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 71 of 82.
“As I understand the Minister, this is to enable these persons detained at the Reformative Training Centre to be employed. Will they be given any discretion as to where they are to work, or will they be directed to places selected for them by the Superintendent or the Visiting Justices? Will they be given any discretion?”
“Sir, may I seek a clarification on clause 3? The Chairman: Yes, please.”
“Sir, I am not withdrawing the amendment. I really feel sick about the whole answer. Question on the amendment put, and negatived. The following amendments stood in the name of Mr Ng Kah Ting - (10) That the sum to be allocated for Head V be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead VC-05 Object Group 2210 of the Main Estimates. (11) That the sum to be allocated for Head V be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead VC-07 Object Group 2140 of the Main Estimates. (12) That the sum to be allocated for Head V be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead VC-08 of the Main Estimates.”
“I am sorry. May I put a final question to the Minister, please? Suppose she says she does not mind the Ministry making an investigation. Would the Minister then give it back to her?”
“Then why tell me that her public assistance was withdrawn because she made a request for it to be withdrawn? That was what I was given to understand. I read out the letter, "as her request to withdraw from Public Assistance was accepted." It would appear that the basis of the withdrawal was her request. I am now saying that if she says, "I am sorry, I made a mistake in making that request. I really need that money." Would you give it back to her, please? Dr Ahmad Mattar: Mr Chairman, Sir, the Member must be busy studying the five columns of figures I gave him earlier since he did not seem to be listening to my explanation. As I have explained just now, in the course of investigating applications for Public Assistance or reviewing existing cases (Madam X comes under the second category i.e. review of existing cases), families of the persons concerned would normally request the Ministry not to make further investigations into their backgrounds for fear of being embarrassed as a result of the investigations. So they would normally say, "Okay, fair enough, we are now able to support ourselves. We want to withdraw." So we ask the person concerned to sign a withdrawal statement.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indebted to the Minister for his answer. If I brought this woman to his place (not to his home, but to his Ministry) and she makes a request that her allowance be given back to her, would he restore it, please? If she says, "I signed that letter but now I do really want this money", would the Minister give it back to her?”
“He died. She is left without any means of support. She is over 70 and you do not give her public assistance. What rhyme or reason is there? So she came to me and asked, "Do you think you can do something about it?" I said "Yes, I can always try", as Oliver Twist did to get a little more. So I tell the Minister that I shall be trying. He will be getting a letter from me. But I would ask that the Ministry do give some consideration for human suffering, human needs, and not merely consider whether the $80 can be saved or not for Government revenue. In the case of the woman who has a bumboat man living with her, the reason given was that she had somebody living with her. He said, "Yes, sometimes I buy provisions for her." Is that an adequate reason for withdrawing her public assistance? I can tell you of a number of other cases, but I do not propose to do. I would ask the Minister to restore the public assistance that was given to this woman and which was withdrawn sometime last year because, according to the Ministry, she requested withdrawal from public assistance. I can give you the statement that she made to me when she said that she never did anything of that sort. But I am not going to ask you to hold a public inquiry into it. I am asking you to exercise - I keep calling it - compassion, to show some compassion for the needs of our people.”
“She did not get her public assistance for the following month. So she came to see me. She said, "I am not getting my public assistance. They have stopped sending me my public assistance." So I wrote to the Ministry and I got a reply saying: 'Her request to withdraw from public assistance was accepted.' These are the words of the Ministry, "Her request to withdraw from public assistance was accepted." Sir, I find it a little incredible that this woman made a request that her public assistance be withdrawn. However, I have seen her after that, and she said she did no such thing. You might say that she was telling a lie. I do not know. But was it really necessary, I ask, for this public assistance of $80 to this poor woman who is over 70 years, with no other persons to look after her, to be withdrawn? Is it a drain on our economic resources? That it was costing this country to give her $80 a month as though that was a princely sum? So what is she to do now? She tries to eke out a living picking up tins, this and that. Last year there was a big uproar because I said "there are some people who are starving." You go and ask her how she tries to live, That is one case, Sir. 5.00 p.m. There is another case that just came to my notice last night, fortunately. I did not have to dig through my other old letters. They were a husband and wife. They also have a daughter - I think they have other children who are married away - but this daughter is not well. The husband was drawing public assistance. He died about two years ago, I am told. Then when the wife asked for public assistance to be given to her, it was refused on the ground that, "Oh, you have got a married son living somewhere else, and so you cannot get public assistance." You were giving public assistance to her husband.”
