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 64 of 82.
“The Minister said in his Budget speech that the Government has no plans or does not propose to build any homes for the aged sick. As I said in the Budget speech, Mr Speaker, Sir, all that the Government appeared to be doing in this direction, and as he himself said in his speech, was to appeal to voluntary bodies, to charity organizations, to build more homes for the aged sick. I said then that that was a clear abdication of Government responsibility. And when I say "Government responsibility", I say a clear abdication of the community's responsibility because the community acts through the Government. If the Government does not lead the way, then the community is to be blamed. It is the Government that must lead, must set an example, and if the Government fails in this, it is no good saying it is leaving it all to private charity to let the citizens take care of all this because, "We are not going to do it." That would be a total abdication of the Government's responsibility in this aspect. That is one of the aspects on which this Report is strangely silent. There is no adequate analysis of the need, what sort of need will be presented, and how it is going to be met. There is, throughout the whole of this Report, as I said, a moralizing tone, doled out paternalistically to the community that they should all do their part. But what about the Government? What part is the Government doing? What role has Government got in all this? Nothing. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are some assumptions that are made in this Report which would seem to be implied and which I must question. There is an assumption that if the Government takes over to any great extent, and there is increased Government spending, it will undermine filial piety and civic consciousness.”
“The Minister admitted that there was at the moment a definite shortage of places for people in this category. He said that whilst there was an abundance of places in homes for the aged, he said there was a definite shortage of places for people in these categories. So we have that as a starting point - that there are not sufficient beds in Singapore today for people who through no fault of their own are totally unable to look after themselves. Neither are their relatives able to look after themselves in the majority of cases. Of course, those who are very rich, who are very wealthy, are able to look after their relatives who are bed-ridden but the majority of our people are simply unable to take on this responsibility. How does this Report address itself to that group? I find nothing at all here about how that problem is to be dealt with. There is a projection about what the demand would be in the year 2000. This is, Mr Speaker, Sir, at Table 5.2 at page 37. There is also a Table showing the present distribution of the aged population. You will find that out of a total of 6,400, that is, taking the position of Types B and C today, Mr Speaker, Sir, only 3,000 are being catered for in institutions. When we come to the year 2000, out of a total of 12,772 in both these categories, assuming that the rate will remain the same, only about 5,700 will be catered for in institutions, it would appear. But there is a definite growth in actual numbers from 3,000 to 5,700. In another 15 years we will have another 2,700 more people who will be totally unable to look after themselves. If there is a definite shortage of beds for the 3,000 now, what are the plans to see that there will be sufficient beds for the 5,700 in the year 2000?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may make a general observation on this Report as a whole. It is, in my view, Sir, much too sketchy a report on the acceptance of the responsibility. There is no proper analysis in this Report, as I see it, of the differing problems that will be encountered amongst the section of the population aged 65 and above. The Report would appear to deal with this as one homogeneous problem but, of course, as has been said, the problems vary. It varies according to the income, according to the age, according to the bodily health capacity of the person. There is no attempt made, as I say, to analyse the problems in these different categories. All that is being attempted is, if I may say so, Mr Speaker, Sir, general paternalistic advice to the community on the problem, The Report is sadly deficient in what steps the Government has in mind, as the agency responsible for the caring of the community entrusted to it, to deal with this sector of our population who will be unable to look after themselves. The problem, as has been explained, is really, if one comes to look at it, to be found in those people who are too ill and who need a high level of medical care and nursing care. These are the people who are categorized as Type C. It is they who present the most acute problem. It is they who have the greatest need. Type A referred to in this Report, as the Report itself mentions, need hardly any great care to be accorded to them. Speaking in the Budget debates in March this year, Mr Speaker, Sir, I asked the Minister for Social Affairs when we were discussing the estimates for his Ministry about the provision of homes for the aged sick, that is the group categorized by Types B and C in this classification of the University Department of Social Medicine.”
