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 70 of 82.
“Would the Prime Minister explain why it was necessary to go back - if that was the practice before the Malaysian Constitution came into effect -because the Malaysian Constitution contained a requirement that the vacancy be filled within three months? Secondly, how long does he expect to leave the seat vacant? The Prime Minister has spoken about dwindling constituents and the need to redraw the boundaries of constituencies. How long does he expect to leave the seat vacant? Thirdly, does he not agree, Prime Minister, that appointing a caretaker Member of Parliament is to stand the principle of parliamentary representation on its head?”
“Supplementary question, Sir. Would the Prime Minister say what was the reason for the amendment to the Constitution way back in 1965, taking away the requirement for the vacancy to be filled within three months?”
“Division, Sir. The House divided: Aye, 1; Noes, 56; Abstention, 1. Aye Noes (cont.) Jeyaretnam, J.B. Lee Yiok Seng Lee Yock Suan Liew Kok Pun Noes Lim Boon Heng Lim Chee Onn A. Rahim Ishak Ng Kah Ting Abbas Abu Amin Ong Teng Cheong Ah mad Ma"ar Othman bin Haron Ang Kok Peng Eusofe Barker, E.W. Phua Bah Lee Chai Chong Yii Rohan bin Kamis Chau Sik Ting Saidi Haji Shariff Bernard Chen Seah Mui Kok Cheong Yuen Chee, Sia Kah Hui Eric Sia Khoon Seong Chin Harn Tong Sidek bin Saniff Ch'ng Jit Koon Tan, Augustine H.H. Chua Sian Chin Tan Keng Yam, Tony Conceicao, J.F. Tang See Chim Fong Sip Chee Tay Eng Soon Goh Chee W ee Teh Cheang Wan Goh Chok Tong Teo Chong Tee Ho Kah Leong Wan Hussin Zoohri Ho See Beng Wan Soon Bee Howe Yoon Chong Wong Kwei Cheong Hwang Soo Jin Yap Giau Cheng, Jabbar, M.K.A. Eugene Jayakumar, S. Yeo Choo Kok Koh Lip Lin Yeo Ning Hong Lai Tha Chai Yeo Toon Chia Lau Ping Sum Lau Teik Soon Lee Chiaw Meng Abstention Lee Khoon Choy Yeoh Ghim Seng Amendment accordingly negatived 3.40 p.m.”
“Its task is to present a health programme that is best suited for our people and then pass it on to the Ministry of Finance and say, "Well, we want the money for that. Can you tell us whether you can get the money for us?" So, as they say, get a Commission which will hear not only the professional people but economists, Treasury officials, every one, and then we will probably end up with a report "which is worthy of consideration" by this House. I have not asked for that in the amendment. I have asked the Ministers to take this plan back now and draw up a further plan after taking into consideration all the views from persons outside the Ministry who are best fitted to contribute - people who know about, who know what they are talking about, and make a further study. Perhaps we can have a pilot study of the health scheme that is to be proposed. All these should be undertaken more serious- ly, and I say that not enough thought, not enough research, has been given to this report. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."”
“15 minutes. Thank you. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have this amendment to this Motion of the Minister and with your permission, may I now move it and then speak on it. I have handed the text of my amendment to the Clerk, Mr Speaker, Sir. I beg to move, To leave out sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) and insert - '(1) regrets that the Medisave Scheme fails to meet the desired object of providing health care at a cost within the means of every member of the society; and (2) recommends that the Ministry further review the Plan and draw up a plan after taking into consideration the views of persons outside the Ministry who are best fitted to contribute to the drawing up of such a plan as would meet with the objective.' If I may speak now on this amendment, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Minister in presenting the Motion said that his Ministry had considered the views of others outside the Ministry. Unfortunately, the report does not set out the bodies or organizations which had submitted papers to the Ministry to help the Ministry prepare this report. One would have expected that by way of appendices. I see that the Association of Private Medical Practitioners has made a recommendation, and that is, that a Commission be appointed, and I think it has got everything to support it. Let us not be hasty about this, just because we think this is the best plan for our citizens. We may think that, but let us listen to what others have to say about the whole thing. They have suggested that a Presidential Commission be now appointed to study the report and to hear not only the professional people but Treasury officials about where the money is to come from. May I echo what the Member for Rochore said yesterday? It is not the business of the Ministry of Health to worry about the monies for its programme.”
“I accept that. I know I cannot speak again, Mr Speaker, Sir.”
“Is it? $130 is it? $140 for four. Whatever it is. Well, $140 for four. So they say, "We will throw in with that, medical care." But we are concerned with a lot more people than those who are on public assistance - people drawing $500 a month, $600 a month; a family of four. I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that health care to them is a burden and at times it can be a crippling burden. This 6%, how long is it going to last even if we do provide it? If a person has prolonged illness, it does not, as we all know, cover chronic illness, it does not cover old age, and all this is a crippling burden, on those families earning $500, $600 pm. And there are lots of people earning just that much. So what are we going to do for them? That is what we have to answer, Mr Speaker, Sir. I have, Mr Speaker, Sir, an amendment to the Motion that has been moved by the Minister of Defence and Second Minister for Health.”
