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 68 of 82.
“" Would he tell us exactly how he intends to promote the process or his Government intends to promote the process? Mr Speaker, Sir, again I am sorry to repeat or refer to what I have said earlier. In previous Budget Statements, I said that it was time that this Government moved on in the area of employer/employee relations and not cling on to archaic ideas. I heard a Member speak about politicians with archaic ideas. It seems to me that if anybody has got archaic ideas, it is this Government. I said, "What about the Government moving on to give the workers a share in the company, equity sharing and power sharing, so that they have a stake in the companies that they work for?" If you give them a stake, if they have a share in the profits that are earned by the company, then you will find that they will turn out better work. It is no good preaching to them. No amount of preaching is going to do that. It has got to be something positive given to them so that they can respond to it. Is it not time, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government thought of a scheme linking workers' pay directly to the productivity and profitability of the enterprises for which they work? This could be dons by linking yearly bonuses to a fixed percentage of total current cost profits as defined by standard accounting conventions. It should also be possible for workers to participate directly in the ownership of the companies they work for. This could be done through the distribution of bonuses for long serving employees in the form of equity. Tax incentives could be given to private sector companies to encourage them to do this. In addition, part of the employers' CPF contribution might take the form of equity in the companies themselves.”
“" He says in page 31 in Section I of his Budget speech that a fundamental requirement is better pay for better work, and of course no one could quarrel with that, He says: "One of the fundamental requirements for success in our economic restructuring is to ensure that better work is rewarded with better pay." And as I said, no one could quarrel with that and it is only right that you should reward hard work, better work, with adequate pay. The Minister goes on to say that his Government had "started last year to move away from the tripartite collective wage negotiations conducted at the national level and instead to promote union-employer wage bargaining at the individual company level." Well, it is all very good on paper, Mr Speaker, Sir. But if you are going to promote union-employer wage bargaining, you have got to give some clout to the unions. I spoke sometime ago when the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill was passed and I said then - and I say it again - that our trade unions in Singapore are completely powerless. They are at the mercy of the Government and the employers. So how are they, the company unions, going to promote wage bargaining? I refer to the amendments that were made to the Industrial Relations Act by this Government and to the amendments made to the Employment Act which took away the powers of the trade unions to negotiate with the employers. Will the Minister assure the House that some of these powers will now be restored to the unions so that they may have some power to negotiate with the employers? However, after saying this, he brings in a word of caution. He says; "It will be dangerous to rush the process." Well, he says it in one breath and in the next breath says, "We are going to promote this, but we must be careful.”
“So would the Minister perhaps give us an answer to that as well when he replies? I am sure the Minister would perhaps say that whatever I have said does not need any reply. I would ask him not to hide behind that but to try and reply to this. That is one way of dealing with a matter. If you cannot answer, you say, "i do not think he needs a reply." And everybody thinks it is very clever. If I may now turn to the objectives in the 1984 Budget which are given in Section 11, Mr Speaker, Sir. It says: "The FY 1984 Budget is accordingly directed towards three objectives: (i) restraining the increase in Government spending; (ii) encouraging greater efficiency and productivity in companies; and (iii) rewarding individual enterprise and hard work." If I may take the first objective - restraining the increase in Government spending. I say amen to that because I have mentioned before, and I see that the Member for Rochore has mentioned it - the increase in Government spending. I asked sometime ago whether a commission could be appointed to examine the Government expenditure on manpower to see whether any economies could be effected. I notice that our expenditure on manpower is going up by another 6% in the sum of $102 million. Perhaps could the Minister explain how his Government proposes to restrain increase in Government spending, and what Government spending is he proposing to restrain? What measures do the Government have in mind for restraining the increase in Government spending? The other objectives are "encouraging greater efficiency and productivity in companies and rewarding individual enterprise and hard work.”
