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 65 of 82.
“No, Sir. Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The following amendment, standing in the name of Encik Saidi Haji Shariff, has been withdrawn. (7) That the sum to be allocated for Head V be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead VD-01 of the Main Estimates. The sum of $37,388,500 for Head V ordered w stand part of the Main Estimates, The sum of $2,430,000 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.”
“The Minister said that he has asked his colleague, the Minister of State of Education, to answer that.”
“Sir, I thought we were going to hear from the Minister of State of Education about the education of the children.”
“Sir, we are talking about a particular class of people for whom the Minister has special responsibility. So I do not think he should just pass the buck, as it were, to somebody else, because this is his concern.”
“Sir, it must be obvious, perhaps it is only to me, that some modifications have to be made. I mean if you are going to allow wheel-chairs to go into carriages, there is some son of modification that the MRT must make to one or two carriages, They probably cannot have the normal kind of seats there. That is the thing we want to know. Is the MRT prepared to do that? I am not asking the MRT to arrange for them to be brought to the MRT stations. No one is asking that.”
“Sir, what the Minister has done is to state the conclusions. What I want to know is, may we know what were the considerations put forward from both sides to this question, is it possible for the handicapped to use the MRT? There are those who argue that it is quite safe for them to use the MRT. Can we have the whole case presented in public?”
“Sir, the Minister says they have gone into this problem. Have they made public the deliberations, the considerations, that were placed before this Committee that looked into this question? If so, can that be made public so that the public may see what the problems are?”
“Sir, I have a number of questions for the Minister. I asked, and I was primarily concerned with the question of education, why is the Government not taking over the education of these children? I suppose I have to wait for the Minister of State of Education to reply to that. If I may move away from that now to the next question. Has the Minister or his Ministry looked into this question of arrangements for the handicapped on the MRT system? The Minister surely must be aware that there have been letters in the press which suggest that they can use the MRT quite safely, provided certain adaptations are made. Is the matter just left to the MRT to decide, or is the Ministry taking a hand in this and looking into the problem? Should not the views of those who know about this be sought and of the experience in other countries where they have had these problems? Should we not learn from their experience? Or does the Minister, again I must repeat, consider that his sole function is to act as a messenger boy to deliver the letter to the MRT and leave them to tackle the problem, and the Ministry of Social Affairs, which has a special concern for the handicapped, or the disabled, has nothing to say on it? Finally, what about the report from the Committee which he said he has appointed as a result of the 1981 Report on the International Year for the Disabled? What have they come up with? Or are they still deliberating after three years in trying to understand the problems of the disabled in Singapore?”
“I spoke over the last two years about the school for the deaf in Singapore and I mentioned about the appalling lack of equipment in these classes. I was talking to the Executive Director this morning and he says the position is just as bad as it was two years ago. What progress are we making? He says there is no class with a group hearing aid system. They have 19 classes, 19 teachers. He says the teacher problem has eased a little bit because there are less pupils this year. That is why it has eased a bit. But he says there is not a single classroom which has got a group hearing aid system. Why? Is it b"We cannot afford. We have not got the money to help these children." Last year, I asked about the teachers who were supplied, the specialist teachers, not just ordinary teachers but teachers who had special training to teach disabled children. And we heard then from the Minister of State of Education about a course that was being considered. He said something about there being a question whether it should be a full certificate or something less than a full certificate. I would like to know from him if it is possible, what is the situation now. This training of teachers, which I saw started in Singapore some two or three months ago; are these teachers who have gone through the Normal course going on to specialize in teaching the mentally and physically disabled children? I think, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it is time, I said this last year and I say it again, that this Government accepted the responsibility for the education of these children. It is not that they cannot be educated. I said this last year. They can be educated. So why is the Government shirking its responsibility?”