“Why don't we, the Government, enter into the business of taking care of our citizens? We do not have to be told this by an American, but was it last night or the night before, he was saying - he is here on a visit with nine others,[ think - he was saying that people are the most valuable resource in any country. We know that. We do not have any other resource. The only resource we have is our people. Why does not the Government enter into the business, seriously, of looking after them? Mr Speaker, Sir, I say that this report has gone completely off the track. It does not answer the question. And so I say to the two Ministers, "Take this report away, please. Look at it again, and tell us what your terms of reference are, and then present a report worthy of the Ministry and the Government. Tell us how we can look after our people, not how you can recover your fees from the people. We know you have to be paid but we also say to you that you have a responsibility to those who are unable to pay." The Minister says, again gaily, "No one will be denied hospital treatment care." But we do know this, that the only persons in this society who can get free medical care, hospital treatment, are those who are drawing public assistance. What is the public assistance that we are paying? $110, perhaps the Minister for Social Affairs might correct me on this, for a family of four. A great sum, $110. So the Government says, "Well, since we are giving them $110 - The Acting Minister for Social Affairs (Dr Ahmad Mattar): $110 for a family of two.”
“Because here I detect a tendency on the part of this Government to follow the United States to try and turn medical care over to the private sector as far as possible without Government controlling it. He finds that the United States spends the second highest amount compared with all these other nine countries. But where do they rank in the health rating? Mr Speaker, Sir, they rank at the bottom. They are the 10th in these 10 countries, spending the second highest. Why do we not study some other reports instead of reports that suit our case? Let us also look at other reports and see what is a fair, balanced report. There are the OECD reports. Let us look at all of them before we start condemning the British Health Service. It has been remarked - I am not saying this - but it has been remarked and written that the British Health Service is very cost effective. Why can't we do something like that? We can only do it if the Government 'retains control. Once the Government gives up control, then the costs will run away. If you let just the doctors, the private doctors, take over and they generate demand, then costs will go up. But if you, the Government, take control, you can keep costs down. Why do we not want to accept the responsibility? What is wrong with it? What is wrong with a pre-paid health service? Have you studied it seriously and then ruled it out? I would have expected in this National Health Plan some reference to the pre-paid health service what are the pros in favour of it; what are the arguments against it, and then a recommendation as to whether we should accept it or not. But we find nothing about it. It is treated as though it is not worthy of consideration. Why? We enter into (when I say "we" I mean the Government) enter into all sorts of businesses.”
“But I do not intend to do that because this report - and I say this very seriously, not in jest - is not worth the paper on which it is written. And it is a waste of time to debate this and to comment upon it as though it was a serious paper. The projections of demand that have been put up, we do not know on what basis they have been put up, are all scanty. Do they not know of the Beveridge report that preceded the British Health Service, the study that went into it? This is a hotch potch report, not a report worthy of a government that prides itself of being very professional, very expert, in how it does its work. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard from the Minister, not only now but we have heard it several times, that we must not get into the position of the British Health Service or the health service in other countries where demand has outstripped supply because it is a free for all and therefore the service has degenerated and people are not getting enough adequate medical attention. This seems to be just emotional outbursts on the part of our leaders in an attempt to justify what they are doing. The Second Minister for Health quotes a report, what was it, "Health Crisis" or something. Well, there are other reports as well, Mr Second Minister for Health, and I do not know whether he has looked at these other reports, There is an analysis of medical care by Robert Maxwell. He is a leading medical analyst and he has compared 10 Western countries for the standard of health care that is provided in these countries. And what does he come up with? He finds that the United Kingdom spends least. They spend the least on health care among all these 10 countries. But they rank fourth in the standard of health that is provided. And what does he find about the United States?”
“And not only that, we threaten our citizens with increasing it to $20 in the near future if this Medisave plan goes through, or I suppose even if it does not go through (not that it would not) I would not be able to stop this report being accepted. So there you have it, Sir. I want to know why is it that we cannot absorb this? Why is it not possible for us to reduce the cost of outpatient treatment for our citizens? Whoever drew up this report, have they looked at that? Have they given it any serious consideration? No, because they were told, "Just leave all that alone. We are charging them. Let them go on paying it. Your concern is to see how you can further reduce the Government's obligations in this respect." Mr Speaker, Sir, I could go on and on and on. An hon. Member: We know that.”