“This would seem to give the lie to the claim that productivity in the manufacturing sector has been rising. If you work it that way, you find that productivity has indeed fallen over 1982 by about 1.4%. There is but another way of calculating productivity and I am sure the Minister will acquaint the House of that. I understand, however, that the more accepted method now of calculating productivity is the method that I have outlined. That is a more popular method. But whatever it is, is it not incumbent on whoever produces these statistics and makes the claim to explain how they have arrived at this figure? Because if there are two ways of calculating this and they prefer to choose one method to show the figure that promotes their case or justifies what they have done, is it not incumbent on them to explain that there is yet another method but that they prefer their method of showing how productivity has risen? Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand it is made worse if you take the 1968 prices. I do not want to spend too much time over this because I have a number of other things to speak on and I shall soon be told that my time is up. But it is important that when you present an economic survey for a year or so, you show how you arrive at your figures so that people may understand them. But before I leave that subject, may I also mention in passing about the growth of the GDP. Again, claim has been made about the remarkable growth in GDP. What I want to ask the Minister - this is in passing - is how much of the growth in the GDP is attributed to foreign workers and foreign employees in Singapore, and how much of it goes to the indigenous workers and people working in Singapore. I am told that if you do attempt an examination, it will be very revealing.”
“As I said, the Minister has delivered a shining panegyric of his Government's achievements during 1983. We have been told that our economy is in robust health. May I, Mr Speaker, Sir, question one claim that is made in this Statement and which appears in the Economic Survey of Singapore report as well and, that is, the question on productivity which, of course, we have been told over and over again that it is very vital. It is dinned into our people's heads from morning to night over the television, press, sides of buses and taxis. Now we are told that last year has been a shining success. We are told that productivity in the manufacturing sector has risen by some 8.8% during 1983 over the 1982 figure. I would like to know, Mr Speaker, Sir, and if the Minister will clarify this in his reply, how does the Statistics Department make its calculations, because there is no explanation accompanying the table showing how the figure was arrived at. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are, I understand, two ways of calculating the growth rate of productivity. One way is by using the table which appears in the Economic Survey of Singapore at cols. 703-4. In cols. 703-4 of the Economic Survey, we find details of output, employment, remuneration, establishment, value added and exports of the Manufacturing sector. We do not know whether the prices are current prices or whether they are prices of a previous year. If he takes the figure for the value added and divide this by the number of workers, we get a surprisingly different story from the Government's claim of 8.8%. Value added per worker at current prices peaked in 1981 at $34,420. That is by this method, Mr Speaker, Sir. You divide the value added by the number of workers. In 1981 it was $34,420. By 1983, it had declined to $33,437.”
“How does the estate duty remission square with your philosophy of only rewarding hard work? Mr Speaker, Sir, I am all for simplifying the estate duty. But what I did not expect the Minister to do is to give these massive sums back. We find that in an estate of just over $5 million, the tax relief in estate duty comes up to nearly $889,000. Mr Speaker, Sir, is this relief a reward for hard work? BUt who will benefit by this relief? It is the descendants of the man who has worked hard. But is it rewarding them, or is it encouraging them if you give it away to them without taxing adequately the inheritance that they are receiving from the labours of their father or grandfather? I see that the celebrated Dr Winsemius, to whom reference has been made already a number of times in this House, has said, "Money has to be earned." How have these persons who benefit from huge sums left to them earned the inheritance? So I ask again, how do you square your philosophy of rewarding only hard work with this massive relief in estate duty for the big estates? I can well understand and I think there is a need to give relief in the case of small estates, the families who have worked hard, who own a home, a family home. I can very well see that, and they should get relief. But at the same time, what is the justification for cuffing down so substantially the estate duty on huge estates that have been left? Mr Speaker, Sir, so I say the Budget is contradictory to this philosophy of the PAP. Would the Minister say whether he does not consider that his proposals in the Budget of these give-aways really run counter to the PAP philosophy or not? May I move on, Mr Speaker, Sir, to the first part of the Minister's Statement in glowing terms about our economy.”