“Sir, this time I turn to Public Assistance. Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head V be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead VC-04 of the Main Estimates. This, as I said a little while ago, concerns public assistance. Sir, I hope the Minister would not jump up from his seat. Last year I asked the Minister whether he would let me know by how much the public assistance was reduced by this Government after it took power, and I am afraid I am still waiting for his answer. But I am not going to talk too much about that. I am going to talk about the withdrawal of public assistance in two cases and both of them come from my own constituency. I am not suggesting that it has been withdrawn because they come from Anson. The first concerns a woman of over 70 years old, Sir, who has no dependants to look after her and she was resettled from wherever she was living into this block in Jalan Bukit Merah in Anson constituency. And because she is single, the HDB told her that she would have to find somebody else before she could be allocated a one-room flat. So she set about it and with the help of friends found a man who works on a bumboat, I am told, and he said, "All right. Yes, I need a place to put my head down, so I will come along and live in your flat." She made a statutory declaration that he was her adopted son and that satisfied the HDB and she was given this flat. Then the Ministry of Social Affairs descended on her and they said, "Oh, you have got a man living here. He is looking after you, is he not?" This man, I am told, only earns about $300 a month which is hardly enough for himself. She was asked to call at the Ministry of Social Affairs and there she was asked to sign a statement saying that she agreed to the withdrawal of her public assistance.”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood on the Order Paper Supplement -”
“My complaint is that what you are doing now is not enough by any means and there is a lot more for you to do.”
“Sir, I do not think I said that the Government was not doing anything. What I am saying is that what you are doing is hardly adequate. Talking about these schools, I have said that there are only about three or four who are really qualified to teach the deaf. The rest are not qualified. The teachers may be qualified to teach normal children but not to teach disabled children. What are you doing about that? Then I ask about the course that they are going to run. Would that certificate be inferior to the certificate that is given by the Institute of Education for teachers in the teaching service? You would not get the best if you are going to give an inferior certificate. Then I asked about the equipment that is being provided. I agree that perhaps the teaching of these disabled children should be left to some private institutions which may be able to give personal care and attention to them. I agree it may be, and I do not think they will evade their responsibilities. The society will not evade its responsibilities. But what the society does expect is that the Government, appreciating that they have come forward to help, will do its part; and this is their complaint, that the Government is not doing its part. I have talked about the lack of equipment. Would the Minister of State agree that only two classrooms are fitted with the necessary equipment, and I am told that even there the equipment is some years old. The rest of the classrooms are not fitted with proper equipment. Why cannot we help them out and fit them with proper equipment? Why cannot we help them to get an audiologist or a speech therapist? Give them the help and they will do the work and turn out these children to be useful citizens of the community. I was not saying that you were not doing anything.”