“Mr Speaker, this is a Report on the Problems of the Aged. It is a trite observation but perhaps if I may be permitted, Mr Speaker, Sir, to state that this is not a new problem. Societies from the earliest inception have had an aged population in their midst. The only difference perhaps is that today the ages at which people age are advanced beyond what they were some years ago. So it is not a new problem, and it is not by any means a problem that is only peculiar to Singapore. It is a universal problem that is found wherever we have societies because it is in the nature of man that he must grow old and eventually die. I say this, Mr Speaker, Sir, because there appears to have been an attempt to view this problem as an alarming problem in our midst. I think that tendency should be discouraged. It is not an alarming problem. It is a problem that can be coped with and dealt with if the whole community - and here, of course, when I speak of the community, I speak of the Government as well, because the Government is the agency of the community. The Government is not, as it were, something set apart from the community, the Government is part of the community - if the community accepts its responsibilities for every sector of its population, ie it accepts its responsibility for the caring for the aged; it accepts its responsibility for the caring of the young, the education of the children. So it is simply an acceptance of a responsibility which we cannot shirk. I would deprecate even using the term "problem". It is simply, as I say, an acceptance of the responsibility for the caring of people in our midst. And we are, of course, at the moment concerned with a certain category of people in our midst, and that is, our citizens who are aged 65 and above.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I move the amendment, may I first speak on the Motion on the Report itself?”
“--- to bring graduate men and women together. Why is it necessary in a society for the Government to interfere, to invade purely personal relations of its people?”
“We want a society that is divided into different camps. We want a society that will accept without any question. Is that the son of society that we are going to be proud of? If I may mention, Sir, there is a growing helplessness of our citizens against the powers of the Government and the authorities. We are, Mr Speaker, Sir, a much abused people - I say this quite seriously - by our rulers who have taken over from our colonial masters. In what other society, Mr Speaker, Sir, do you find the Government acquiring properties from its citizens at 1973 prices and then, if the citizen tries to buy from the Government and he says, "What about selling it to me at the 1973 price?", he is told, "You go and tell that to the Marines. You buy it from us at today's price." Where do we find that except in a society where the needs of the people are completely ignored? Everything in Singapore is organized. It would appear that there is no room for spontaneity. Is that the sort of people we want, people who are unable to do anything for themselves? Everything must be organized for them. It would appear that we cannot even have a football league without a Minister being in charge. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a new unit in the Government, which is the Social Development Unit. We have not seen much of the creation of this unit in our papers but it has found its way into the foreign press. It would appear that this unit has been set up by the Government to act as a marriage broker ---”
“Yes, don't worry. Yes. '. . then blamed on the people themselves rather than seen as the result of an inequitable and unjust social order.' It is clearly applicable to us today, Mr Speaker, Sir. I read years ago a letter in the Time magazine by someone who had lived in Singapore for some years, and he said in that letter that the social engineering that has been carried out in Singapore is seldom seen outside the Communist countries. How do we go about this? Not only do we try to provide disincentives for some people whilst providing incentives for others, polarizing the society into different camps or groups, but we also hit at the children. We have streaming in primary schools, condemning our children at a very early age. Some, as we have been told, are late developers and it is difficult to determine whether a child will be able to advance or not at that tender age. But we must decide this at a very tender age at the Primary 3 stage. And what is the result of that? Those left out provide more fodder for our factories and for our building industries. Quite apart from this social engineering and creation of a social hierarchy, there are the other attributes in our society today, or rather discerning marks of our society, which are very much questionable. We have become a society where the first rule would appear to be unquestioning obedience of Government and authority. I see that the Second Deputy Prime Minister (Foreign Affairs), Mr Rajaratnam, talking at the pre-university seminar not very long ago was lamenting the fact that people were protesting in Singapore at the proposal to raise the age for withdrawal of CPF savings from 55 to 60 or 65, and he was also lamenting that people were not happy about what they had been given. So what sort of a society do we want?”
“Malaysian book, yes. 'if the notion that intelligence is primarily genetically determined is accepted, it then becomes only natural for some people to be more intelligent and therefore economically wealthier and politically more powerful than others, thus justifying the social hierarchy of class society. [This is the justification for the policy that we are pursuing.] This kind of argument also provides justification for the existence of inequality, poverty and a myriad other social problems.' Maj Fong Sip Chee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am thoroughly confused. Is the Member still quoting, or is it part of his speech?”
“I am quoting from a book published by INSAN - Institute for Social Analysis. Maj Fong Sip Chee: Malaysian book?”
“May I say what he said, and this is what he said: 'Since the inferior is always numerically superior to the best, the worst would multiply itself so much faster . . given the same opportunity to survive and procreate . . that the best would necessarily be pushed to the background. Therefore, a correction in favour of the better must be undertaken.' This is what we are undertaking in this school admission policy programme that we have just implemented - a correction in favour of the better to correct this unbalanced pattern of procreation. Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know from history what that "correction" mentioned by the gentleman that I have just read involved - the mass genocide of millions of people not of supposed Aryan stock and even of Aryan dissidents, Is that the road that we intend for our society in Singapore?”
“Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, it would appear that we have first-class citizens and we have second-class citizens. We are told that if you are a graduate you may be entitled to greater privileges than those who are not. So we are creating, by our very policies, this social hierarchy of a class system. And is that the society we want, a society that is going to be torn by class divisions, quite apart from a society where there is great inequality of wealth? This is coming about as a result of the social engineering that has been embarked upon by this Government which has been in power since 1959, and it is the achievements of this Government that our citizens have been asked to applaud and celebrate in the 25 years of nation building. The social engineering has been explained as an economic necessity by the Prime Minister when he spoke in 1969, and I quote, Mr Speaker, Sir, what he said in this House at the passing of the Abortion Bill. He said [Hansard, Vol. 29i Col. 322]: 'Our problem is how to devise a system of disincentives, so that the irresponsible, the social delinquents, do not believe that all they have to do is to produce their children and the Government then owes them and their children sufficient food, medicine, housing, education and jobs. Until such time when moral inhibitions disappear and legislative or administrative measures can be taken to regulate the size of families, we must try to induce people to limit their families and give their children a better chance.' This is social engineering of the highest degree, Mr Speaker, Sir. This is, as has been said, nothing unique. It has been tried before. We all know that something very much on these lines was said by Adolf Hitler in 1939.”
“I hear Members saying it is obvious. But let us look at it. What is the society we have today, Mr Speaker, Sir? As I see it, we have a society which is becoming increasingly polarized and divided. We have not only the division created by wealth between the rich and the poor but there are other divisions. There is a greater gap now, as I see it and as others see it, between the rich and the poor in our society. Mr Speaker, Sir, when I came into this House at the beginning of 1982, a number of Members in this House took umbrage at the statement that I had made to a foreign journalist about some people who may be starving in Singapore. But today in 1984, I see that the Government itself acknowledges the existence of a poverty trap in Singapore. There are families who are caught in this poverty trap and in the stories that were carried, following the announcement of the offer of $10,000 as an inducement to families to stop having any family beyond two children, there was the story of a family whose parents remarked that there were days when they merely drank water to appease their hunger because they just could not afford to have a square meal every day of the week. So there you have it, that there are families who go without meals in Singapore because there is not enough income to provide for themselves adequately, to maintain themselves and their children. There is this poverty trap. There is a substantial section of our population who are caught by this poverty trap. Have we done anything to ameliorate their condition or lift them up? Quite apart from that, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is by the policies of this Government other divisions creeping in. We have now, or building up, a social hierarchy of class in this society of ours where none existed before.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have claimed this right to speak on the Adjournment of today's sitting on a matter upon which there has been a lot of publicity, and that is, the celebrations for the so-called 25 years of nation building. A lot of euphoria has been created outside this House by the media, not only by the newspapers but also through TV, of the evolution of our society over the 25 years. But inside this House, there has been no debate at all as to the society that we have become as a result of these 25 years. I should have thought that somebody in the Government might have moved a motion that this House approved the evolution of the society that we have come into after 25 years of this so-called nation building. I think it is important that we here should take a hard look at the society that we are today after these 25 years of nation building before we get carried away by the euphoria that is being created outside this House. So I propose to spend the time that is available to me in this House to look at our society today. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would rather speak of the society than of the nation because it is the society that we are concerned with. Nation is after all only a political unit of the human society, and society by its very term imports association or grouping of persons, individuals. So I would like to talk about the society that we are today rather than the nation that we are today. We were, Mr Speaker, Sir - I need not remind you or the other Members of the House - before 1959 a colonial society. The question is: After 25 years of nation building, are we much better than we were in 1959 when we were a colonial society?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Prime Minister, like his other Minister of the Government, unable to see that there is a distinction here between an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act for which a report can be made and the situation that I am talking about? I am talking about a corrupt use of public funds to benefit a party, a political party, for which surely the Prime Minister must be aware that the Indian Prime Minister at one time was prosecuted.”
“Would the Prime Minister not think that if that is a true statement, that the activities there are organized by the PAP, that it is a corrupt use of public funds that his Party should be allowed to use the Centre for these activities?”
