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 67 of 82.
“I do not know whether he was assisted by members of the Residents Committee, but I was told there were. But the point is that they organized another procession. And what did we find? They had a dragon dance troupe or a lion dance troupe leading the children. They went round the estate. So we had a situation where, when I wrote in, I was told, "That is the law, Mr Jeyaretnam. You cannot have this dragon dance troupe accompanying the children." And I said, "So be it, if that is the law." 4.45 pm Then what do we find? We found another group, as I say, comprising the aspiring member who hopes he might one day be here participating in that group led by this lion dance troupe. I wrote in immediately after that. I said, "Look here, could you tell me whether there was a permit granted for the other group?" And what did I get? An answer that no permit at all was sought by the other group, even for a procession, whereas we complied with the law to the letter and got a permit for the procession. This reply, may I say, was not prompt in coming. I have had to press for these replies and they took six weeks, seven weeks, eight weeks, before I got any reply from the Police on a simple matter like that. I have no doubt that it had been referred to Phoenix Park headquarters and it was probably in one of the in-trays of the Minister for three weeks before they were told what they should reply because they found it embarrassing. So I said, "Are you going to prosecute or do anything about the other group?" And then again, I got no reply for a long time. Then they said, "Well, Mr Jeyaretnam, your group breached a condition of the permit we granted. The other group didn't have a permit. So we are warning both. We are not going to take any action." They think I was born yesterday.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead QB-01 of the Main Estimates. Mr Speaker, Sir, this deals with the Police Support Services Programme, ie, the management of the Police Force, planning, financial and personnel administration, public relations and publicity. In moving this amendment, may I first of all say without any hesitation that I have great admiration for our members of the Police Force, for the rank and file particularly, a lot of whom are my friends and for whom I have a great respect for the difficult conditions under which they are sometimes called upon to perform their task. But what I am here to complain is that the masters they have been asked to serve sometimes put them in situations where they are shown to be partial in the administration of the law, particularly in holding the balance between political parties. I have every sympathy for these Police officers who are put in these situations and who find the discharge of their duties embarrassing. Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may illustrate. Last year, for the Mooncake festival in my constituency, we wanted to hold a children's procession accompanied by a lion or a dragon dance troupe. We were told by the Police when we applied for the permission that on no account would a permit be granted for a lion or a dragon dance troupe to accompany the children on their rounds. So we said, "So be it. If that is the law, we will accept it." We were granted a permit and we had a procession of children with lanterns. But to our amazement, Mr Speaker, Sir, there was a counter procession in which a member from a political party who is aspiring to be the next Member of Parliament for Anson played a prominent part.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, what the Acting Minister has said is that it will take time. I will wait. I am in no hurry. Would he tell me how long it will take his over-worked Ministry to supply these figures to me? Six months?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am getting very tired of not getting answers to the questions that I ask. If the Minister is not capable, or if it is beyond his comprehension to give answers, let him resign, or say so. My questions are these and I ask for your ruling, Mr Speaker, on this Ques- tion. Is a Member of the House entitled to information or not? That is one. Second, will he please answer this question : Is it not within the knowledge of the Ministry that foreign workers are paid less than Singapore workers and what steps is he taking to ensure that Singapore workers are not being displaced?”
“I want a ruling as to whether I am entitled to this information or not as a Member of this House. Are we going to be told, "You can't have this information"? Secondly, unless they want to hide figures or information from the public, I do not know why the Acting Minister is not able to tell me whether foreign workers are being paid less than the Singapore workers. Does he know that some Singapore workers are being displaced because foreign workers are cheaper?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I will ignore all this tirade from the Acting Minister for Labour. It is completely irrelevant and just utter verbiage. But this is a point of principle, Mr Speaker, Sir.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two questions to ask the Acting Minister. May we know when we can get this information? The Minister may consider it unproductive but, with respect to him, I think this House is entitled to the information if it is sought. And I must insist on an answer to that question. So may we know when we may have this information that has been asked for? Secondly, would the Minister state whether the wages paid to these foreign workers are lower than the wages paid to Singaporeans? I have a purpose in asking this and would he answer that first?”