“Why can the Government not absorb, I ask, the total cost of medical care for Class C patients? It is not that we do not have the money. The Member for Rochore yesterday said this and he referred to the Payroll Tax, the Skills Development Fund. There are a number of other monies lying around. What about the surcharge or tax on PUB bills, the telephones. Well, if you still need the money, get it by direct taxation. But you have a duty to provide adequate medical care for those who are unable to pay for themselves. You cannot shelve that responsibility. At the moment, the highest income tax bracket in Singapore is 45%. It was reduced by this Government from 55% to 45%. Well, why do you not put it up if you think we need a bit more money to take care of our ill? Let us see, Mr Speaker, Sir, how other countries in this region - I said "other countries" but I only want to refer to one country - take care of their patients who go into Class C or the equivalent of Class C wards. I am, of course, referring to our nearest neighbour, Malaysia. The outpatient clinics and dispensaries charge the user $1 per visit inclusive of medicine. Why do we have to charge, what is it, $5, $4? If Malaysia can afford to subsidize outpatient treatment for the poor at $1 per visit, are we much poorer than Malaysia? Then look at their third class hospital charges. They charge a third class patient $3 per day. Why do we, an affluent society, a society that is building up huge reserves for this rainy day which we think is going to come one of these days, why are we charging $10 for Class C beds?”
“" At present, Government subsidizes 90% and the patient is asked to pay only $10. Well, that does not take care of other fees. We know that there is, included in that $10, Mr Speaker, Sir, a charge for laboratory and X-ray tests. But I understand, and I understood at the last Budget debate, that this $10 is charged as a flat fee, regardless of whether the poor man or woman has had any laboratory or X-ray tests. So that is dishonest. But it is not just that. It is not just $10. There is also the other fees, operation fees, radiotherapy fees. Class C patients are called upon to pay all that. Why hide all this? Let us come out with everything. Do not keep things up your sleeves. "Let us say", the Minister said, "the costs go up to $115." Well, I smell something there. I suppose if this is accepted, the next thing we know is that the fees for Class C will go up. He says if it goes up to $115 from $100, the Class C patient will probably be charged $10 of the increase of $15. That is two-thirds. The Government will only pay a subsidy of $5. But that reduces the subsidy immediately from 90% to 82.6%. That seems to be the whole point of this operation. How can we progressively go on reducing the subsidy paid by the Government now for the care of its citizens? And then there is the question of whether even the 6% is adequate. The Government says, "Don't worry old chap. If that 6% is not enough, we will lend you the money and, what's more, we will charge you a modest interest on it. "That is the socialist government, a government that claims itself to be socialist we have in Singapore today - trying to make a profit out of the misfortunes of a man who falls ill and finds himself unable to pay his medical fees. I say shame upon the Government.”
“The money is lying there. We do not have to issue a writ. We do not have to write letters. We do not have to ask them for deposits." And so the whole thing finds expression in this wonderful report that they say they have - the National Health Plan. "Use the man's CPF savings so that we can get paid. Then we would not have to chase after him." I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that would appear to have been the objective for this report. May I say to the Second Health Minister - I suppose, to the two Ministers for Health - that this should not have been called the National Health Plan Report. It should have been called more appropriately Health Fee Recovery Plan, a plan for Government to recover the fees levied by it and particularly on Class C patients. And this plan is presented - and I say this in all sincerity - to lull the citizens into accepting further higher costs to them in medical care. Because if they are allowed to pay out of CPF, and the man is told he has got to pay something more, he might say, "Well, I suppose it is all right. It is not coming out of my pocket immediately. I've still got what I've got in my pocket. It is only coming out of something there. So I suppose it's all right. I won't grumble too much." It is like signing for whatever you consume on credit cards. And the poor man does not realize that at some distant date in the future he will probably have nothing there. But it is made less painful to him. And therefore this is to lull the citizens into accepting increased charges to them in medical care and in hospital fees in particular. The Minister says quite happily the Government intends to maintain its subsidy. He gave some figures. He said, "Take the Class C cost to be $100.”
“It alters the method of collection. The Government has probably decided that at the moment it is a bit embarrassing to have to insist on deposits from patients who are unable to afford the deposits. There were two letters to the press sometime ago about accident cases where they were asked to put down some money before they could be admitted. So the Government thought this is "a source of embarrassment to us." Then there was the embarrassment of having to go after persons who did not pay their hospital charges. The Member for Rochore talked about the reason being to write off bad debts. There was that embarrassment. Now, as it stands, if a Class C patient does not pay his medical charges and is discharged, then the Government has to go after him, threaten him with proceedings and, in the last resort, if it is still determined to recover these costs, get it out of him by a court order, make the poor man bankrupt or levy execution on his chattels. That is very embarrassing, and I suppose the Government decided that it cannot really do this sort of thing, even a capitalist government, a government that believes only in profits. So it decided it would alter the method of collection, and I have a sneaking suspicion, Mr Speaker, Sir, that that was the term of reference that was given to these persons, "Can you find a way of collecting these fees without we having to require deposits, without we having to chase Class C patients who have the misfortune to be unable to pay for their medical fees before being discharged from the hospital?" And so somebody in this Ministry, or was it at 11 Napier Road, said, "Hey presto, what about the CPF? We have allowed our citizens to buy houses through the CPF savings. Why don't we collect from the CPF? There you are.”