“So I do not understand the Minister's statement that every one must pay income tax because they must not be allowed to get away with the idea that Government will provide services free. Our citizens have never been allowed to forget by this Government that everything has to be counted in terms of money; that there is no question of humanitarian needs, compassion, but everything must be calculated in cold, hard money. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I continue. The PAP philosophy - and we hear this often, it is dinned into our citizens' ears, I hear this in the House - is that there should be no subsidy. Subsidies are bad. It encourages people to be slothful, to not work. It encourages indolence. The PAP philosophy is that there should be no subsidy and that only hard work should be rewarded. May I ask the Minister seriously: what is the enhanced child relief if it is not a subsidy? Is that not a subsidy? You say that you need to subsidize these graduate mothers by giving them relief from income tax so that they may bring up their children. If that is not a subsidy, I do not know what is. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, what do we make of the PAP's philosophy that there should be no subsidy? Is it not really that the Party adopts double standards? What you are really saying is, "Yes, we believe in subsidy for the rich. We believe in subsidy for the wealthy but we don't believe in any subsidy for the working man. He will have to work." That is the son of double standard. That is talking with a forked tongue that we are accustomed to from this Government, Mr Speaker, Sir. Then about rewarding hard work. Well, I agree you must reward hard work but how have you rewarded the workers for the hard work that they have contributed?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I give you the figures for a family of husband and wife earning $8,000? The tax in Singapore at 4% works out to $86.40, after giving the reliefs that they are entitled to. And the Malaysian tax works out to $16.80. You will find that the Singapore family is paying five times the tax that the Malaysian husband and wife are paying. I ask the Minister why was it not possible to consider increasing the reliefs, raising the threshold at which the incidence of tax begins to fall? Would there have been a great loss to revenue if that was done? The Minister says the PAP philosophy is that tax must be collected from as great a number as possible. "The tax base", he says, "should be as wide as possible because we do not want anyone in our society to fool that the Government will provide services for free. They must know that they have to pay for the services." But may I ask the Minister: what services are being provided free by the Government here? Mr Speaker, Sir, I was asked a question recently by somebody in my constituency. He says, "Mr Jeyaretnam, why are we paying income tax in Singapore? What benefits are we getting from our payment of income tax?" Because for every service that is provided by the Government there is a charge - I do not say the total charge but there is a charge for it. The patient goes into hospital, he has to pay. And we know that the charge for Class C rates has been raised quite considerably. To educate your children, there is a charge. I know the myth about free primary education in Singapore but parents are paying every month. Every parent knows this. So what is being provided free? There is nothing that is being provided free.”
“I then referred in that Budget Statement to the reliefs that were given across the Causeway, and I pointed out that the reliefs there were more substantial than what were being given in Singapore. And the Minister in replying to my point on this said, "Oh, it doesn't really make very much difference because the rates are different. We start at a lower rate. We start at 4% whereas they start at 6%." He said, "You will find that the difference in the rates even out, and that we are not really taxing our workers earning below $7,000 to $8,000 anything more than what the Malaysian workers are paid." I am afraid, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Minister was entirely wrong in that answer. I would not say that he has deliberately misled the House in making that reply. I would not want to accuse him of that. But I am afraid he has got his figures all wrong. We produced a survey of this in our Party newspaper of May, 1983, and in case the Hon. Minister has not seen that, it is sent regularly to the PAP headquarters. We compared the position of a family in Singapore and in Malaysia, just a husband and wife, Mr Speaker, Sir, without any children, earning $8,000. What do we find? The table is there. We find that the husband and wife in Singapore earning $8,000 paid tax about five times that of a husband and wife in Malaysia earning the same amount. It is not only that, Mr Speaker, Sir, but a husband and wife in Singapore earning $8,000 a year had a net income of only $6,160 after his CPF deduction, whereas a husband and wife in Malaysia had a not income of $7,280. Clearly, the family in Malaysia is better off than the family in Singapore. Again, a husband and wife earning $7,000 in Singapore will pay tax of $55.60 on their income but the same family in Malaysia will not pay any tax.”