“I claim a Division, Sir. May I explain why, Sir? I would like to give an opportunity to Members who have spoken against it to stand up to be counted. The Committee divided: Aye, 1; Noes, 43; Abstention, 1. Aye Noes (cont.) Jeyaretnam, J.B. Lee Khoon Choy Lee Yock Suan Noes Lim Boon Heng Abbas Abu Amin Lim Chee Onn Ahmad Mattar Ng Kah Ting Ang Kok Peng Othman bin Haron Eusofe Chai Chong Yii Rohan bin Kamis Chan Chee Seng Saidi Haji Sheriff Chandra Das, S. Sesh Mui Kok Chau Sik Ting Selvadurei, P. Chin Harn Tong Tan Soo Khoon Ch'ng Jit Koon Tang See Chim Fong Sip Chee Tay Eng Soon Goh Chee Wee Teh Cheang Wan Goh Chok Tong Teo Chong Tee Ho Kah Leong Wan Hussin Zoohri Ho See Beng Wan Soon Bee Hwang Soo Jin Wong Kwei Choong Jabbar, M.K.A. Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Jayakumar, S. Yeo Choo Kok Koh Lip Lin Yeo Toon Chia Lai Tha Chai Lau Ping Sum Lau Teik Soon Abstention Lee Chiaw Meng Yeoh Ghim Seng Question on the amendment accordingly negatived. 6.45 pm”
“No, Sir. Question put, "That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by the whole sum in respect of Subhead LC-01 of the Main Estimates."”
“Sir, I am afraid that the Minister of State has not really come to grips with the problem. He has himself admitted that he does not know what the result will be. The question is: Are the means just and valid? He does not grapple with that problem and he indulges in the usual sort of harangue that we get from the Ministers and the Government bench when we make any suggestion. Sir, quite apart from that, the whole thing is also unconstitutional. I know the Minister without Portfolio has come out in public saying that it is constitutional. May I remind him that there are two Articles there - Articles 12 and 16. If one studies them carefully, one will find that the whole ruling is unconstitutional. I do not want to be told, "Challenge it in the courts." I am tolling you that if you are a responsible government you will take note of that and heed it and perhaps refer it to the courts for a ruling. That is how a responsible government acts. Would the Minister say whether, if they are not going to wait, they will refer it to the courts?”
“Sir, this ruling has, as I said, created bitterness, anger and not only among parents who do not qualify for this but even among graduate mothers. They feel insulted by this ruling. They feel insulted by the call made by the Prime Minister at the National Day Message. May I ask the Ministry - I did say this at the press conference - to withdraw this ruling or suspend this ruling until you seek the views of the electorate on this. I say again, will you stop playing at being God? God will take care of the society if you make sure that the means you adopt are valid and just in themselves. But if you resort to means which are foul, which contradict all notions of justice and equality, then be it on your head -”
“' 'Mr Frank Sherwood, Director of the National Association for Gifted Children, said it was far more important for children to be born into "loving and supportive homes" then to parents holding degrees.' Well, that is Britain, and you might think I am an Anglophile, always quoting England. But we have somebody who live in Singapore and who says he loves Singapore. He is an American, Prof. Anderson. And his letter appeared in the Far Eastern Economic Review. What does he say? He says: 'I love Singapore deeply. I hate to see it held prey to such a mistake. It is time to set the record straight. Literally, thousands of studies have definitely shown that the entire date base of the eugenics lobby is worthless.' Then he goes on, I am not going to read the whole of his letter. The results of a eugenics policy are disastrous and Singapore is already facing the price. Is it really beneficial to force half the trained competent labour force, the female half back to the inner rooms?' He says this, Mr Speaker, Sir, and this is what we have been trying to say all along: 'Creating an environment in which intelligence and original thinking can flourish, an environment characterized by freedom of opportunity, freedom of thought and freedom of expression is a proven way to increase the effective intellectual power of a society.' I would ask the Minister, and not only the Ministry of Education but the Government, to ponder over those words, that the proven way is to create an environment where there is freedom of thought and freedom of expression and freedom of opportunity. In that way, you will get the leadership that you want. You are not going to get it by this vicious policy that you are introducing, which is abhorrent and fascist.”