“But there is this fallacious assumption - I only say this to reiterate or underscore what has been said - the fallacious assumption that runs through the whole of this report, that somehow Singaporeans enjoy being ill, that somehow they must be penalized if they fall ill, somehow disincentives must be provided to those who fall ill. May I remind the Ministry, and I am sure they do not need reminding, that illness, accidents are not the making of the individual. You never know when you will be struck down. So I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is an insult to our people to say that they enjoy being ill, an assumption that if the Class C charges were somewhat reduced or even done away with, people will be queueing up every morning outside the Class C wards to gain admission. I say that is a gross insult to our people. We have only yesterday, I think, seen the results of a survey carried out by the NTUC, and what do they come up with - that our workers do not enjoy being ill. They do not, upon the least excuse, enter hospitals or stay at home saying that they are ill. So why do we have to exaggerate this? Why do we have to build up this picture in order to justify something that we wish to do, and that is to cut down the cost? We keep saying demand is overtaking supply. It is not. As statistics show, the demand for hospital beds in Singapore compares very favourably with other countries. Where is the evidence of demand even now? Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, what does this report really set out to do? Stripped of all its flowery language, stripped of all the embroidery around it, what it does when we come to the Medisave, because this is what we have been asked to debate in this House, is to alter the method of collection of fees by the Government. That is all it does, Mr Speaker, Sir.”
“" Or was this the problem that was posed to them, "Can you put up a plan to see that all our citizens are given the best possible health care within the means available to us?" I would like to know from the Minister what were the terms of reference that were given to the people who were asked to draw up this report? I am not alone in thinking that the terms of reference that were given to those who drew up this report were what I said at first. "My dear boys, would you please see how we can reduce the cost to the Government of this health care and try and present it in a palatable way?" That, I see, is also the view shared by the Association of Private Medical Practitioners. We have stated this even before we saw that letter in our newsletter, The Hammer The whole concern of this report would appear to be: "How best can we reduce the cost to the Government of this health care of our people." Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say that is entirely the wrong objective. The persons who were asked to draw up this report were put on the wrong track, on the wrong rails, and off they went like a shot on this track, and present a beautiful scheme to reduce Government expenditure on health care. So I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, they started off on the wrong foot and therefore it has gone completely off the rails from what we expected of the Government in presenting a health plan for the people. May I, in support of what I have said, Mr Speaker, Sir, refer - I do not want to repeat what has already been said by other Members of this House. I am aware, Mr Speaker, Sir, that you have the unenviable task of having to listen to speeches after speeches in the same vein, and so I must try and avoid that.”
“There is the old age problem. There is the question of out-patient fees. It does not deal with them. It says, "That is not our business." Well, it is your business to look after the chronically sick if you are a responsible Government. It is your business, I say, to look after the aged, the aging in our midst. You do not absolve yourself of this responsibility. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, I say that this report is seriously deficient in not setting out at all concrete proposals on how the Government intends to take care of the health of the citizens in the years to come. May I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I was mentioning this report to a man who should know something about this because, after all, he was for many years in the Government service and he was an able administrator. And these were his words: "What are you going to debate about this report? There is nothing in it. You are going to waste your time talking about this report." These were his words. What plan does that report hold? Now, before you ask someone to draw up a report or plan, you give him the terms of reference. We did not hear from the Second Minister for Health what terms of reference were given to those who were asked to prepare this report. What was the remedy or what was the mischief, what was the problem they were asked to address themselves to and to propose the remedy for it? Was the problem the problem of decreasing, or finding a way of decreasing, the cost to the Government of delivering medical care to the citizens? Is that the problem that they were asked to consider? "See how best you can cut down Government expenditure on this health care of our people.”