“Perhaps I must not completely ignore something, and that is, the Minister has thrown a little crumb to them. He says, "All right, I am giving cakes away to the rich, the well-to-do, the people who have got the money. Well, here is a little crumb for you. You take it." And he says, he has given a crumb of 10% rebate on the tax payable by these people. What does it work out to? The figures, given by the Minister himself ranged from about $10, the average reduction in tax, to about $48 for those who have a chargeable income of about $10,000. I suppose the workers must go down on their knees and thank the Hon. Minister for this little crumb that has been thrown into their basket or into their lap. But it makes a mockery. It is a mockery when you compare it with the reliefs that have been given to the others in our society. You see, on the other end of the scale in income tax, the reliefs that are given to those who are paying income tax at higher rates beyond 30%. We find that the highest relief comes to about $52,000. And with that, we have to contrast the $10 given to the worker. Why is it considered necessary to give to persons earning more than $750,000 a relief in the very significant sum of $52,000? If the Minister wished to satisfy his conscience, could he not have considered increasing the personal relief of the individual, the relief for the wife? I have spoken on this at length in last year's Budget Statement, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I do not wish to repeat it. All I want to say is this. That the personal reliefs that are now being accorded are less than what we were given in 1947, and that is nearly 40 years ago.”
“And we of course heard this afternoon that it would be very difficult to fault the Budget Statement. I wonder if that is the reason why we have only set aside one day for the debate on the Budget Statement. It has been assumed that there will be nothing to criticize. Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may attempt to criticize this Budget. This Budget is a budget that rewards the rich and capital. It is a budget designed in the main to put more money, as I said previously in other budget speeches, into the pockets of those who already have enough and to spare. It completely ignores the sector in our society who do not have enough money even to make their ends meet. Sure, Mr Speaker, Sir, there are a lot of give-aways. We have the give-aways for the graduate mothers with children and now extended to mothers with five 'O' levels. We have the give-aways in the form of the relief in estate duty for those who have amassed huge fortunes and who can afford to leave estates worth millions of dollars. We have give-aways for those who have invested in our economy. I am not complaining of that. Of course, it is necessary. You have got to encourage investment in our industry, in our economy. But the Government's financial policy, and this is a repetition of what I said previously, must address itself to all sectors. And I ask: what is there in this Budget that gives the average working man any joy? There is plenty of joy as I said for the rich, for the wealthy, for the well-to-do. But what is the joy for the average working man in this Budget? The overage working man in the manufacturing sector is earning, according to the statistics in the Economic Survey, $156 per week. It works out to roughly about $600 to $700 per month. What joy does he have in this?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I am challenged, may I declare my pecuniary interest before I speak on the Budget Statement, because I stand to gain by the income tax rebate that has been given by the Hon. Minister? Having said that, may I say that having regard to what the Leader of the House said at the last sitting -that this House is all PAP - I do not suppose anything that I do say here will have any effect or notice taken of. But be that as it may, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am here to speak on behalf of those in our society who have been neglected completely by the Minister in presenting his Government's policy for the year ahead. And, of course, I am referring to the working class who, may I say, have contributed in no small measure to the economic growth of Singapore. I have said this before and I say it again. But we find in this Budget Statement of the Minister not even a recognition of the part played by this sector of our society and therefore it is largely for them and for the less well-to-do people that I am here to speak. I am not here to speak on behalf of the wealthy, the captains of industry. I am sure they are well taken care of by the Hon. Minister and his Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether this was deliberate or not but the Sunday Times in its front page carried a photograph of the dismal scene in Singapore after the deluge of rains we had. And it said, "After the Budget sunshine, the dismal gloom in Singapore." Sir, that may I say summed up beautifully what Singaporeans felt about the Budget, and I am talking about the majority of the Singaporeans. The press no doubt on the dictates of its masters tried to drum up a euphoria as soon as the Budget was presented. Everything was presented in glowing terms.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like the Acting Minister for Labour to answer specifically to questions. Does he not realize that Mr Phey Yew Kok has been charged with embezzlement of sums of money? Has any action been taken by the unions, albeit on his advice, to proceed against properties owned by him in Singapore? Has it been done? Secondly, would the Acting Minister please tell this House whether it is intended to hold any public inquiry at all into the loss of these monies? Or is it not going to be held? It is no good saying that I am insinuating cover-ups. All I can say is that the cap fits. I am sorry about it. But you have got to answer.”