“I do not want to add my own views to this but, with your permission, I would like to quote the views of people who do know something about this problem of eugenics, and I am sure the Ministry is aware of these views. There was published in the Daily Telegraph, 25th January, 1984, the views of Prof. Hans Eysenck. He is, as you know, already well-known. He is Professor of Psychology at London University Institute of Psychiatry and Director of the Psychological Department at the Maudsley Hospital. He said: 'It would be quite wrong to decide the fate of a child by the intelligence of the parent.' 'The intelligence of the individual child must be taken fully into consideration. The nineteenth century scientist Michael Faraday would have been lost to the world under the Singapore scheme.' 'He advised Mr Lee, [because they all know how this originated] to drop his notion that Singapore's dock of talent would disappear if less educated women continued producing more and more babies.' 'To interfere with the genetic process is fraught with difficulties. There is the regression effect - where a dull parent might have a very bright child and vice-versa.' Then we have the views of people in the Education service in England. Mr Tim Devlin, Director of Independent Schools Information Service says: 'if this applied to the British scene I would say it was absolutely fascist and Mosleyite. It strikes men with the utmost abhorrence.' And may I say, it strikes me with the utmost abhorrence that this Ministry should conceive of this policy. He continues: 'Indeed, I should be surprised if any good school worth its salt were to cooperate with such a policy.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by the whole sum in respect of Subhead LC-01 of the Main Estimates. Sir, this deals with primary education and the subject I wish to talk about has already been touched upon and that is the admission to primary schools, the ruling that has recently been brought about. Sir, we have been told, not once but quite often, since this ruling was brought about, that the end or the purpose for which this ruling has been introduced is to correct the lop-sided procreation pattern that has emerged as a result of our family planning policy. But it has been candidly admitted that we do not know what the end will be; whether it will in fact correct this pattern and whether this new ruling policy will produce the talented children that will one day lead Singapore. Sir, this is a question of means and ends. We are not immortals. We are not Gods. We are but mortals and it is about time the Ministry of Education realized this. It is not given to us mere mortals to know what the end will be. The end lies in the hands of someone far greater than mortals. All we are required to do is to make sure that the means that we use and the means that we adopt are valid in themselves and leave the end to someone in whose hands it lies. So may I appeal to the Ministry not to play at being God but to accept the limitations that are imposed on mortals and to make sure that the means that we adopt and use are valid in themselves. Sir, we have heard of the bitterness and the anger that this ruling has created, and of the dangers of this policy and how wrong it is, as expressed by Members in this House.”
“May I ask a question, Sir? The Chairman: The amendment has been withdrawn. I think it would be a good idea to take a break now. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.”
“The result: I was made to teach Geography, a subject for which I was not trained and had no confidence dealing with it. I am not alone in this predicament. Many of my colleagues from the IE are suffering the same fate.' Thus we have Geography-trained teachers teaching History, Chemistry-trained teachers teaching Physical Education, Litera- ture-trained teachers teaching Geography, and other bewildering permutations.”