“--- and read it, if he is unable to understand the spoken word. I am asking him, is he not aware of a statement made by this Political Secretary in his Ministry who he has appointed adviser to these grassroots organizations in Anson Constituency, that the activities have been organized by the PAP and that the Anson voters are responding well to the PAP? This was in big bold letters in the Straits Times, if the Prime Minister would like to know.”
“Mr Speaker, does the Prime Minister honestly think he has answered my question, or is he trying to evade answering my question? My question was, if I may repeat it again, and if the Prime Minister would like it, perhaps I can write it out so that he can ponder over it ---”
“--- says he is not aware that the activities are organized by the PAP in Anson Community Centre, if I understood him rightly. Is he aware of a statement made by his political adviser now in his Ministry, who has been appointed to these grassroots organizations in Anson, that the activities have been organized by the PAP and that the voters are responding well to the PAP?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister, Prime Minister (begging your pardon, Mr Speaker, Sir, and begging his pardon). The Prime Minister --- The Prime Minister: You are forgiven.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. Is it permitted for a Member here to accuse another Member of dishonesty, under Standing Orders?”
“Does the Prime Minister then admit, as he would appear to admit, that it is perfectly in order for his Party to use government machinery, government staff, so that his Party may be returned to power? Is that what you are saying?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Prime Minister not realize that perhaps not everybody has the time to read his analysis of defeat? Now, would the Prime Minister say, quite seriously, whether the present activities that are being conducted have as its object, it would seem to imply that it does from listening to him, the wooing back to the PAP-fold the voters in Anson, hoping that they would all come trooping back? Or are these activities organized from a genuine desire to provide recreational facilities and entertainment for the residents?”
“May I ask the Prime Minister, Mr Speaker, Sir, what is the basis for the statement that he has made, that I was elected as a Member for Anson because of the residents in Blair Plain? Has he been inspecting the ballot boxes?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Prime Minister answer whether activities at this community centre since its opening have been organized by the PAP? And if they have not been organized by the PAP, by which organization or centre have they been organized?”
“Sir, is the Hon. Minister unable to realize that I am not talking about an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act? My question is: does he not think that it is a corrupt use of public funds, not acceptance by an official of monies for his own pocket but a corrupt use of public funds, that a public official should be appointed or should allow himself to be appointed to aid a litigant in a private suit?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, another supplementary question for the Hon. Minister. May 1, first of all, repeat my earlier questions and beg him to answer them. If he is unable to answer them, perhaps he might make a statement that he is unable to answer them. The question now is this. Does he not think that it is a corrupt use of public funds that the Official Receiver should have accepted appointment in a suit which did not concern the Government and where there was no public interest involved?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Minister not realize that he is completely missing the point of the questions put to him? Does the Minister not realize that it was open to Mr Tay Boon Too, the defendant in that suit, to have got another receiver to accept appointment and the Court could have appointed this other individual? There are hundreds of accountants or other people in Singapore who would be prepared to accept appointment as receiver. The question is: why was it found necessary for the Official Receiver, a man who is paid from public funds, a civil servant, to accept appointment in a private suit?”
“Sir, would the Minister please answer the questions that are put to him? Would he not agree that they are simple enough for him to understand? If they are not simple enough, then perhaps we can try and write them out for him in a more simple language. Perhaps, Mr Speaker, Sir, before I asked my first supplementary question, I should have told you that I have no pecuniary personal interest in this matter but, of course, it concerns the appointment in my Party suit. Would the Minister say whether he agrees that the application was the suit of a private individual, and he was not even an MP at that time, against a private society? Would the Minister say whether it is one of the functions of the Official Receiver that he should accept appointment to enable private individuals to recover their judgments in Court? Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member is raising the same point that he has mentioned in framing the Question. In other words, he is implying that this whole case was one where no element of public interest or monies was involved. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the contrary, I take the view that there is certainly an element of public interest when a political party which claims to be responsible, which wants to contest elections, which wants to form the Government and whose leader desperately wants to be the Prime Minister, nevertheless deliberately refrains from meeting its obligations arising from litigation which it itself has instituted.”
“Sir, is the Minister saying that before the Order was made, the Official Receiver was not asked if he would accept appointment? And is the Minister going on to say that he did not accept such appointment but, nevertheless, was appointed by the Court?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, is it the Hon. Minister's statement that the Official Receiver was ordered by the Court to take up appointment as Receiver in this suit, or is he saying that the Official Receiver consented in the first place to accept appointment? May we know which one is it that he is stating?”