“He says, "We have appealed to the private charitable bodies and they are coming up with these beds. We are not going to build any homes. Why should we?" I do not know what the problems are. Perhaps we have not got the money. The report again focuses attention on what this Government is doing. He went to an exhibition about Towards a Better Understanding of the Problems of the Physically Handicapped, I was glad to see, Mr Speaker, Sir, in that speech he again mentioned that a committee had been appointed. Oh, we have got several committees to look into this matter, that matter, lots of matters. He said that a committee had been appointed for the implementation of the recommendations in the International Year of the Disabled Persons Report, 1981. And this is 1984, Mr Speaker, three years afterwards. May I know whether this committee has submitted any report? He said one of the issues that the Committee was looking into is the problem of employment of disabled persons. Honestly, do we really need the recommendations of this body, the International Year of Disabled Persons, before we start looking into the problems of employment of disabled persons? And he goes on to say, "We need to formulate a policy which is realistic and practical to implement and generally acceptable to the organizations helping disabled people and, of course, acceptable to disabled people themselves." Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say with respect that is a lot of verbiage. It says nothing about what the Ministry is doing. It talks about appointment of a committee. We need to do this, we need to do that, we need to do everything. Yes, we know all that. But what are you doing now?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head V be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead VC-03 of the Main Estimates. This is the vote for Welfare Services for Physically and Mentally Disabled Persons. Again, may I preface whatever I have to say by saying, I made this plea not only last year but the year before on behalf of the physically and mentally disabled persons. Sir, following upon the Minister's reply to the last amendment, that his Ministry had appealed to private charitable bodies to help look after the elderly sick and that they were responding, I would like to refer to a report again in one of our papers that appeared on the 25th February 1984, not very long ago. And the report mentioned about the Minister attending an exhibition. He was at hand to open an exhibition on Towards a Better Understanding of the Physically Handicapped. Perhaps he did not expect this when he went to cut the ribbon or whatever he was going to do at the opening of this exhibition. There was a man on a wheelchair and he handed him a letter. His concern was that the MRT was not making any provision for those on wheelchairs and so he wanted the Minister to do something about it, and he gave the Minister a letter. The report says that the Minister promised to deliver the note to the MRT Corporation. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have had Ministers going round as inspectors of latrines and now we have got a Minister who is taking on the duty of a messenger boy. I would say seriously to Ministers that their duties go far beyond acting as messenger boys and inspectors of latrines. We have others to do that. That report sort of sums up again the attitude displayed by the Minister in his last reply.”
“All that the Government thinks is that its role is to appeal to private charity and talk about Government joining community efforts to look after the sick and the aged. I say this is scandalous. Mr Speaker, Sir, with that, I will withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“In other words, we have the Acting Minister say to this House, as he has said year in and year out, that the Government has no responsibility.”
“Sir, may I have a direct answer to my question? We are at the moment concentrating, I thought, on the aged sick, and the Minister said that there was definitely a shortage. He said that the Ministry had appealed and a number of charitable bodies were responding. May I ask a direct question? Has the Ministry any plans to set up a home, a Government home, for the aged sick?”
“No, Sir. I would like the Minister to answer the second part of my question, that is, about any, what you might call, supportive services. I see that he has remained completely silent on this matter. Has the Ministry any plans on this? Going back to the first part, I understand from the Minister that there is a shortage and he has appealed. Then he goes on to tell us about a number of private charitable bodies providing homes. Is there still a shortage, or will there still be a shortage with the provision of beds by these organizations? But a more important thing is, does the Ministry really think that all it has to do when it comes to the care of the elderly sick is to appeal to private charity and that the Ministry itself, the Government, has no obligation, no responsibility for the elderly sick in our society but that they must be left to private charity? Why is it? Is it because we cannot afford to look after them that we must ask private charity to foot the bill for them? We would appear to have $11 million to spend on celebrations from June to December of this year. Cannot we afford some of that money to look after our elderly sick? I would like to know what role the Ministry thinks it has in the discharge of Government's responsibility in its citizens, particularly the elderly sick.”
“Alternatively, it could start an 'adopt an elderly' scheme similar to its 'adopt a child' scheme." I have only brought up one of these letters that appear from time to time in our papers. 4.15 pm May I know from the Minister what is the position? Does he still say that there are far more beds than needed for the bed-ridden people in Singapore whose families find it a great burden to look after in their homes? If so, I would like to know, why is it that this man that I have in my constituency has not been able to be placed in a home? I say that there are others as well in my constituency who should really be in homes. If the Ministry's view is that the place for elderly people is not in homes for the aged and the sick but with their families, what plans has the Ministry got? I asked this last year, and I ask this again. No doubt, I may be told that I keep bringing up the same thing. But I will continue to bring it up until we get some response from the Ministry of Social Affairs and from this Government. What schemes? - as the writer to the press asked. I do not know whether there was a reply to this letter. I want to know whether the Ministry has any plans or any thinking about assisting families to look after the elderly and the sick. I am, of course, referring to the non-ambulant patients in particular, those who are bed-ridden and, as she says, "who cannot look after themselves." What happens to them when the working members of the family have to go out to work? May I know from the Minister whether there has been any improvement? Has anything been done along the lines requested by this writer to the press? Perhaps he would answer that and then I might come back with something else.”