“So there we have an admission that our students for some reason or other, we do not know why, are not able to turn out good results in English. Why is that so? I do not think that was the problem in the past. Why has it become a problem now? Surely there must be something wrong. Should we not try and tackle that problem and find out why our students are not able to turn out good results in English for the 'O' levels if, as we keep saying, English is the language of administration and we need English for our economic success in Singapore? I also asked questions about the temporary teachers and we were told that in 1982 there were an average of 1,302 relief teachers. I would like to know whether the situation has improved or worsened since then. What is the position about teachers? Has the Ministry got adequate teachers, or is it still struggling to staff the schools with proper teachers? Talking about relief teachers, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to know whether these persons who are employed have 'O' or 'A' level qualifications. What subjects are they looking for when they employ these teachers? Do they take on applicants who failed in English, who failed in Maths in the GCE 'O' levels, to go and teach the primary students English and Maths? Talking about teachers, Sir, there is a letter written to the press in July 1983 after the last Budget debates. The writer of the letter, I do not know whether it is a him or her, signed as "Topsyturvy". I think that just about describes our education in this country, topsyturvy. It says: 'I've just completed training at the institute of Education and I am now with a secondary school. I majored in History at IE but to my great surprise was told upon arrival at the school that there was no vacancy for a history teacher there.”
“It is yet another instance of what I was saying on 2nd March - this House is completely ignored by the Executive. I do not want to dwell too long on that because I know I have only got 10 minutes. Now, may I move on to the 'O' level results. I asked the Minister some two or three months ago whether he would publish in a group the percentage of passes in English, Second Language and Mathematics. The reply was, "No. We can't do that because it will cost the Ministry something like $1,300 to do this analysis and to publish the information." 4.30 pm I am really surprised, amazed if I may say so, at that answer, Mr Speaker, Sir. We spend millions of dollars without batting an eyelid on things which are not so essential. Yet we cannot spend $1,300 in providing information, and I say, very valuable relevant information about our children's education. I asked for these three subjects because it must be evident to the Ministry that the passes in these three subjects are what any employer would look for. Well,l see that the Minister of State is shaking his head. But when I interview anybody, the first question I ask is: "What did you get in your 'O' level for English?" Whether we like it or not, we have said that this is our policy - English is the language of administration. We are a global city. We need English. And the answer often is, "Oh, I failed my English." Or "I only got a P6". So may I tell the Minister of State that those three subjects, able to read and write good English, able to add properly, Maths, and an ability to converse in another language, are the three subjects which most employers do look for. And I see in his reply that English is the weakest link. It pulls down the percentage of passes.”
“Yes, I shall deal with this amendment first. Sir, we are at the moment considering the estimates for the Ministry of Education. Yesterday, while debating the Budget, we heard from the Member for Rochore that the Ministry of Education was a singular failure. If I were asked to list out the failures of this Government, and I am afraid that there are more than one failure of this Government, I should put Education right at the top. As I have said before, education is one of the sacred trusts, and I do not think it needs saying that the most important task and duty of any government, more than anything else I should say, is the proper education of our children for the future of our society. And in this, may I say, Sir, we seem to be all at sea. We do not seem to know the direction we should take. We are like the driver who is lost and then makes frantic turnings hoping to get to the right direction, on the right road again. So we find that every so often policies are changed, decisions made, chopping and changing, so that the teachers are at a loss. Their morale is at a low ebb; the children are bewildered, and nobody seems to know what really is in the mind of the Ministry of Education. Sir, yesterday there was mention made about the report to the House. The Minister candidly admitted that he had not kept the promise made to this House. But he said that there were reports made to the principals. As I understood the debate as reported, the new policy in 1979 was accepted subject to a proviso, and that proviso was that the Ministry would report within two or three years the progress under the new policy introduced by the Ministry. I think it is a matter for shame and regret that this report has still not been presented to this House.”
“No, Sir. Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The sum of $48,774,970 for Head U ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $8,461,600 for Head U ordered to stand pan of the Development Estimates. Head L -”
“But you did not inform the other parties, only on the day of the Nomination.”
“- he should consider the appointment of an Elections Commission.”