“No. What I was saying is that I am in agreement with one part of his statement when he says that no one should prevent break-up of the union if that is what the members want. There is no need for the Minister to say that because I never suggested anything else. I am pleading for the principle of self-determination and so no one should prevent them from breaking up if that is their wish. All I am asking is whether the Minister, as the Minister in charge of trade unions will assure the members of all trade unions, and I have mentioned the case of this union, Singapore Air Transport Workers' Union, that he will arrange or see that a secret ballot is first taken before there is any break-up of the union.”
“May I just reply, Mr Speaker, Sir, please?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am entirely in agreement with the Acting Minister when he says that no one should prevent ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I am aware of that. But I am talking about the views of the members, the delegates, the shop stewards. It is they who are unhappy over the whole thing.”
“But now, in 1982, when they were taken out of the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees, I am told there was no secret ballot taken and that has caused a lot of unhappiness, among the members there. I understand that the officers of the Union who were opposed to this break-up were summarily despatched elsewhere from their posts that they were working at. It is this sort of pressure that the workers know only too well that can be brought to bear on them so that their will is broken. And I say, we must not encourage this form of intimidatory tactics, either from the Ministry of Labour or from the employers or from the NTUC. The workers must be given free rein to make up their minds. They can be persuaded, reasonably, calmly, and the case presented to them. But, please, no pressure whatsoever should be brought to bear on them and that they should be given, as I keep saying, the principle of self-determination which is so essential for every human being.”
“But it is only now that the matter is being pressed against the union. I am sorry, but the members see all this as a determined effort to break up the union into four smaller unions and leave perhaps three of these unions without any effective leadership. They are quite upset, I understand, about the whole thing. They would rather retain the present union with its leadership which has served them, I understand. All I am asking the Minister is: would he adhere strictly, without any evasion, to the principle of self-determination by the workers? It is not only on this that, I think, they should be given self-determination. There is also the question of the 12-hour working shift. In all these things, it is important that the workers be made to feel that they have the right to make up their own minds calmly and, after listening to both sides of the question, as it were calmly and not be pressured. That is all I am asking. Would the Minister be prepared to give the assurance? I say that in the SATU constitution there is provision. As I have said, the union enjoys 98%, I am told, of the membership of the workers in these companies. For the happiness of their members and for their peace of mind, would the Minister give an assurance in this House that they will not be forced to break up into smaller unions without a secret ballot being taken? I was going on, Sir, to another union, the Telecoms. The Postal Union is one of the oldest unions in Singapore. It is probably the earliest union. But after that it went through a series of mergers. Every time there was a merger, a secret ballot was taken.”
“Sir, as usual, the Minister spends the time replying to me by making a tirade rather than a reasonable reply. Does he deny that advisers - I do not know what positions they hold - but Members of this House who are advisers in the NTUC have been busy at work in this union, trying to "persuade" (in inverted commas) the members into accepting house unions? That is what I understand. If he says no, he can deny that and the members of the Union will be able to say whether I have been speaking an untruth or the Minister has not been telling the whole truth. The other matter is about the General Secretary. Again, if he says that there is no truth whatsoever, let him say so. Reference was made by the speaker before me about the check-off. I understand that in the case of this union, SATU, they enjoyed the check-off privilege and, as was pointed out, because of the difficulties, they did not get the authorization from their members every year. But I am told that this had continued for some time now. I do not know the length of time. But it had continued. The Ministry did not raise any protest about it. The NTUC, I understand, knew all about it. The matter was allowed to go on. But suddenly, now that the in- house unions are going to be promoted - the Minister has reiterated that the Government is very anxious, very eager to promote in-house unions - now they have been told, "You have not got the authorization. So we are not going to allow any check-off." I am told that the union wrote a lengthy explanation to the Ministry, explaining why the authorization of the members had not been obtained. They were told kindly that the explanation was not accepted. The point of all this is - I do not know but I am told - that this had gone on for a while before this.”
