do that, he has to turn to other jobs. And if he turns to other jobs, what are his chances of getting another job at the age of 55 on the same salary or wage that he has been drawing? The chances are that he would probably find himself accepting a job with much lower wages. What does he do then with all the needs, the commitments that he has, at that age? Reference has been made to the education of the children. There was a reference made to a parent who wanted to send the son or daughter to the university and who wanted to support him or her.”
“Unless properly invested or protected, it may not be sufficient for an elderly person to maintain reasonable standards of living with dignity and self-respect.' Mr Speaker, Sir, what I cannot understand is this. If you say that a person of the age of 55 is not able to manage the money and, therefore, should not be allowed to withdraw it, then how can you say in the same breath that when he reaches the age of 60 he will be able to manage his saving, invest it and look after it for the rest of his life? I should have thought he would be less able unless, of course, you are hoping that between 55 and 65 he will die, and then the monies will revert to the Consolidated Fund. Is that what you are thinking of? That is, if he has not nominated somebody else. Mr Speaker, Sir, this proposal to raise the age of withdrawal of CPF savings from 55 to 60 and eventually to 65 is an attempt, and I say it is a disgraceful attempt, to bond our workers to their employers. An employee who has worked with an employer, when he reaches the age of 55, is compelled to continue working for that employer. He has not got the freedom to opt out of it because he says, "I cannot get my CPF savings. So if I do not continue, then I shall not have any money at my disposal." So this is an attempt to bond him to continue working for his employer. That, in my view, Mr Speaker, Sir, is completely disgraceful in this time and age. No employee should feel bonded to continue working for his employer. At Table 2.2 you find that 50% or more of workers who were able to continue working with the same employer were forced to accept reduced wages. Mr Speaker, Sir, you see there that the door is open for exploitation by the employer of his employees.”
“This Report, again, recognizes, perhaps before it is too late, that the erosion of a lot of these values has been due to the policies of this Government because it has set out materialistic pursuits as the only be-all and end-all of life. So who is responsible for that if there has been an erosion? It is the Government who has been responsible for this erosion. So we do not need any moral legislation. We need less emphasis on material pursuits or pursuits of the material life, and building up of the other values which are more important in a human society. I would urge the Government, Sir, not to be hasty in accepting the recommendation to legislate on filial piety. Now, I turn, Mr Speaker, Sir, to the one specific, positive recommendation. While it lacks in everything else in what the Government will do, it comes out with this one recommendation, that is, that the age for the withdrawal of the CPF savings should be raised from the present age of 55 to 65. Enough has been said here. Even the Minister in his speech referred to the outcry that has followed this proposal. The rest of the Report has been forgotten. The focus has been turned to this one specific recommendation. Our people are rightly indignant that this Committee should have come up with the proposal. Mr Speaker, Sir, the reason that is given for this, and that is at paragraph 2.3.8, page 25, would appear to be this, that if you allow them to withdraw at 55 they will not invest the money and they might squander it and, therefore, they should not be allowed to withdraw it, because it says: 'the lump sum of CPF money gives them an illusion of financial security.”
“There are one or two other aspects of this Report that I would like to talk about, and that is, this suggestion that there should be legislation to legislate for filial piety from our children to their parents. Again, may I say that the findings of the survey which I have just read out would appear to indicate, if you wanted any evidence at all, that there is hardly any need at the present moment for this proposed legislation. Once you make it, as this Report recognizes, a legal duty, as it were, and add to it a sanction for non-performance of that duty, then you rob it of everything. You rob it of the human flow of kindness. You rob it of the love that it should spring from, and I would urge the Government to think very carefully before it introduces any legislation to legislate for filial piety. It is not a thing that can be legislated, Mr Speaker, Sir. I know that under the Women's Charter, husbands are made responsible for their wives' welfare, and maintenance payments can be ordered against them. But that is on the basis of a contract, marriage being a contract. It is on that basis that that provision has been found. But what is the basis upon which you are going to legislate and make it compulsory for children to support their parents? There is no contractual basis for it. All you can point to is this moral duty, and that is not something that you can legislate for. It can be done but as I have said, our citizens are not lacking in this moral duty. So I cannot see the need for it. But if there is, it can be done through other means, by the inculcation of other values, or other aims in life than materialistic pursuits.”