“I would ask the Prime Minister that if he is not afraid of fair elections -”
“It is of the utmost importance, if we claim to be a democratic society and hold democratic elections to Parliament, that the elections should be seen to be democratic, not just a statement that we are a democratic country and we hold elections democratically. It should be seen to be democratic, and the only way you can ensure this is to hand over the conduct of the elections to an independent body, an Elections Commission, where views of all political parties are sought and the composition is agreed by all the political parties. That way you show yourself to be a democratic society who take the conduct of elections seriously and not just a matter of mere form. We are, as I have said, very clever in observing the form while we discard the substance of the elections. I would ask the Prime Minister whether he would even now - perhaps he might say that it is too late for the next elections - consider the appointment of an Elections Commission to supervise and oversee the conduct of the forthcoming elections. Or, at least, would he call a conference of all political parties who may be interested in contesting the elections to discuss the conduct of the elections, whether they have any views to put forward about the elections, and how it should be conducted? I remember, Sir, in 1976, or 1972, we suddenly found on Nomination Day that new rules and regulations had been gazetted, changing the form of display of posters. So we were caught because we were going under the old rules. But hey, presto, the People's Action Party had everything done according to the new regulations. So it was obvious that they know about the changes before Nomination Day. They were ready. They could steal a march on all the other opposition parties.”
“The Prime Minister was surprised when I told him that to appoint a caretaker MP was to stand the principle of parliamentary representation on its head. It is, Mr Prime Minister, if you really consider it seriously because the whole idea is that the voters elect their representative into Parliament, not someone be appointed for them, like you appoint commissars in Russia or in other countries. So you are violating the whole principle of parliamentary representation, Mr Prime Minister, in having a caretaker MP for Havelock and denying the voters of Havelock their right. The other one, Sir, is the question of the conduct of elections. Again, if I may remind the Prime Minister, and I am sure he is aware, that in many democratic countries there is such a body known as the Elections Commission which has the responsibility to oversee and supervise the conduct of elections to Parliament. We have it in Malaysia, our nearest neighbour across the Causeway. We have it in almost all the other Commonwealth countries. In Singapore, Sir, way back in 1972, I remember joining with the other political parties in sending a memorandum asking for the appointment of an Elections Commission. We never got that. We did not expect it. It is now 1984 and we are still without any Elections Commission. It would appear that in Singapore elections are conducted by the Prime Minister's Department and that the Prime Minister considers the conduct of elections as his sole preserve and privilege. 3.15 pm I would urge upon the Prime Minister that the conduct of elections concerns not only him as the Prime Minister of this place but also concerns every citizen and it concerns every political party.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head U be reduced by the whole sum in respect of Subhead UB-01 of the Main Estimates. Sir, this vote is for the Elections programme and I have two matters to raise under this motion. One concerns the vacancy in this House. I raised this with the Prime Minister at the sitting of this House on 20th December of last year, and this House was told by the Prime Minister that there was nothing in the Constitution that required that the vacancy should be filled and that he did not see any need for filling the vacancy because there were elections in the pipeline as it were, although he was not able to say when the elections would be held. We will wait for him to announce the elections. Sir, may I refer the Prime Minister to Article 49 of the Constitution. ft is quite explicit, and it says: 'Whenever the seat of a Member has become vacant for any reason other than a dissolution, the vacancy shall [no "may" this time, Members of the House] be filled by election in the manner provided by or under any law for the time being in force in Singapore." I said this was amended from the Constitution that we had under the Malaysian period which required it to be filled in three months. The Prime Minister's contention was that there was no need to fill it immediately. There was no need to do anything until the general elections. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a rule of construction that where no time limit is stipulated in any provision in the law for the doing of any act, that act shall be done within a reasonable time. We have now gone on for about five months without a Member representing the voters of Havelock in this House.”
“No, Sir. Question on the amendment put, and negatived.”
“Is that all you think of - capital? The Prime Minister: Indeed. In order that the people of Singapore can have the benefits of the equipment, the knowledge, the expertise, the capital commands.”