“May I illustrate this point that I am making about the platitudinous statements and pious hopes that this report abounds in and the complete absence of any details of what the Government has or proposes to do to deliver health care to the citizens. We have the statement that the NUS will increase its intake of medical students to see that there will be more doctors by the year 2000. The question is: will an increase of doctors, a mere increase of doctors, lead to better health care and improvement in the quality? It does not follow. The question is: how are we going to deploy the medical personnel at our disposal to provide the delivery of health care? In that, this report fails to answer. We know the example of the United States. There they abound in doctors. They have got far too many doctors, they say. Yet, has their health care improved as a result of the large number of doctors in the United States? I shall, before I sit down, make some comparison of the health care that is prevailing in these countries and you will find that the United States lags behind other European countries. And yet they have got far more doctors than these other countries. So it is these statements - the hope that if we have more doctors our health care will somehow be improved. The other thing is that the report does not address itself to all sections of our people. A study like this, the National Health Plan, must address itself to all sections, as I said of the Budget. You cannot just deal with one section of the population. You have got to say what you intend to do with all sections of the population, and the answer would appear to be, according to the authors of the report, "We will only deal with one particular section and God take care of the rest." There is the chronically sick.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Motion, as it is worded in the Order Paper, limits discussion or debate in this House to the Medisave Scheme propounded in this so-called National Health Plan. This has been remarked upon by other Members of the House. But before I come to deal more closely with the Medisave part of this Report, may I say something on the contents of the National Health Plan report as a whole. The Second Minister for Health, in moving his Motion, said that a general complaint was that the report was too concise and did not have enough details. I could not agree more with this complaint, Mr Speaker, Sir. We all know that brevity is the soul of wit. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, this was not meant to be an after-dinner speech to amuse the Singapore citizens or this House. This report was intended to be a serious study and a report on our future medical plan and in that it is my respectful submission to the Minister and to the Ministry it dismally fails. Mr Speaker, Sir, the first part of this report which deals with the National Health Plan or how health care will be delivered to our citizens abounds, if I may say so, with platitudinous statements and pious hopes. That is not what is expected from a serious study put forward by a Ministry of this Government in presenting a plan to the people of Singapore. This Government prides itself, and we hear it very often, on its professionalism. Where is the professionalism in this report? If I may say so it is a very amateurish report. I understood from the Minister that it was prepared by his Ministry. I have no reason to doubt it. But one would think the report was perhaps prepared at No. 11, Napier Road rather than at the Cuppage Centre.”
“As you please, Sir. But I have asked for your permission.”
“I am aware of that, Mr Speaker. But I see under Standing Orders that I could have asked for my question to be stood over to today if I had asked you before 3.30 p.m. Unfortunately, I forgot to do that. I only had time to ask one supplementary question of the Minister of State. I have a number of other supplementary questions and I am asking for your indulgence to put them today.”
“It is about the question that I asked yesterday at Question Time.”
“I should have risen before he read it. May I raise it now?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification.”
“Are you going to tell them to troop up to the Ministry of Social Affairs and apply for public assistance? Is it not better that something is done to accommodate them so that they can continue to carry out a service to the residents and to the community and be useful members of the society and the community? So with those words, may I sit down and ask the Minister whether he would be good enough to defer this until further consideration has been given by a Committee of this House and this House has accepted the report of the Committee, and then implement the increases. 6.50 p.m.”
“I do not know what he explained to them but it would appear that he explained the increases and the rationale. But it is not just the Government MPs who ought to be explained the increases. This House has to be told and the public has to be told. And what better place than Parliament for the increases to be announced and debated upon. So I would ask the Minister to consider this request. May I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think the shopkeepers will grudge any increase. They can see the reason for some increase and I certainly can see it. I am not saying that there should be no increase at all. But you got to make out a case for the increase. It is not to be carried out just because you think, "Well, somebody else is getting so much more. Why don't we get a bit more for our rents?" You cannot try and equate HDB shops in housing estates with shops in busy shopping centres and other areas. They deserve special consideration. So I am not saying that there should not be any increase and I am sure the shopkeepers are not saying that either. But all they are asking is that there should be proper consideration given to their views, their representations, their problems. A number of them in my constituency - perhaps that is an exaggeration - about two, I think, said that they would have to probably close their businesses. And I see the Member for Khe Bong tabled a Question at Question Time to ask whether the Minister for the Environment would consider granting hawker licences to tenants who are compelled to give up their businesses. So it is causing quite a lot of distress and hardship to these tenants. What are they supposed to do? If they cannot get hawker licences, what are we going to do with them? Are they going to become a burden on the community?”
“I have asked for this matter to be raised in this House for one other reason, Mr Speaker, Sir, and that is, (I have said this before when I raised, again on the Adjournment, the increase in the prices of flats sold by the HDB) that a statutory board, like the HDB, for whose operations public funds are provided, not wholly but partly, such a statutory board should come to this House before it makes any increases in charges like rents or prices of HDB apartments. There is a tendency for Ministries and statutory boards to neglect the purpose and function of Parliament and that is, may I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, a great loss if Parliament is not to be given its proper role and function in our society. There is the question of the purchase of the four planes from America. We would never have heard of this in this House officially if I had not raised a question today at Question Time. So I say to the Minister again, as I said to him when I raised the question of the increases in the prices of HDB flats, "Will you please respect Parliament?" I think we deserve in this House a statement from the Ministry or from the statutory board before it implements or announces a decision which will affect our population, our citizens, or a substantial proportion of them. As I said, I tabled a Motion but I had to withdraw it for lack of any support. And now, we are not able to have a debate on this increase. I would therefore ask the Minister to consider of his own volition whether he would suspend the implementation of the increases until a Committee of this House has examined the proposed increases and reported thereon to this House and the House has, by resolution, accepted the increases. I see from the report that he met Government Members of Parliament and explained it to them.”