“And the only way that you can determine the views and opinions of the workers is to let them freely, without any pressure being brought to bear on them from anybody outside the union, make up their minds calmly, listening to all the pros and cons of any question put to them and deciding freely without any pressure whatsoever; and that decision must be made, if possible, by every member and according to the method of ascertaining the views of members as provided in the constitution or rules. I see that there is provision in the union's constitution for the holding of a secret ballot on a number of matters that concern the union. May I ask from the Minister an assurance that there will be a secret ballot taken from these members before they are forced to accept a break-up of their union into smaller unions? Sir, I have in my question in the sitting on 17th January, 1984, pointed out that if you break up a union into smaller unions then you automatically deprive some of the unions of the leadership that they enjoy and you fragment the unions. We were told by the Minister for Finance and Minister for Trade and Industry that it is the Government's policy to promote direct wage bargaining between the unions and their employers, and I asked how does he propose to give the unions the power. If you now go ahead with fragmenting the unions, you are weakening them more. If you want to get any productivity out of the workers, then you have got to respect their rights and give them the necessary strength to conduct their own affairs and to determine their own affairs and not be pressured by others against their wishes. There is yet another union ---”
“I further understand that in 1981 there was a study of this union made by civil servants and NTUC officials and I understand that they reported that this union was being run on an in-house concept and had excellent relations. But now suddenly the members find that they are being pressured into breaking away into smaller unions. I understand that they had been visited by advisers who are also Members of this House, from the NTUC headquarters, who have been actively trying to persuade them into accepting the break-up of their union into smaller in-house unions. Not only that, I understand that pressure has been brought to bear on them from the company where they work. Several principal union officials who were earlier given time-off from their duties to attend to their union affairs, I understand, have now been ordered to go back to work and have been told that they cannot have time-off from their duties in their employment to attend to union affairs. I also understand that the General Secretary of the Union was offered a chance of being transferred to the administrative service, and when he was appointed General Secretary he was told they would keep the option open for him for three years until he had served his term. But I understand lately that he has been told that he has got to exercise his option as soon as possible and they were not prepared to wait. The members see in all this a subtle pressure being brought to bear on them to accept the break-up of their union into smaller in-house unions. Sir, we must recognize the principle of self-determination, whether it is self-determination by the citizens in the affairs of the country or whether it is self-determination of the workers in the unions.”
“Sir, in sending in this notice of my amendment I intended to speak and I propose to speak on this promotion of house unions, which I understood from the Acting Minister for Labour in the sitting of this House on the 17th of January that the Government was very anxious to promote. I also understood from the Acting Minister that there was no question of house unions being forced on members, on the working population, but that they would be given every opportunity to decide for themselves. I asked then whether their consent or otherwise would be taken by a secret ballot. The Minister's reply was, "Yes, if it is provided in the rules. But it depended on the constitution and the rules."The Minister went on to say that he thought that my allegations about unhappiness was wild and unfounded; unhappiness, that is, among workers on the active promotion of in-house unions. Sir, I understand that particularly in one union there is a lot of unhappiness about this promotion of the in-house union, and this union is the Singapore Air Transport Workers' Union. Not only have I heard from members but there was a letter which arrived at my table, copied to me. I think it was directed to the Prime Minister and a number of others, and I was on the circulation list, This man had a long complaint about the unhappiness among the members of this union, and I gathered it all arose because of the attempt to break this union up now into house unions. 4.15 pm Sir, you are probably aware that this union comprises workers not only in the Singapore Airlines but in three other companies which serve the airline industry. I am told that it is the envy of a lot of unions because, whilst other unions lament about their membership, this union has a 98% membership.”
“May I answer that? We know that since the last Sitting there has been a new company licensed. I saw in the papers that there were a fleet of about 200 taxis. If you are licensing new taxis and giving licences to companies to operate them, obviously the Ministry must take the view that there are not enough taxis. It is as simple as that. I want to know what is the Ministry's view? Do you think that there are already enough taxis on the road and are you then stopping the licensing of new additional taxis? Replacement is another matter. But are you stopping the licensing of additional taxis?”
“Why is the Government not taking over the transport undertaking altogether and putting it under a corporation to provide a unified transport service for Singaporeans at minimum cost? I know I will be told about London Transport. I do not want to hear a repetition of that. I want to know why you think in Singapore we can have more than one company. That must be a waste, trying to run bus services for a small place like Singapore. That is all, Sir.”