“It is not just that they should be in homes but it is also the wish of the families who help to look after them. They are not getting anything like the assistance that they should get from this Government. We have constantly heard sermons preached about the duty that is owed to the elderly by their children and their grandchildren. But the Government would appear to take the view that its task stops with that - delivering sermons to the children and grandchildren. Last year I read one or two letters and I have got another letter this year. This goes back to 30th May 1983, and this appeared in the Straits Times. A working girl writes about her difficulties and the problems she has in looking after her grandmother and she says; "As the government is so concerned [it must have been said with her tongue in her cheek] about our aging society, I would like to mention the case of my 73-year old grandmother living with me. There are only the two of us and I am working. I need someone to help - cook her meals and bathe her." That is the sort of assistance that a lot of people do need when they have elderly people to look after. And she says; "i sought assistance from the Ministry of Social Affairs but was told that it does not run any scheme whereby a social worker or volunteer would spend two hours daily to look after elderly people like my grandmother." She goes on to talk about her difficulties - that she is staying in Jurong and the nearest and only day-care centre for the elderly is in Henderson Road. She ends up by saying; "In order to help this group of aged remain with their families and not to be placed in old folks homes, could the Ministry set up more day-care centres for the elderly in every constituency, if possible.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head V be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead VC-02 of the Main Estimates. Sir, this vote is for the Welfare Services for the Aged, Vagrant arid other Destitute Persons. I have been in this House for two years now, and this is the third Budget session in which I have taken part, and I have raised this question year after year in this House. It appears, Sir, that at these Budget sittings we bring up subjects and particularly subjects like looking after the elderly, the sick, the vagrant, for an airing. The files are dusted and given to the Minister to reply, and then they are put away and nothing seems to be done. And things continue in much the same way as they did in the past. Sir, I raised sometime - was it last year or the first year that I was here - the question of sufficiency of homes for the elderly and particularly those who are non-ambulant, the bedridden patients, and then the Minister quoted a number of figures to show that I was wrong, that there was no waiting list and, in fact, there were enough homes. Sir, I have in my constituency a Muslim man who should really be in a home. He is living with his daughter and her family, and there are other members of the family, living in this flat, and they experience considerable difficulty in looking after him. He sleeps outside the flat, in the corridor, and every time I pass the flat I get pleas for help from him. I have approached a number of homes and the difficulty I find is that a number of these homes say, "It is very difficult to take him, a Muslim man, because of the catering difficulties." He is not the only one. There are others in my constituency who should really be in homes.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, another supplementary question. The Minister has spoken of some of them having problems with their contractors. Would the Minister say how are these problems dealt with by whoever is responsible for dealing with them in the army?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, two supplementary questions for the Minister. Would he say whether they are all employed at HDB sites or are they also employed on private construction sites? Secondly, do these workers come under the supervision and control of the contractor, or do they come under the supervision and control of the army or unit to which they are attached?”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $55,933,300 for Head 0 ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $14,000,000 for Head 0 ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.”
“Let us stick to the subject in hand. May I just say this? The Minister asked earlier, is this expenditure on the planes depriving Singaporeans of anything? And I say it is. At the moment, our Singaporeans are not getting the proper medical care and, of course, I am not talking about the rich. I am talking about the poor who are not getting enough by way of public assistance. They are not getting enough, the handicapped, the maimed, the deaf, the dumb. They are being deprived. And the Government is ready to spend a billion dollars on something which we, certainly in the Workers' Party, are not convinced and I am sure the majority of Singaporeans are not convinced.”
“No, it is not that I am ashamed of that. An hon. Member: You are.”
“Sir, the Minister digs into past history. That is all he can do at the moment instead of trying to answer the case for the Government on the purchase of these E-2C planes. As regards the National Party of Singapore, he quotes reports in Utusan Melayu. I am not responsible for what appeared in Utusan Melayu. I remember there were discussions but I do not know that they drew up a constitution for the Party. Then he talks about something else, that perhaps I was talking with Mr Charlie Seow in 1971. Let us not rake up all these. An hon. Member: He is ashamed!”