“And they gave up these shops in return for the HDB allocation of a shophouse. Now they are told suddenly, "Either you pay these increases of three or four times or you get out." Some have asked, "Will the HDB return the shops that they took from us?" It may seem a bit naive but that is how some of them feel. Then there is the difference in the amenities between the old shophouses and the new shophouses because the announcement was that the rents would be brought up to the rents for shophouses let in January 1980. But there are obvious differences, only too apparent. One is a new building with new amenities, new facilities, improvements. The other is old. Why should the tenant of the old shophouse pay the same rent as the new one with new facilities, new improvements? In any case, Mr Speaker, Sir, what is the policy of the HDB as regards rentals charged to shopkeepers? Is it simply based on the price mechanism allowing the market price to control the rents? Or has the HDB any definite policy? Is it, for example, recoupment of capital outlay with a satisfactory return on the investment and perhaps coupled with building up a reserve for replacement cost? It is a pity that the HDB, and for this the Minister for National Development must take some responsibility, did not explain the rationale and the reason for these increases. Merely to say that there is an anomaly begs the question because there are obvious differences. There will be anomalies.”
“When we were talking about the Medisave Debate, the first speaker congratulated the two Ministers of Health on the good public relations job they had done. It is a pity that the Ministry of National Development does not take a leaf out of the book of the Ministry of Health when it comes to implementing its decisions. There was a brief announcement of the reason when the increases were announced in the press on the 4th May, 1983. All it purported to say was that the increase was to remove an anomaly in its shop rents policy. So the question that arises is, what was the shop rents policy before the increases were announced? One must not forget, Mr Speaker, Sir, that these shops, particularly those which were built 15, 20 years ago, were let at the market rents then prevailing and the tenants have been paying the let rent for the last 15, 17 years. What was the policy of the Board then? Why has it found it necessary now to revise its policy? One must not forget again, Mr Speaker, a number of things about this, and that is, these shops in the HDB estates are performing a service to the residents in the estates. They are not all situated in busy shopping centres. Some of them are in isolated areas but they nevertheless serve a useful purpose by rendering a service to the residents in the estates. In my constituency, for example, even in Jalan Bukit Merah, these three blocks, the old blocks, do not front Jalan Bukit Merah. They are inside the estate and they do not attract anybody very much from outside the estate itself. Then one other thing that we must bear in mind is that quite a lot of them were resettled from the shops where they had been previously carrying on business. They might have owned them, I do not know, or they might have been tenants.”
“Alternatively, I asked whether any Member of this House would second a motion if I tabled one for debate in this House. Nothing came of this invitation from me. And then, Mr Speaker, Sir, as you may be aware, I gave notice pursuant to Standing Order 32 (1) of my intention to propose a motion at this sitting of the House, a substantive motion for debate: 'That this House regrets the proposed increase with effect from the 1st September, 1983 by the Housing and Development Board in the rents for shophouses let by the Board and calls upon the Board to suspend the implementation of the increases until a Committee of this House has examined the proposed increases and reported thereon to this House and the House has by resolution accepted the increases.' After giving the notice, I took the trouble to speak to two Members of this House to ask whether they would second my motion because I needed a seconder. I regret to say that I found no takers of my invitation to the two Members that I spoke to. And may I say to those Members who have been protesting about this outside this House that it is a matter of regret to me that no one has been found to second my motion. I do not know how the 43 Members who are reported to have marched to the Minister for National Development's office will be able to face their own constituents if they are asked, "Why didn't you second the motion from the Opposition Member?" Well, that is their problem and I hope they will find an answer to explain their reluctance to second my motion. I suppose if any of them had done so, he might have found himself out of his seat in Parliament and I suppose that must have been or may have been the consideration. Having said that, Mr Speaker, may I move on to this matter on which I have asked to speak.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have claimed this right to speak on the Motion for the adjournment on the matter of the latest increase in the rents for shophouses let out by the HDB. If I may crave your attention on behalf of these shopkeepers for a while, Mr Speaker. I do not think anything else has created so much anger and frustration among a section of the community as the announcement of the increase announced in the press on the 4th May, 1983. I have been around my own constituency, particularly in the blocks where the tenants of the shops occupied their shops in 1957. It is now nearly 16 years since they have been in occupation. Their rents have gone up, or will go up, from somewhere in the region of $170 to $180, and in some cases from a region of $250 to $320, these rents which they are now paying will go up to $800, $850, $950. They are, understandably as I said, indignant on two grounds; that the increase should be effected at this time when the Government has been speaking of a recession and which is widely accepted; and secondly, that there has been no prior consultation with or reference to them before any attempt was made to increase the rents. I can understand these grievances and how they feel, Mr Speaker, Sir, having seen and read in the papers the protest that arose as a result of this announcement and particularly the report that several Members of this House were disturbed by the HDB's unilateral increase in the rents without any consultation with the shopkeepers. I announced in the press in June this year that I would gladly welcome any motion, any substantive motion, by any Member of this House, and that I would be very happy to second it if it were necessary and to speak in support of it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Minister agree that other countries are also interested in the Straits of Malacca? Are we assuming the role of policeman for this region?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, is the House to understand that the Police and the Singapore Fire Brigade are baffled by this fire? They cannot even suggest a possible cause for the fire. And did they take a statement from this officer?”