“Does the Prime Minister not see it as amoral that you should offer citizenship to people who invest their money in this place but deny a man who has lived here for 30 years, who has worked his life in this place and has offered his loyalty to this place?”
“I know, "may." I know all about "may" and "shall". But why do you go on denying this man his citizenship and then his wife is forced out. If you want to know why his wife was forced out, I can tell you that as well but I am dealing with the son. He begged that the son be allowed to stay with him, and he was allowed to keep his son because his son was not well. But then six months later you suddenly say, "No". Why? What is the reason? You said that the Minister has given me the reasons. Would you like to see the reply from the Minister? The reasons have not been given. What I want to know is why is it not possible for this man to keep his son in Singapore? I do not want statements that, "We are a benevolent government. He has no right as a permanent resident." What you are saying is that nobody has any rights in this place. Is that what you are saying?”
“What does the Constitution provide about this? If you live here for 10 years and you have got no previous conviction and you are earning a living, you may be granted a citizenship. Some hon. Members: "May".”
“No, Sir. May I just reply to the Prime Minister since it is my motion. We have heard nothing new from the Prime Minister. We heard this the last time I raised this matter, and I expect that the next time it is raised we shall hear the same thing again. This man is a permanent resident but, as I said, he should have been a citizen and he is not being told why. The Prime Minister: Give me your reason why.”
“It even contains the right for the citizen, for the permanent resident, to demand to see his file on which his request has been dealt with. Of course, this Act excludes matters from -”
“" The Permanent Secretary's reply is quite clear - that this boy is not eligible to stay here. The question is why? Should the man not be told why he cannot keep his son? This is the sort of situation that we find ourselves in Singapore, where the citizen or the permanent resident is not told anything at all of the reasons behind any Government decision affecting his livelihood, his earnings, his stay or even the question of his applying for a passport. I can go on multiplying the instances. The Prime Minister says that the Government is accountable. He says, "we practise accountability." I should have thought that ons of the first rules of accountability is that you explain not, as a matter of general policy, broad statements but in each particular case where you deny somebody something and, where he thinks it is his right, that you explain to him why in his particular case he is not eligible for what he has asked. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is important that the Government should recognize that the citizens have rights, that they have rights to continue in their employment, in their livelihood, to stay or to do whatever that a citizen is entitled to do. And if you are going to take away any of these rights or deprive him of it, then you should explain. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have now in several countries legislation-Australia,l see, has just introduced it - the Freedom of Information Act. I think it is timely, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we considered introducing legislation on those lines which give the citizen a right to demand from the Ministries, from the Government departments, from the statutory boards, specific and detailed reasons for the rejection of any request or application made to it. Indeed, this Act, as I understand them now, go much further in some cases.”