“The Ministry. I beg your pardon, Sir. Is the Ministry as inflexible as ever then in not allowing any transfer, or is there any change? Perhaps the Acting Minister might answer that question without wasting too much time on whether or not the Minister said that, the last time I raised this point. Secondly, the Acting Minister complains that I have not been listening. He has told two other Members of this House that there was a Committee which was making a comprehensive survey. That, I understood, was in relation to the bus services, and I said it should be the whole problem of land transport. If you are now saying that there is a Committee looking into the whole question of land transport, good thank you very much. The question is, will there be a report? Will there be a paper on this? May I ask the Minister whether there will be a paper on the whole question and how soon can we expect this? I am coming to the question that I was going to ask. What is the thinking of the Ministry as regards the bus service and the provision of transport? Do they think that it should still remain in the hands of private companies? Now, as I have said, they would appear to be going back to the position that existed sometime ago of having more than one company operating bus services. Why is the Ministry hesitant to bring the whole of the bus services under one authority? As I have said before, Sir, this Government is ready to take on a number of other business ventures where it thinks they might be profitable. But there is this transport service which is essential. It is as essential as anything else in Singapore, like housing or medical care.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there are three matters. First of all, about the transferability. I do not think I said that the then Minister gave an undertaking. I said, if I remember rightly and I stand corrected, what he said was that in proper cases, transfers were being allowed - I remember that very clearly - where he thought the person was of good character and had a good record. All right. You shake your head. You say you never said it. The question is, what is the policy now? Is it as inflexible as ever? Are you allowing any transfers or not of any operators of taxis where the father wants to transfer his taxi to his son? I remember mentioning that. Are you as inflexible as ever?”
“We will look up in the Hansard. Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, I would suggest that the Member look up Hansard. If he does not know which page, I can tell him. It is in col. 192 of Vol. No. 42. He can read through the whole extract from that particular debate. An hon. Member: He cannot read!”
“Not an undertaking. Do not use terms you do not understand.”
“I would also like to know from the Minister whether it is the intention to license companies now to run taxi services as against individual operators. At one time, I thought the intention was that taxi services should only be run by individual operators, until of course the NTUC came on the scene with its fleet. Now, I would like to know whether it is the intention of the Ministry that companies should be allowed to run a fleet of taxis. I hear various criticisms about the taxis. Some say there are far too many taxis on the road. I hear this from the taxi drivers. They say there are far too many taxis on the road. I hear from the Ministry side that perhaps there are not enough taxis on the road and there is a need to license more taxis. May we know what is the real position? What is the view that the Ministry takes about the number of taxis on the road?”
“I think it is important when we come to issues like transport, housing, medical services, that Government should set out in a paper its programme, its outline of actions, so that the public know what is being done, know what the problems the Government has to face and come up with any suggestions that they might wish to put forward. I would like to know in particular about the bus services. At one time, Sir, we had several companies. We had the Singapore Traction Company and then we had a number of other companies, all operating bus services. Then it was decided that it was not economical. It was probably a waste to have so many companies and it was decided to merge the companies into one company, the Singapore Bus Service. But I see now some of the routes from the SBS are to be hived off and given to another company. Is it the Ministry's plan that there should be other bus companies as well operating in Singapore? So this would mean a reversal of what the position was before they were all brought together under one company. Then there is the question of taxis. Last year, I raised the question about the transfer of taxis, of vocational licences of individual operators, and I really had in mind the yellow-top taxi owners and operators. I referred to an announcement that was made some years ago, saying that no transfers would be allowed. The then Minister for Communications, in answer to my Question in this House said, I stand corrected, of course, that that rule was being relaxed and the transfers would be allowed in proper cases. I want to know what the policy is now as regards transferability of licences of private operators.”
“Sir, we are now on Public Transport and it is on that that I wish to say a few words, I am not speaking on behalf of any particular constituency's problems or area problems but problems as a whole. First of all, may I say a little bit about the MRT. We read a lot of publicity about the MRT, the construction that is going ahead. What I would like to know is whether there has been any projection done about the cost for the persons who will be using the MRT? Is it going to be economical? I see in the Act which we passed sometime ago that the Authority which is responsible for operating the transport is required or enjoined to recover all its operating costs, presumably from the fares collected. Do we have any forecast of the operating costs involved, and how much of it will be passed on to the commuters? Because if it is going to be prohibitive, then it will not serve its purpose. So I would like to know whether there has been any research done into the projected cost of travel on the MRT. The other question I have is on the Government policy on public transport as a whole. I think it will be useful, if I may suggest, with all due respect to the Ministry of Communications, that the problem should be looked at as a whole, the bus service, the MRT, the taxi service and how they fit into one another to provide Singapore with an efficient public transport. It is no good dealing with one problem in isolation from the others. They must complement one another and, as I say, jointly provide Singapore with the public transport that it should have. I do not know whether this is being done. If it is being done, I wonder whether we will see a paper on this at all from the Ministry of Communications.”