“Why can we not set aside some of our monies to provide proper equipment for these schools; and to provide proper teachers? There is the vocational school that they run. I am told they lack even the basic furnishings, not to mention the specialist equipment. Again, I ask, Sir, why are we doing this? These children are already under a handicap, why should they be further handicapped by us? Why should they be pushed further down into the drain? Should they not be lifted up and brought up so that they can be integrated with the rest of society and make their contributions? If you neglect them, then they are going to be a burden in their later years and that will add to the cost. So let us do something for them now so that they would not be a burden later on. But let us not just look at the problem from their economic worth. I am not suggesting that you just look at it from the economic worth. Look at it from the point of view that they are children, they are human beings, and they are entitled, as I said earlier, to our compassion, our help -”
“There the Government has taken over the responsibility for the education of all children, whether they be mentally or physically disabled, or whether they be normal. I am told that they have an institution for the training of specialist teachers for teaching children who are deaf, blind, mentally retarded, or who are not like other normal children. I am told they do it by, first of all, allowing the teachers to go through the normal training course of three years, or whatever the number of years it may be. Then when they get their certificate as normal trained teachers, they spend a year outside and then go back to this institute of specialist teacher training for another year to get another certificate. Then they become specially qualified to teach the deaf or the mentally retarded or the blind. What is wrong with us doing that? Why can we not set up a proper institute to train teachers to teach the deaf? Again I must pay tribute to those institutions which are struggling, struggling to do something for the community. And what is the Government's attitude to this? "Oh, it is your problem. It has nothing to do with us." I say, Sir, it is scandalous. They are struggling. Let us take over the responsibility from them. I am told that they do not have any speech therapist, nor do they have an audiologist to fit the hearing aids for the children. I was talking to some people from the School for the Deaf and they said that when they had to show people from other countries around they feel quite embarrassed having to point to the lack of facilities, lack of trained staff, lack of everything, to carry out their tasks. Why do you cause them this embarrassment?”
“I say, Sir, and I am sure the Government will agree, that it is primarily the duty of the Government. So why is the Government not taking over its responsibility for the education of not only the deaf children but also the other disabled children, for example, the mentally retarded children? I think there should be no running away from this responsibility by the Government. I am told, Sir, that not only do they lack proper teachers at this school, they also do not have the necessary equipment. The story is the same as it was last year, as it was the year before, and as it was the previous years. How long are we going to go on with this state of affairs, neglecting these children? As I said last year, Sir, their parents pay taxes. Why should not their children be given the education like any other children? It is not, as the Chairman pointed out, that they cannot be educated. They are educable. Why are we not educating them? Why are we neglecting them? Again, as he pointed out, they are of economic worth to this community and to our country if they can be educated. So why are we neglecting them? Why are we allowing them to go to waste? Sir, I am told - I think I read it myself - that there is a plan to start a course for the training of teachers to teach disabled persons, physically or mentally disabled persons. But I am told that this institution, when it is set up, will not be the sort of institution that is set up in other countries. I am told that the certificate that they will get - this is the Ministerial statement, I understand - will not be the same as the certificate for normally qualified teachers. Sir, we do not have to go very far. We only have to go across the Causeway and what do we find there?”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head V be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead VC-03 of the Main Estimates. Sir, this Subhead deals with welfare services for the physically and mentally disabled persons. It is largely the educaion of children who are physically and mentally disabled that I wish to speak on his amendment, Sir. Some days ago, I referred the Minister of State of Education by way of a supplementary question to a statement made by the Chairman of the Singapore Association for the Deaf that the Ministry of Education had said that it was not responsible for the education of the children in the deaf school. The Minister of State's reply was that the Chairman could say what he liked but that the Ministry was supplying teachers to this school. Sir, I raised this matter last year and I understand the situation has not improved. I understand that there are about 19 teachers seconded from the Ministry of Education. But of these 19 teachers, only four are qualified to teach deaf children. So if we are considering the teaching of deaf children, we have only got four trained teachers. Although the others may be qualified as teachers, they are not specially trained teachers to teach the deaf. Besides these four specially qualified trained teachers, they have the normal qualified teachers, and then they have 16 who are not even normal qualified. I can understand the frustration of the Chairman of the Association for the Deaf when he made that statement. 4.30 p.m. Sir, I think we must face up to this problem fairly and squarely. Whose responsibility is it to educate our disabled children? Is it primarily the responsibility of the Government? Are we going to abdicate that responsibility and pass it on to institutions?”
“Sir, I withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“I told you it was Rotary who made the suggestion. I do not know whether it is a charitable organization.”