“I am not insinuating or inferring anything, Mr Speaker, Sir. May I ask whether the Police have made a thorough investigation into all this, and whether they have interviewed every person who visited these premises that morning? Have they not been able to find what was the cause of this fire?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a supplementary question. Would the Minister of State agree that fires do not start by themselves? They start either because someone has thrown a lighted cigarette end or something else to start the fire, or there is a burnt wiring hanging loose somewhere. Is the Minister also aware that the fire started about 10 minutes after a resettlement inspector had inspected the first floor, apparently to put up notices?”
“May I ask the question that I want to ask, Mr Speaker, Sir? Is he not aware of the announcement that the former Minister for Communications and Labour was apparently also the adviser to the Port Workers Union, and led the workers in making representations to the Port of Singapore Authority?”
“Another supplementary question for the Prime Minister, Mr Speaker, Sir. What does the Prime Minister think about one of his Ministers heading a Ministry and at the same time assuming the post of unofficial adviser or leader of a trade union for workers of a statutory board under that very Ministry of which he is the head? Does he not think there is a conflict of loyalties there?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the question is: Did the Prime Minister draw their attention to the Constitution and tell them that they were masters in their own house, that they should act within the powers given to them and not have the Prime Minister intervene in the affairs of the trade union movement?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know why it would not have provided them with a Secretary-General that they wished. They could have taken the necessary steps to have him elected.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. The Constitution of the NTUC provides for the Central Council to remove its Secretary-General. Why was it not possible for the Central Council to act within the Constitution rather than resort to you?”
“I say, Sir, that would seem to me to be the first priority now in this country to get our Education Service and the teaching of our children back on the right lines. I do not have to say this. It is recognized by everybody that we were providing a good Education Service. We were teaching our children properly in the past. We were turning out children who were able to read and write well in the language that they were educated. We know now and this is no secret. The Government makes no bones about hiding it that the standard of English has come down. I can go on and on. Somehow our standard of teaching has deteriorated. Why? What is wrong? I would ask whether the Ministry will now forget about its own plans, forget about what systems engineers have to say, forget what all its experts have to say and listen. It is good to listen sometimes. And listen to the people that matter, listen to the parents. Even listen to the children. I think if we tell the children to come forward and tell us what is wrong, they will do that. For instance, this letter in the Straits Times. Listen to them and listen to the teachers. Why do we not do that? Then having listened to them, perhaps we can then evolve a plan to teach our children so that we may be proud of them when they leave the schools. Of course, I do not have to say they will then be worthy citizens of this place, contributing to the growth of this society. So my plea today is that we set up without very much delay a commission and listen to people who will tell us what is wrong with our education system. 6.20 p.m.”
“It is no good making statements, but what are we doing about it? We are collecting from our children in the primary schools, what is it - $3 I am told, although we maintain the myth that education in the primary schools is free. I am told that each child in the primary school is paying $3 and a child in the secondary school is paying about $9.50. We are collecting enough but it would appear that we are not delivering the goods. That again, I say, is dishonest. I saw sometime ago about the teachers' union trying to arrange for private tutors for children. There is a great demand now in Singapore for private tuition for our children. Let me say that private tuition would be unnecessary if we taught the children in the schools. And, of course, if we are going to leave it to private tuition, then it must be obvious that only the children from well-to-do families are going to benefit. Is the Ministry of Education abdicating its responsibility to teach our children and leaving it to parents to educate their children through private tuition after collecting fees like $3 and $9.50 from the children? I say that is dishonest. Let us have a commission. Let us hear the views of the parents. They will tell us what is wrong. I have heard from some parents. They tell me about the lack of teachers. They tell me about the extracurricular activities, the over-doing of these activities into which their children are drawn, the time that is spent outside school having to attend this function, that function, the national celebrations. But all at the expense of educating the children. They will tell us what is wrong. Let us also listen to the teachers. Why are we not attracting enough people into the Education Service? Why are teachers deserting the Education Service?”