“Just briefly, Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission.”
“So let us be realistic about our capabilities. Let us be realistic about what is possible within the resources available to us. We cannot just close our eyes to our capabilities and the realities. The reality is open to us and we should not just incur expenditure in imagining enemies at our doorstep.”
“It is not a defeatist attitude. But one has to be realistic about the matter. You talk about not letting anyone think that you are a weakling and that you will be prepared to stand up. On the other hand, if you know that there is someone in front of you or somewhere, a person who is very strong, who is a giant, you do not go shaking your fist at his nose and say, "Look here, we can do this to you." You try and keep out of his path. You try and be friendly, develop friendly relations.”
“Why are we suddenly having all this build-up over TV, in the papers, about being ready to meet the enemy, about preparations to commandeer private vehicles, lorries, heavy vehicles, in the event of a war?" He said, "Are we really in peril at the moment?" He said that this sort of publicity would only add to the anxiety of Singaporeans. Why do we have to build up this anxiety, this neurosis, as if they do not have enough of other worries and problems? You must take care that, whilst you must be ready, you must not build up an over-anxious people about your security. That is important psychologically. Your publicity about this may have an opposite effect. People might get panic stricken and worry about the threat to Singapore's security from outside. I would ask the Minister again, movement of which country's planes or ships are these planes supposed to keep watch? May I again put one more question through you, Mr Chairman, Sir? This was asked me. I am passing on a question that was asked me by one of my constituents; "Well, Mr Jeyaretnam, would you ask him in Parliament? Suppose we saw the Russian Navy in full steam ahead, saying across its bows, Singapore, here we come! You have these planes. They will report back to you. What can we do against Russia?" An hon. Member: Defeatist!”
“Well, somebody, I do not have eyes at the back. Somebody said, "Vietnam". I think it is important that you should know who it is you are guarding against. I was looking at the Asia Year Book about the build-up in these various countries. They say about Vietnam, about the aircraft. They say that most of them are probably inoperable because of the lack of US spare parts now. Do you really worry about Vietnam sending its squadron of fighters across into Singapore? Some years ago there was mention, and I hope it has not been abandoned, about a zone of peace for this area. The Minister says that I am like a blind man, or rather because it is sunshine I do not expect any rain at any time. But the Minister himself was saying that he expects this region to be peaceful for the remaining years of the decade. Well, I say yes to that. Then, why do you want to go and incur this expenditure at the moment without really spelling out its usefulness to Singapore's defence? What role will these planes play? I really have not heard anything from the Minister to satisfy me that these planes have a definite role in the defence of Singapore and against whom? Finally, Sir, this build-up of publicity. May I tell the Minister that whilst we are, of course, agreed that Singapore should always be prepared, may I tell him about what was told to me by a businessman? He is somebody who was born in Singapore, lived in Singapore all his life and he is extremely loyal to Singapore. He is not one of those who want to run down Singapore's defence. Whatever you may say, Mr Minister. He said, "Mr Jeyaretnam, what is all this sudden hysteria about?”
“The question is, I repeat, you have got to know who are you preparing to defend against? It is important. It is no good saying that we have got to be prepared. It is like in the days of the Communist bogey. Everyone was told that he must look under the bed to see if there was a Communist under the bed. Who is your enemy in Singapore? The Minister has talked about the internal threat, about insurrection, that it might blow up any time because of our multi-racial society. Do you want the planes for that purpose? Surely not. Against whom will these planes serve any purpose? Is it against Vietnam? Because somebody behind me yesterday interjected, "Vietnam". But is Vietnam at the moment capable of mounting a threat against Singapore?”
“Perhaps the Minister would agree that I should answer him on the E-2C planes at least.”