“May we know what action has been taken to recover any of these monies? We understood that Mr Phey Yew Kok or his wife have some properties. Has any action been taken to recover these sums?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a supplementary question. This question by the way, Mr Speaker, was addressed to the Prime Minister because I asked him these questions about 18 months ago, and it is arising out of that that I raise these questions today. But I see it is being directed to the Acting Minister for Labour to answer. Be that as it may, Mr Speaker, Sir, we understood from the Prime Minister when he answered this that -”
“May I ask the Minister just one more question and, that is, has he considered bringing all these farmers into a son of cooperative so that they could farm more economically and meet the standards required?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a supplementary question for the Minister. But before I ask him the supplementary question, may I say that I am indebted to him for his lengthy exposition on pig farming and how it could be economically carried out. But I am a little surprised that the Minister should take umbrage at my question. He says no one has been dispossessed. But now I understand that there were 71 farmers who held licences on a TOL basis. I am indebted to him to learn that now action will be withheld. So do I understand the Minister to say that the notices to quit addressed to the other 70 will be withdrawn, because one of them committed suicide, as we know, after receiving this notice to quit. [Laughter] It is no laughing matter, Members. One of them committed suicide because he was distressed by this notice to quit. Am I to understand that the notices to quit served on the other 70-odd farmers had been withdrawn and that no precipitate action will be taken against them?”
“Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document.”
“Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document.”
“Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document.”
“Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document.”
“Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document.”
“Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. " Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document.”
“What I said was that a Committee be appointed, not to look into another Committee, but into the whole question of how Parliament can exercise better control over the Executive. That is very important if you believe in Parliament. Mr Barker: Why should Parliament control the Executive? Where in the Constitution does it say that Parliament controls the Executive? Sir, I am reading from the Constitution: 'The executive authority of Singapore shall be vested in the President and exercisable subject to the provisions of this Constitution by him or by the Cabinet or any Minister authorised by the Cabinet." That is the Executive. On the Legislature, it says: 'The Legislature of Singapore shall consist of the President and Parliament." That is it. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Parliament controls the Executive. We work together. And as I pointed out to the Member, the Executive is all PAP. This House is nearly all PAP. Who do we report to? The hon. Member? Surely not! [Applause]. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That Parliament do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen minutes past Six o'clock pm to Monday, 12th March 1984. Appendix I - INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX REDUCTION UNDER REVISED RATES SCHEDULE FROM YEAR OF ASSESSMENT 1985 (Cols. 469 - 470) Appendix II - DUTIES ON CIGARETTES AND TOBACCO (Cols. 471 - 472) Appendix III - DUTIES ON LIQUORS (Cols. 473 - 474) Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document. Please refer to Hansard document.”
“--- to look into the whole question of the role of Parliament and also about the rights of Members, whether a Member is entitled to information from Ministries. I have been withheld information by Ministries. Is that not a contempt of Parliament?”
“I would ask that a Committee be appointed ---”
“Five seconds, Mr Speaker, Sir! I would ask, Mr Speaker, Sir, your indulgence.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have asked to speak today on the Motion for the Adjournment on a subject which I consider very important for us to examine in our society. It is not, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I assure you and the Members, a mere exercise in academics nor is it due to a craving for publicity which I am sure will be attributed to me by our press from the Ministry of Propaganda. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is perhaps appropriate that I should raise this and the subject, of course, is what role do we envisage for Parliament (this body that gathers here in this Chamber) in the task of governing ourselves in Singapore. It is, as I said, perhaps appropriate that we should examine this question because it is possible that before the end of the year there may be elections for a new Parliament, as the life of this Parliament comes to an end. We shall be spending quite a large sum of money in providing for elections to Parliament. Not only that, Parliament itself the institution, costs us something like $6 million annually, paid out of taxpayers' money. So it is not a mere academic exercise. It is perhaps also an economic question - whether the taxpayers are getting value for the $6 million which they are asked to pay every year.”