“As I said, there is very little in this Report which sets out what is going to be provided in the way of caring for people in this group. May I refer you, Sir, to the Report at Chapter 5 about Social Services and Institutional Care. There it is set out that apart from institutional care there are important services which can be provided to help the community. It goes on to say about these services which have been introduced in other countries successfully. A number of them are set out, such as Domiciliary Nursing Services, Good Neighbour Programmes, Home Help Services, Meal Delivery Services, Day Care Centres, and Respite Services. Then it goes on to say: 'Of these services, only domiciliary nursing services are at present available in Singapore, and are provided by the Home Nursing Foundation. The other services are suitable for introduction in Singapore.' That is all - "are suitable for introduction in Singapore." There is not a word as to whether any steps will be taken to provide this sort of service to families. It is that sort of thing that this Report significantly lacks. I have referred in this House to letters that have appeared from time to time in the press where our citizens looking after their aged parents have appealed for help, and there have been some letters where they cry out for help. But what is the Government's reply to all that? I would have thought that this Report might have gone on to set out some of the services that can be introduced in Singapore to help our people look after their parents or grandparents. No. Nothing. Much of it remains a speculation. Before I move on to the most controversial recommendation, Mr Speaker, may I say that that seems to be the only specific recommendation that this Report has made.”
“I do not think our Singapore citizens have shown that the young are unmindful of the filial respect that they owe their parents. So I do not think we need to lecture to them about it. As I said in previous speeches in this House, at Budget sessions, all that they ask for is that the Government recognizes their needs and gives them practical help and then they will undertake for their part what is necessary. But what they do not want is the Government using this as an excuse for inaction and leaving them to shoulder all the responsibility when, in the majority of cases, they are unable simply to shoulder that responsibility. The Minister for Finance, again speaking at the Budget session, said that the income tax reliefs could not be raised because he did not want any of the population to think that they could get anything for free. But there is the other side of this. Our citizens are paying taxes, and what is it that they are getting in return for the taxes that they are paying? Almost every service to the community is charged, not perhaps at the economic cost but there is a charge levied for almost every service. So the citizen may well ask, "Well, what am I paying my taxes for? Even when it comes to caring for the aged sick, you say I have to look after them when I am just simply unable to." We are not talking, Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said, of the wealthy, of the rich. They do not need any assistance, any help. We are talking of people who live in one-room HDB flats, two-room HDB flats and even three-room HDB flats who will be unable to shoulder this responsibility. It is to them that the Government owes a responsibility and caring concern.”
“It is suggested that if Government takes over this responsibility to any extent, then private charities, private voluntary bodies and our own citizens will not do anything. I do not know what is the basis for this assumption. It is certainly not the example in other countries. It is certainly not the example in Britain which is often characterized as a welfare state. What is important is that there are some areas where the caring can be done only by the Government at the most economical cost. The Government must recognize that this assumption, that if Government increases its spending it will undermine filial piety and civic consciousness, must not be made an excuse for Government inaction. Mr Speaker, Sir, I see in this Report figures that directly challenge any such assumption. You find in page 44, paragraph 6.4.7, that in a survey conducted in 1982, "93% of the senior citizens are visited by their children." It goes on to say that "the majority, 60%, receive visits at least once a week." It refers to senior citizens who have been put into institutional homes. "22% receive visits at least once a month, while 11.8% are visited less frequently than once a month. 70% of them receive gifts or money from their children during their visits. Thus, most of our senior citizens now do receive support from their children." Then it goes on to say in the next paragraph that 87.7% of our senior citizens have stated that they could depend on their family members. So the facts would appear to belie the assumption that if Government steps in with a bit more spending, all the children will give up any caring for their parents. That is a wrong assumption, and I think it is an insult to our community as a whole.”