“I am obliged to the Minister. Would he touch on one or two other points that I mentioned in my speech? Is there provision of adequate staff at this Woodlands Home for the Aged to look after the 100 semi-ambulant people? There was this problem sometime ago about not getting proper attendants to deal with them. Secondly, my suggestion about the Government thinking on the setting up of a hospice. The Minister has not said anything about that. I am told an approach was made to the Ministry by a charitable organization.”
“One other matter is that, Sir, I am told that under our law if any charitable institution or Home does not use up 80% of its donations or funds received for the year, then it will attract income tax on whatever donations it receives. I would ask the Minister to look into this. I think it is most unfair. Why should these institutions not be allowed to build up their funds if they do not spend all of it in the same year? Sir, I would like to pay tribute in this House not only to the staff in the Government Homes but to the institutions which are rendering a much needed, valuable service to our community. They need some help from the Government. And when I say "the Government", they need help from our society. We who are able to earn our own living or are able to look after ourselves need to help them. It is no good lecturing them, as I said before, lecturing our citizens about the need to look after the aged and the sick. We have to set an example, and when I say "we", the Government must set an example because we elected the Government. The Government is responsible to the society and we expect the Government leading us to set the example so that others may follow. 4.15 p.m.”
“One other thing that has been brought to my attention is the need for what has been described last year in the Budget debate as the half-way homes. These homes are for those who are not too mentally ill to be patients at the Woodbridge Hospital and yet not well enough to be looked after by their own families at home. They fall between two stools. The Woodbridge Hospital would not keep them because they are not that mentally ill that they should stay in the hospital, but they constitute a danger in the homes where they live. I am told that there are quite a number of them in one of the Homes for the Aged Sick. They constitute a problem to the other residents. I am told that this institution has appealed to the Government to take them away and look after them somewhere else. The Home has been told, "You admitted them. You look after them." It seems to me a very indifferent, casual attitude of the Government. There is a real need for Homes to look after people who perhaps are not too ill to be in a mental hospital but cannot be kept in their own homes. I would like the Minister to say whether any progress has been made. I think some mention was made at last year's Budget debate about these half-way Homes. I would like to know whether any progress has been made in setting up these half-way Homes. Again, there is something else that I brought up last year and this again concerns institutions which are being charged, I am told, commercial rates for the supply of water, electricity and other services, Why do we have to burden them with this? They are not commercial institutions. They are doing a valuable service. Why are we not giving them the help?”
“I am told that this is grossly inadequate, so much so that there are about 100 of them in the Woodlands Home for the Aged. I am told that the facilities at the Woodlands Home for the Aged are completely inadequate to look after the chronic sick. I was told that a year or 18 months ago there was also the problem about staffing. I do not know whether it has been alleviated to any extent. The problem then was that the attendants who were being employed to look after the chronic sick were not being paid the same rate as the hospital attendants and so the Home was not able to get proper attendants to look after the sick. Sir, I would like the Minister to say what provision is being made or will be made to look after the chronic sick in our midst. I understand that an organization (I believe it was the Rotary) had suggested the setting up of a hospice for those who are terminally ill in Singapore. I would commend that to the Minister and to the Government. These institutions, as the House probably knows, have now been established in several countries, particularly in the UK and the United States, and they serve a very real need in looking after persons who are terminally ill. They are not hospitals but are hospices with amenable, pleasant surroundings, and with the minimum of care to look after them. Has the Government any ideas about this? I understand that the suggestion that was made was not favourably received by the Ministry. I would like to know why. What is the objection to the setting up of a hospice in Singapore for those who are terminally ill? Should the Minister not be thinking along those lines instead of burdening Homes which are already stretched to look after the chronic sick with inadequate needs and facilities.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head V be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead VC-02 of the Main Estimates. Sir, this Subhead as set out in the Budget is for Welfare Services for the Aged, Vagrant and other Destitute Persons, and it is about them that I wish to speak. Before I come to the particular needs that I wish to bring forward to the attention of the Minister, may I make an appeal not only to the Minister but also to the Government - that the Government would make an effort not just to take a superficial view of a human being as to whether or not he is of economic worth, but to see beyond the wizened body of a destitute, an old person, a vagrant, the human dignity that was in that person and is still there, as a child of God, and that that person, whether he is economically productive or not, still needs our compassion and care as a human being. Sir, on his last ministerial rounds on Sunday, I think the Minister mentioned there were adequate homes for the aged. That may well be so. I am not going to challenge him on that. But I understand that there is an acute need for Homes and beds for the chronic sick. I am told, on good authority, that there is an acute shortage of Homes and beds to take care of the chronic sick, not just the aged who are able perhaps to look after themselves but the chronic sick who are unable to look after themselves and who need some extra care and attention from others. I am told that besides the Government chronic wards at the Woodbridge complex, the other Home that does take them is the Home for the Aged Sick. Some of them are also taken by the Little Sisters of the Poor, the Sree Narayana Mission Home for the Aged and the Kwong Wai Shiu.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I assure you that I shall not get up after this. But may I just ask the Minister whether he has now made a complete turnaround. He says the Workers' Party has been exonerated by the ISD. So why is he seeking the privilege of this House to make allegations against the Workers' Party?”