“If it is felt that the courts should not be burdened with all this, then cannot consideration be given to the setting up of a tribunal which will hear an appeal and will give the person who appeals a right to be heard fully and will also acquaint him of the objection and the reasons of the Commissioner for his decision. As I said, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is alarming that at every opportunity powers are given to civil servants, ministers and others without sufficient safeguards provided for the citizen's rights and without sufficient remedies given to him. I would ask the Minister whether he would consider all this.”
“What I want to know is: Will the Commissioner when he gives this notice to the applicant or to the licensee set out quite clearly the reasons why he wishes to revoke the licence. And if there is any breach of any or more conditions, will he spell out what are the conditions breached? Or will he merely write to the licensee or to the applicant and say, "i propose to revoke your licence. Will you please show cause why I should not do so?" We have then a Kafka situation, where the poor man does not know what he is accused of and he is asked to defend himself against something of which he knows nothing, a case which often happens. Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may draw by way of analogy - taxi drivers. They are told they cannot see the complaint that is made against them. That is the sort of situation I am speaking of. May I ask the Minister, if it is not possible to spell it out in the Bill itself today, whether he would consider setting out by way of rules and regulations the various procedures that must be taken by the Commissioner before he exercises these powers, and to see that these rules and regulations contain sufficient safeguards and remedies or rights for persons who feel they may be wronged and may be aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is the provision for a notice of appeal. Again, on paper it sounds very good. There is an appeal to the Minister. But why is it not possible to provide for an appeal to the courts? Because the decision concerns the business activity of some of our citizens and this provision is to be found in a number of other Acts regulating business activities.”
“Then again, when we come to subsection (3) of that section 7, it says: "The Commissioner may at any time vary or revoke any of the existing conditions of a licence or impose new conditions." First of all, will he be asked to state his reasons? As I said, I have mentioned this several times before. Will the Commissioner be required to state his reasons? This Bill makes no mention of that. Then when we come to the proposed section 7D: "The Commissioner may revoke a licence if he is satisfied that the licensee - (a) is contravening or has contravened any of the provisions of this Act or any rules made thereunder; (b) has failed to comply with any of the conditions of his licence; (c) has carried on or is carrying on an employment agency in a manner likely to be detrimental to the interests of his clients." If I may skip paragraph (d) because - that does not really matter - if the licensee has ceased to carry on employment I can understand the reason for revoking, but I am concerned about the first three conditions under which the Commissioner may revoke the licence. Again, will he be obliged or required to give reasons? I am also concerned about the process by which the Commissioner will go about before he revokes the licence. The proposed section 7D(2) says: "The Commissioner shall, before revoking any licence under subsection (1), give the licensee concerned notice in writing of his intention to do so, specifying a date, not less than 21 days after the date of the notice, upon which such revocation shall take effect and calling upon the licensee to show cause to the Commissioner why such licence should not be revoked." That is all very good on paper, Mr Speaker, Sir.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the principle of this Bill which is to provide for control over persons who seek to bring in workers from overseas. I am aware of bogus operators and I support, as I said, the principle of the Bill. There is clearly a need for exercising some control over these operators and to see that foreign workers are not brought in under false pretences and left stranded in this place. But what I am not very happy about is the powers that are given to the Commissioner under this Bill and the rights or remedies that are given to any licensee or applicants for licences who may be aggrieved by any decision of the Commissioner. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is not the first time that I have spoken on this subject. I am alarmed, as I said - I suppose it cannot be helped in modern complexities of government - at the growing instances of powers given to Ministers and to civil servants without any recourse to the courts or proper redress or rights given to citizens who may be affected by the decisions. I think it is important to realize that whilst control is desirable, nevertheless, at the same time, care must be taken to see that innocent persons are not unjustly penalized or prejudiced by the exercise of powers given to the executive, be it civil servants or ministers. Mr Speaker, Sir, if one looks at clause 2 and it is the proposed now section 7, the Commissioner is given very wide powers. He may grant a licence with or without conditions or refuse to grant a licence. So there is absolute power given to the Commissioner without any guidelines as to when he may refuse them or when he may grant them.”