“" I have tried to go back a number of times to ask why the application in that particular instance was not successful. And again comes the stock reply, "we have explained this before and the applicant must know." But he really does not know the reason for "we regret your application has been rejected". And so it goes on ad nauseam. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I give you one case in point? There is a man who lives in my constituency, and may I make it clear - he is not a citizen. He is a permanent resident but he should have got his citizenship years ago; he has been denied his citizenship. He has a family with children, and his wife was asked to leave Singapore and go back to Malaysia because she happened to be a Malaysian. Well, it is not about her that I am raising this matter. It is about his son. She had taken the children away with her but later, on his request, the Immigration Department gave him permission to keep one of his sons in Singapore because the boy was not in good health and needed to be looked after in a children's home, and he had provided for this in Sembawang. But six months afterwards the Immigration Department suddenly reversed its stand and said, "No, you have got to take the boy out." And the man came to me and I appealed to the Immigration Department, and the stock reply was, "He can't. He is not eligible at all to stay here." The father is a permanent resident and he has been working here for many many years. Then I wrote to the Minister and I sent a carbon copy of it to the Prime Minister to explain the sort of reply that I was getting and would he do something about it; or would he rather that I raised it in Parliament. And the answer came back from the Prime Minister, "You raise it in Parliament.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head U be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead UA-01 of the Main Estimates. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the vote for the Administration programme of the Prime Minister's Office and, as you will see in the Budget, the objective is to coordinate activities of the Ministries and the general policies of the Government. It is on a matter concerning the policy of the Government that I am moving this amendment, Mr Speaker, Sir, and that is the accountability of the Government and the various Ministries to the citizens and residents in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the 3rd December, 1982, I asked the Prime Minister a question as to whether he would consider directing all Ministries that in cases where they reject any application from a citizen or make any decision which impinges on the rights of the citizen, they should give detailed reasons for their rejection or decision. In other words, I was asking the Prime Minister whether he would direct all Ministries to account for their decision when they turn down any request from a citizen. The Prime Minister's reply was that his Government had explained its policies again and again and no other government had taken the trouble that his Government had taken and that every body understood the policy and that the rules could not be bent for anyone. And he said that if I did not understand the reason for anything, I could bring it up in this House again when I got a reply from the Ministry. Well, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have had several replies, not one, from Ministries when I take up matters on behalf of citizens concerning be it citizenship, or be it licences for various things, and the stock reply, Mr Speaker, Sir, is, "we regret that the application is not successful.”
“Sir, are we to understand from the Hon. Minister's reply that the NUS suddenly discovered before the Prime Minister visited the University that a lot of the trees were rotten and unsightly?”
“Is the Minister seriously suggesting that these people earning $470 or above should spend 90% of all their CPF monies every month for the purchase of a flat and then five years later they should sell them? Where are they going to live after that? Or that they can sell the flat when they stop working. Where are they going to live? What is going to happen to their families? Who is going to look after them? Can the Minister answer all these questions?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a supplementary question. These figures are all very good on paper. Does the Minister really expect these families to spend all their savings in CPF on the purchase of three-room flats? And what are they left with to live when they retire? Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Sir, I think the hon. Member for Anson has got it all mixed up. He cannot use his CPF money for anything else other than for the purchase of HDB flat. Buying an HDB flat is a good investment. If he purchases a three-room HDB flat now, as time goes on the value of the HDB flat will appreciate. If the hon. Member has read the advertisements today in the Straits Times or asks his Party members to look up the Chinese newspapers, he will see the selling prices. After five years' occupation of an HDB flat, a person can sell his HDB fiat and make a handsome profit. So by purchasing an HDB flat, he does not only have a home, a nice home in a nice estate, but also a good investment.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a supplementary question for the Minister. The Minister says that applicants are advised to switch to the sales register. Is the Minister aware that in many many cases, these applicants are unable to purchase their own flats? What does the Housing and Development Board expect these persons who cannot afford to pur- chase HDB flats to do when they are evicted or they find themselves without any house to live in in Singapore? Is it not the duty of the Ministry to try and house these people?”
“If you rule that it should be a show of hands, then I want my vote to be recorded.”
“He does not touch on the budget. I said if you want it, then you will have it.”
“I want a ruling from you, Mr Speaker, Sir.”
“But if he wants a debate on parliamentary democracy, we can meet outside if he likes.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Member for Kuo Chuan wants a debate on parliamentary democracy, I am ready to take him on. But in this debate, we are talking about the Budget, Mr Speaker, Sir, and you reminded me of it. So I trust you will remind the Member for Kuo Chuan -”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. Mr Selvadurai resumed his seat.”