“Sir, I am grateful really to the Minister for giving me an opportunity to speak. He has asked me a number of questions and I would be very glad to deal with them. But before I deal with the Government's plan, may I answer the questions about the Workers Party's stand. First of all, he refers to the publication in August 1983. I am very glad to find that even Ministers take the trouble to read the Hammer. If the Minister is honest, he will see that what we have said there is, "until we know more about it, until we know the Government's case for the purchase of these planes, we shall not support the purchase." That was the tenor of the argument. Is that not right, Minister?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not a question of sour grapes. Mr Speaker, Sir, do the taxpayers have a say or not? May I ask the Minister, do the taxpayers have a say in this expense of $11 million? If they have a say, are you going to give them a say? The only way that you can give them a say is to have a referendum for this expenditure of $11 million. Mr Ong Teng Cheong: Mr Speaker, Sir, Singaporeans will have a say. We will wait and see the crowd that turns up. 3-ROOM APARTMENT BLOCKS IN TOA PAYOH (Repairs to secondary roofs) 5. Mr Liew Kok Pun asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board is aware that secondary roofs in a number of 3-room apartment blocks in Toa Payoh North in Boon Teck Constituency need to be repaired and, if so, when the repair work will be undertaken.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister what is his basis for this glib statement that Singaporeans are all very anxious - it appears from his pronouncements that Singaporeans are all ready and eager to celebrate this 25 years of nation building at a cost of $11 million. May I ask what is there for them to celebrate?”
“May I ask the Minister whether Singaporeans have been asked to celebrate nation building or 25 years of domination by the PAP?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, did he not announce - and it has been repeated ad nauseam in the papers - that we are celebrating our nationhood? Is that what we are celebrating? Maybe if we are not celebrating that, then may I know what is it that we are celebrating?”
“I want to know what you are celebrating?”
“May I ask the Minister what is it that he plans to celebrate from June to December this year which was announced in the papers?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there was an announcement -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, supplementary question for the Minister. Perhaps would he tell us who comprise the Citizenship Advisory Committee?”
“May I perhaps raise it later on after the Minister has spoken?”
“There is the northern border which has to be kept constantly under surveillance. What borders are we going to keep under surveillance? I think it is important that we should, first of all, determine the value and the use to which these planes will be put in the context of Singapore's defence and not incur an expenditure of $1 billion. We do not know what the maintenance will be. We do not know whether when they are delivered in 1987 there will be other planes overtaking the E-2C. So it is a lot of money. But I would ask the Minister to try and tell us who our enemy is, because that is important. It cannot be a secret. The people of Singapore must be told. Before I run out of my time there is another thing, Sir.”
“Vietnam? I thank you. Somebody says it is Vietnam. All right. I remember in the 1980 elections, I stand corrected, I think it was then the candidate for Anson at an election speech who said that if even only one opposition Member was elected into Parliament, the Vietnamese would be marching down the length of Malaysia. Now it is 2 years and I have not seen any Vietnamese soldiers knocking at Singapore's door. So let us not get carried away. Let us be realistic about the whole thing. The Minister of Defence is reported to have said on the 25th February this year, in introducing his Party's candidates, that barring unforeseen circumstances we should cross the remaining seven years of this decade without major mishaps. The region is expected to remain peaceful. These are his words, "The region is expected to remain peaceful." There is sufficient momentum in our social and economic growth to thrust us forward in the next few years. So you have the Minister saying, "We expect the region to remain peaceful for the rest of the decade." Again, elsewhere he talks in the same vein and he compares our defence preparations to New Zealand. But if you look at what New Zealand is spending, it is very low compared with what we are spending on our defence. Sir, we know about the capabilities of the E-2C. It can detect aircraft at a distance of about 300 miles and the radar can detect much further. But, as I said, the question is, who are we guarding against? As I understand, these planes have not been bought by several countries. The only countries who have bought these planes are Israel and Japan. But is the Minister suggesting that our situation here is comparable to the position of Israel in the Middle East? Again, Japan has problems. They have got a border with Russia.”
“And he said that Singapore was not assuming the role of policeman for the region. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is important before we go on increasing our hardware and I am glad to hear the Minister's assurance that the increase in hardware is not done for the sake of just increasing the hardware but to serve the defence of Singapore. It seems to me it is important that we should know where the threat is coming from and who our enemies are. Without knowing that, we cannot really prepare our defence. The NATO countries and the West make no bones about where the threat is coming from. They say the threat is from Russia and so the whole of their defence is directed towards meeting this threat from Russia. Where do we think our threat is coming from? An hon. Member: Vietnam. 7.45 pm”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before I say what I wish to say on this vote, may I first of all clear any misconception that may rest with the Members here and the Government as to our stand in the defence of Singapore? We are of course committed totally to the defence of Singapore. There is no running away from it and we have never said anything about abandoning the defence of Singapore. So we stand with all the Singaporeans in advocating the defence of our country. But, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are now spending something in the region of $2,113,240,000 or so on our defence for this year and it is an increase of about $274 million over 1983. As a percentage of the recurrent expenditure, it comes to - I have worked it out - nearly 27.92%. This is a high percentage, Sir. We are concerned with this escalating cost of the Defence budget. Particularly, we are concerned with the intended purchase of the E-2C planes. I have heard the Minister say this afternoon about the need for having eyes in the sky. I raised this purchase of the planes at the sitting of this House on the 30th August 1983 and the Minister of State, then replying, said, "The E-2C planes will enable the RSAF to monitor the movements of ships and aircraft." And he said it was because, "We are an international junction. Vital shipping pas- ses through the Straits of Malacca. They will also give us more time to respond to military threats should they arise." From that answer, I understood the main purpose was to guard shipping through the Straits of Malacca. Then I said that we were not the only ones who were interested in shipping through the Straits of Malacca. There were the other countries that border the Straits of Malacca and whether we were going to do the role of policeman for all of them.”