“Are we to understand now that the Ministry is turning its attention to training our children, not educating them but training them for the various sports? May we have that assurance that the objective of the Ministry of Education which is to educate our children will not be lost sight of in this objective of sports and physical education?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my main purpose in rising to speak on this Bill is really to ask for a clarification and for an assurance from the Minister of State for Education who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill. He said that the main purpose of this Bill is to provide for the setting up of a College of Physical Education to train teachers for physical education of pupils in schools. The present Act, Mr Speaker, Sir, in outlining the object and the purpose of the Institute Council has something to this effect - that it shall provide courses of study for the training of teachers in all fields of education. The amendment now is that it should provide training of teachers and other persons in the various fields of sports and education. I have two observations to make on this. Sports, as I understand it, is wider than physical education. The Minister says the whole object is to try and provide teachers for the teaching of physical education in schools. The second point is this. I am a bit curious as to why sports would appear, from this provision in the Act, to rank a greater priority than education. As I said, the present Act talks about "in all fields and at all levels of education." I should have thought the setting up of the College (of Physical Education) would have come within that objective. But we now have an amendment to bring in sports, and sports is mentioned before education. Are we to understand that the Ministry now proposes to divert a lot of its attention to sports rather than the education of our children? We have seen reports in the papers of the Minister of State visiting schools to inspect latrines to see that they are kept clean. That, may I suggest, is not really the purpose of the Ministry of Education.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Minister, and that is about the lead content in petrol. I asked this about two years ago. I want to know whether the Ministry is doing anything about it because the lead content, as the Minister is probably aware, has been determined as a health hazard.”
“But the arrangement of business must be in your hands, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I am asking you to consider that the composition of the House is no longer what it was before the 31st October, 1981. I am saying that the Opposition must be given an equal chance with the Government. That is my point, Mr Speaker, Sir. Some hon. Members: No. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Lee Yock Suan]. Bill considered in Committee. 5.42 pm [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Clause 1 -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may urge upon your consideration; you have got to consider that the composition of this House -”
“Mr Speaker, I do not propose to argue with you. I accept your ruling. But may I ask that I be given the opportunity to speak on the next Motion for the Adjournment?”
“As I said, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have tried to raise this, but I see that since I started this practice of raising a Matter on the Motion for the Adjournment, it has become popular. And for the last two meetings, we have had to have a ballot and I lost out on the ballot.”
“Well, I do. not know whether the Minister will be able to give an answer to that or not. But I wish to speak on it in this House.”
“But I am concerned with the way this is being applied, the delegation of a power to raise tax which is given to the Minister. It is on that that I wish to speak because, quite apart from the surcharge, section 3 of this Act gives the Minister the power to levy a tax on services provided by the statutory boards. I wish to speak on that and, generally, on the principle of delegating a power which belongs to this House or this Parliament to the Executive.”
“It is, Mr Speaker. But not on the question of the surcharge.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill proposes, as the Minister has said, to increase the surcharge from 20% to 50%. As I said, I do not really have any quarrel with that. But I want to talk, if I may, Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, on the method of how this is achieved, and that is the delegation of a power which really belongs to Parliament. It is on that that I wish to speak. I have been trying to raise this in this sitting and the last sitting by a Motion on the Adjournment, but I have not been successful.”
“Not on the point of this energy conservation surcharge.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am rising not really to oppose what this Bill proposes to do because I am all in favour of the efforts by the Government to conserve energy and to cut down waste. But if I may, Mr Speaker, with your permission, speak on something which does not directly come under this Bill; but nevertheless is related to it and is relevant. And that is this.”
“A point of clarification, Sir. I think the Minister has perhaps misunderstood the import of my remarks. It is not that I was saying you should not do anything to bring the construction industry up-to-date on its construction methods. Why is it necessary to set up a board now? Why can't the Ministry do it? What is wrong with that, instead of saying we need a board to upgrade and upgrading is essential?”