“' Well, they may ask, and I ask the question for them, what is going to happen to them if you are preparing them for the GCE 'O' level examination when you do not provide them with the teachers? And they go on to say: 'Our school needs a qualified technical teacher urgently to make up for lost time. The Ministry of Education should ensure that there are enough teachers for students, otherwise all the important years that a young student should spend on studying will be wasted.' These are students voicing their views, and how right they are. This evening I was talking about the disabled children. But it looks as though we are also not paying enough attention to the education of our other children. What is wrong? There must be something wrong if we have an acute shortage of teachers? Is it not time that we sat down calmly to try and analyse, make a proper diagnosis of the sickness in our education system? What ails it? Instead of implementing ad hoc changes every two or three years, I would propose to the Minister very seriously that it is time we had a commission. I know I suggested a commission earlier this afternoon and it was refused. But this is a very serious matter because, as I have said, the education of our children is a sacred trust and we owe them a duty. They did not ask to be brought into this world. We brought them into the world and we owe them this duty as parents. We have got to see that they get the best education. There was a statement that was referred to by the Chairman of the Singapore Association for the Deaf. The statement, I think, was made by the First Assistant Secretary-General of the ruling party at its conference last year - that it was a duty to give our children the best education that is possible. As the Chairman said, he echoes that.”
“Some of them say that they are dedicated teachers and they have applied to be taken on for training but they have been refused. The question is, if they are good enough to teach for three years, why can they not be trained or given some training? But what are we doing with our children's education? I want to know from the Ministry what is the cause of this, it seems to me, acute teacher shortage in our schools. I was listening when the estimates for the Ministry was being debated, and the more I listened the more convinced I became that there is something very wrong with our education system in this country. With all due respect to the systems engineers who have put into plan the education system in our schools, there was a letter, Sir, which appeared in the Straits Times on 2nd February which highlights the problem. I am told that this is quite common in most schools or, perhaps not most, in many schools: classes left without teachers, children not having teachers to teach them. Here is a letter which carried 103 signatures and this was a plea from students. They say: 'Last year, 42 first batch Secondary 3 pupils from the technical stream in our school were idle most of the time in class during technical periods because there were not enough teachers (except from February to June). Attempts to get a teacher for us, made by some considerate teachers and the principal, proved fruitless. This year, the same thing has happened. Some 39 Secondary 4 and 74 Secondary 3 students from the technical stream are without a technical teacher. What is going to happen to those who are taking the GCE "O" level examination?”
“I understand that they are recruited just as one recruits casual labour. Anyone has only to ring up a school and say, "Have you got a position for a relief teacher?" and he is told, "Yes, we have got a position for a relief teacher. You come along." And even if the person has the GCE 'O' level or 'A' level for just one subject, he will be given a class to teach, and he is told that he will be paid daily according to the number of days he teaches. Being daily paid, the relief teacher can stay away if he does not feel like turning up for school on that particular day. What is more, I am told that the relief teachers are given the extended classes or the monolingual classes. In fact, these children really need greater care and attention than the normal children. But it is these children that these untrained teachers, who are just picked up as it were, are put to teach. So the teaching of these children, for whom I thought special care is being taken, is neglected. Not only are these relief teachers just taken in a haphazard manner, but they also work whenever they feel like it and stay away if they do not feel like teaching on those days. I am told that there is no supervision over the work of these relief teachers. There is no record of work that they are required to submit and neither is there any supervision over their teaching nor is the record checked. Sir, I do not want to run down these relief teachers. They are meeting a need. Although the answer from the Ministry suggests that most of them were employed for less than a year, I am told that some of them have been teaching for two to three years as relief teachers. They have their own grouses. But, as I have said, I am not here to speak on their behalf.”
“If you like me to proceed, all right, I will proceed then. It is just that I did not want to spoil the effect of the speech made by the Leader of the House. I am sorry I have to keep you, Sir, and the Members back to listen more about the state of our schools and the education of our children. But I asked for this right to speak because I had tabled an amendment under the estimates of the Ministry of Education but the guillotine time was reached before I could speak and, therefore, I was not able to say what I wished to say then. That is why I have asked for the right to raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have heard about the shortage of teachers in our schools. We heard it only this afternoon when we were talking about the supply of teachers for the special schools for our mentally and physically disabled. I tabled a question for the Minister of Education not very long ago about the number of relief teachers who were being employed by the Ministry and I was given a written answer - my question was for a written answer - that there were 1,032 relief teachers employed on the average every month in 1982. I had asked for a list of all schools where they were employed and I was told that this was not possible to be supplied. About 422 schools in the State employed relief teachers at one time or other in the year, but the majority served for less than one year. I was not told very much about the manner in which the relief teachers were recruited and about their terms and conditions of service. But it is not on their behalf that I am talking. I ,am talking on behalf of the children who are being educated and of our education service. But I would like to say something about the manner in which the relief teachers are recruited.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have a Motion on the Adjournment but I hate to spoil the effect of the speech from the Leader of the House by moving this motion. I wonder whether we can have a compromise. May I have leave to raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment, this right given to me, at the next sitting?”
“Therefore they would not be sent to the Construction Brigade.”
“Just one more question. The Minister mentioned about blue-collar workers. I take it that this would not include the Building Construction Brigade. Will it or will it not?”