“No. I am talking about how the Government has cared for and looked after its responsibilities to its citizens and that is in the Budget Statement. I want to conclude very shortly. As I stated, you have a duty not just to look after the captains of industry - of course, they need to be - but you also have to look after the others. And labour has a part. Then there are also the less well-to-do, the handicapped, the maimed, the underprivileged people. What have you done for them in this Budget? What provision has been made in this Budget to make life easier for them? May I tell the Minister and the Government that in the ultimate analysis, you will only be remembered by how well you have taken care of the citizens who needed to be taken care of. You are not going to be remembered because you have got a futuristic airport in Singapore or that you have got wonderful shopping complexes sprouting all over the place. You will be remembered, when history comes to be written, how you took care of the people who needed to be taken care of. I say that you have failed completely in that respect. This Budget Statement, as I have said at the beginning when I started, takes no account whatsoever of the needs of those who are earning below $10,000 a year, and quite a lot of them are earning much less than that. We have completely neglected them. The Budget does not address itself to them and they form the majority of the people in Singapore. It is your rich, the wealthy, that you are looking after. In that respect you have dismally failed, and for that reason I shall vote against this Budget Statement.”
“I think it is time that we moved away from the idea that the workers are there simply to work, that they have no share in decision-making in the companies, just as we are saying that our people have a share in the decision-making of the Government. And that is our policy, that every citizen must share in the decision-making of the Government. Workers must share in the decision-making of the companies and must not be excluded. If you do that, you will find that productivity will rise. Mr Speaker, Sir, this year we are told that we are going to celebrate National Day from June to September and we are told it is because it is the 25th year of our nationhood. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say that (I do not want to spend too much time on this) it is not the 25th year of our nationhood. We only became a nation in 1965. But that is in passing. I will deal with that later. But it is obvious why we are celebrating this National Day from June to September. We are celebrating 25 years of this rule, the domination of Singapore by one Party. That is abundantly plain.”
“You will find that a small but growing number of unions now are in positions inside corporations to question and influence decisions about product development, capital investments, plant closings, compensation and corporate leadership. Through seats on Boards of Directors, labour leaders are gaining access to financial information and plans for expansion, subsidiaries and affiliates. The President of the American Arbitration Association, Mr Robed Coulson, is quoted. He says, I do not think it needed saying, but he says it: 'it is a recognition that workers have an interest in seeing their employers prosper and that in many cases management decisions are better if the experience and knowledge of the workers are listened to and tested against the real world of the assembly line.' Then, if I may quote again from this report what was said by the Labour economist, Audrey Freedman, of the Conference Board. She says: 'in sharing information about business as well as profits and stock, employees become more than mere wage takers.' That is important. We must make our workers feel that they are more than just wage takers. She goes on to say: 'They become engaged with the place they work. They feel part of the enterprise and put forward their best effort. That can only be for the better.' Mr Speaker, Sir, it as somebody said, and it has been said again and again that our only resource are our people, and if you look at it, the only resource are our workers, we have got to see that they are rewarded, not unfairly, not that they should take the major portion of the cake or the profits, but they be rewarded equitably for the work that they have put in.”
“It would be best if public sector enterprises took a lead in this direction. We would hope eventually to see the employees of the public sector companies owning the majority of ,shares with the result that they share directly in the need for risk-taking and improvements in effi- ciency which at present involves only management. The Minister must be aware that it is standard practice in the advanced capitalist countries, and we favour the capitalistic economy, for senior management to receive part of their remuneration in the form of shares in the company they work for. Why should this not be extended to the workers? I have tried to show, Sir, that despite the claim made by the Minister, productivity has indeed fallen over the last two years. It certainly has if you calculate productivity by the method that I have spelt out. So it becomes of increasing urgent importance that now new steps be explored to increase productivity. It is no good just talking about company welfarism. You cannot just leave it to the companies. Workers are not recipients of charity. It is time we rid ourselves of that idea, that workers are only recipients of charity. We have got to accept that workers have a significant contribution to make and that they should be given full rein to play their part in increasing productivity. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is timely that there was a report filed by the US News and World Report about what is happening in America, the capitalist country and what do you find there. I read from this report filed by the US News and World Report and carried by the Straits Times.”