“I suppose so, Sir. We cannot get anywhere. Amendment by leave, withdrawn.”
“I have told you that you can sign with them. Mr Teh Cheang Wan: I say no. HDB will not sign with them. Don't you understand it? It is just that simple. HDB will not sign with them. And you are asking me the reason why. I say the HDB is not encouraging teenage marriage. If the teenagers want to get married, they should stay with their parents. We are not encouraging teenage marriage. So HDB is not going to relax the rule to allow any other way of signing the tenancy agreement other than those above 21 years old. That is the Government's policy. So don't get confused. As regards the investments in the MND Holdings, I might as well explain the MND Holdings' investments so that the people will not be confused. The purpose of the MND Holdings' investment is to promote the building industry. Previously the Primary Production Department was a department in my Ministry. So there is a primary industry there; it has nothing to do with the building industry. The Auditor-General's observation is on that. He said that HDB is investing into the primary industry which is not connected with the building industry. Now that the PPD is taken out of the Ministry, maybe we will review the case and there is a possibility that since PPD is taken out of MND, then HDB is totally correct in investing in MND because this is entirely for building industry now. So do not get confused. It is nothing illegal. It is because of that particular technicality at that point of time that the observation has been made. However, HDB and Government have decided that HDB will sell their shares in MND to the Government and this is in the process of negotiatory.”
“May I answer the Minister? You can either do that or even enter into an agreement with them. It is for their benefit.”
“Sir, I am sorry, but here we go round the mulberry bush. As regards that couple, I thought that was a legal problem. Now I have explained to him, it cannot be a legal problem. And he has an ex-Professor of Law sitting quite close to him and would advise him on it. We now get his astonishing statement that, "Oh, it is not Government's policy to encourage." Sir, may I tell the Minister that if it is not Government's policy then they should amend the Women's Charter and raise the age before which any one can get married. So let us not just go round and round the mulberry bush, trying to think up reasons. The other thing is about the investment in MND Holdings. Does the Minister not know - I know I did not mention it, but the Government Auditor pointed it out - the investment itself is illegal? You violated the Housing and Development Board Act in investing HDB's monies with MND Holdings. So what are we talking about? If that is not a violation, why don't you bring the monies back as soon as possible?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, for the Minister's information, I said last year, and there is no need to repeat, we all know that the HDB is not subject to the Companies Act. It is a statutory board. So we do not need repetition of it. But I am saying, as I said last year, that the HDB is a statutory board and it is fully accountable to this House and to the public to show its accounts in as genuine a position as possible, and not to hide anything. And I am saying that the accounts in not showing this unappropriated profit of $72 million which is now due to the HDB, the HDB is misleading the public on its accounts. It is as simple as that. We know the HDB is not liable under the Companies Act. And so the HDB takes advantage of it and goes on not showing this in its accounts. Another question that arises is this. Why have these unappropriated profits been left with MND? Should the HDB not bring it into its own accounts as if it had been invested by the HDB? Even if it is just put on fixed deposit, it will be bringing in income for the HDB. This is criminal waste of HDB monies leaving them without being put to earn anything else. What is the purpose? The last time when the Minister spoke about this, I asked him why was it left with MND, he gave a statement about Members seeing a lot of lorries going around with "R of D" on them. "Members can see that they are doing a lot of work," suggesting that these monies were used to enhance the construction of industrial development of Singapore. But these monies have not been appropriated. They are lying unappropriated with MND Holdings. So may we have a relevant answer to this question: why has it not been brought into the HDB's accounts?”