“Again, by clause 6(2), the Minister can remove any member of the Board. Do we really need a Board? Can the Minister not perhaps get a few people to do what he wants the Board to do if he has the power to appoint and fire them? I suggest to the Minister that perhaps he should spend some time doing all these things rather than setting up another board and paying salaries. 5.20 pm”
“Paragraph (d) says:- '(d) form or participate in the formation of a company;, Is it the intention that the Construction Industry Development Board should itself now take equities in companies, go into business? Is that the intention? Paragraph (e) says:- '(e) enter into a partnership or an arrangement for the sharing of profits;' There again, is it the intention that this Board should now go into business? Why? Paragraph (f) says:- '(f) charge fees or commissions for services rendered by the Board;' Again, I see it as increasing the cost. Paragraphs (g) and (h) say:- (g) promote or undertake publicity in any form; and (h) do anything incidental to any of its powers.' Mr Speaker, Sir, I would ask the Minister to take this Bill back and to give it very serious consideration, whether this is absolutely necessary or whether all these things that are proposed for this Board cannot be done by the boards that have already been set up, and by his own Ministry. This will save all the salaries that have to be paid to the members of the Board and other administrative expenses. Perhaps the savings could be channelled to the Ministry of Health to pay for the Class C hospital charges where the need is greatest, The need is not here. The other thing, Mr Speaker, Sir, is this. Again, I have complained about this when speaking on Bills setting up boards. When you come to it, you find that the entire power is vested in the Minister. You see, by clause 5, that all the members shall be appointed by the Minister. It says:- '(a) a member to be appointed as Chairman; (b) a member to be appointed as Deputy Chairman; and (c) not less than 5 nor more than 12 other members.' Then clause 6(1) says: 'A member of the Board shall hold office for such term as the Minister shall specify . .'.”
“'(h) to promote or undertake research into any matter relating to the construction industry;' I should have thought we have enough boards, enough committees, enough bodies, which are promoting or under-taking research in several matters in Singapore. So, as I see it, Mr Speaker, Sir, all these functions of the Board which are proposed in this clause 11 can be carried out without having to set up another expensive setup or organization and incurring expenditure of public monies on doing something which, I say, we have got enough bodies to do, not counting the Minister's own Ministry. Then if I may turn to clause 12 of the Bill, it says:- 'The Board shall have power to do anything for the purpose of discharging its functions under this Act, or which is incidental or conducive to the discharge of those functions . .' And it says:- '(a) provide financial assistance in the form of grants, loans or otherwise to persons engaged in the construction industry . .' Do we really need a Board so that the Government first channels the money to the Board and then the Board gives the assistance? What is wrong with the Ministry doing this? Why do we have to duplicate all this? Is it not a waste of public monies? As I say, there is a penchant for setting up boards and committees all over the place for everything you can think of. Then it says:- '(b) promote and assist in the export of services to carry out construction work overseas;' I thought recently we set up a Trade Development Board to promote trade and services outside Singapore. Paragraph (c) says:- '(C) organise courses and award diplomas and certificates of proficiency;' Here we go again. There is the VITB doing this, and now we want another board to do this.”
“Is it not within the competence of the Minister's Ministry to carry out this development, improvement and expansion of the construction industry? We have got a Public Works Department, which I take it is quite efficient, which would be able to give advice to whoever is involved in the construction industry how to improve their services and their skills. And then: '(b) to facilitate and assist in the mechanisation of the construction industry;' Do we really need a Board again for this, Mr Speaker, Sir? '(c) to advise and make recommendations to the Government on matters affecting or connected with the construction industry;' I can go on asking the same question: Do we need a Board for this? What is the necessity for setting up a Board, paying members' salaries, staff, administrative costs, to do things that perhaps can be done by the Ministry, by the Government and by other Boards which have all been set up to promote standards and efficiency in the construction industry. Have we not got Boards? I thought we have SISIR and other Boards setting proper standards in Singapore. Do we need to have another Board now? '(e) to provide consultancy and advisory services with respect to construction works;' Again, what is wrong with the Ministry providing advisory services? '(f) to keep under review the training requirements of the construction industry and assist in providing training facilities;' Have we not got the VITB? What is the VITB doing? I thought it was to provide training facilities and skills. And then:- '(g) to promote the advancement of the skills [again] and expertise of persons engaged in the construction industry;' Well, I repeat: What is the VITB doing?”