“I say order an inquiry into your allegations against Mr Ho Juan Thai and the Workers' Party. We will answer them. Go on, and order it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister makes, may I say, wild allegations not only about Mr Ho Juan Thai's alleged involvement with Mr Tan Chay Wa but also about his going into hiding. We challenge him to hold a public inquiry on these allegations. He now says it will be a waste of time. Am I to understand that he thinks that a public inquiry will be a waste of time because he will have no evidence to bring forward? Is that why it is going to be a waste of time? It is not a question of whether Tan Chay Wa knew Ho Juan Thai. The question is: Was Ho Juan Thai involved in any communist subversive activities? That is the question. An hon. Member: Why did he run away?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with respect, I am asking the question and the Minister has to answer.”
“Would the Minister agree that it is highly wrong for him to hide behind the privilege of this House and to make unfounded allegations against this man, Mr Ho Juan Thai, and the Workers' Party? If he says he has got prima facie evidence or facts, why is he not prepared to appoint a public inquiry into these allegations? We are ready to face them. When we ask for an inquiry, it is always refused.”
“As usual, we never get any direct answers to direct questions in this House. It is always a merry-go-round the bush, here we go. Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Minister -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister, I thought, would ask how I got the statement. Is the Minister saying that it is not a genuine document? Would he answer that, first? Is he saying that it is not a genuine document that emanated from Pudu Prison? Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, as a lawyer he should know that it is a non sequitur, it does not follow. I am just asking how did he get hold of this document. I did not say that I have doubts as to the genuineness of that statement. I have doubts as to the truth of that statement.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister not to bring in irrelevancies and to talk about the Falklands? Does he not realize that we are not fighting a Falklands war here? We are talking about our men doing national service during peace time here. I can understand the situation if they are out in the frontline fighting an enemy. Then you can say the situation is quite different. We are talking about a peace time situation when they are doing national service and the responsibility for their deaths can be attributed to the Army or somebody acting in obedience to the Army.”
“That goes the same for you, does it not?”
“Sir, I do not know what is the relevance, or what I said got to do with this point. I am not holding up Britain in everything. Do not distort things. I say here that the British Health Service is something they are very proud of, justifiably very proud, and when we come to Medisave, I will show comparisons with other medical services which show that the service is very cost effective. Well, that is something. But I am not suggesting that you should follow Britain in everything, in following this British legislation, if there is and I am told there is. I am saying it is wrong to deprive soldiers from bringing actions in court. Why do you have to follow Britain? Answer that.”
“Sir, honestly I marvel sometimes at the intelligence of the second generation leadership. The Chairman: Would you please not raise any new issues?”
“What is wrong in telling me when I wrote in?”
“Sir, the Minister of State says that this poor woman cannot get her pension because the jaunt that the son was on was illegal. May I ask the Minister what was wrong in telling me that? What is wrong when an MP writes on behalf of somebody in telling him the true facts. If you do not tell him the true facts, it will give rise to rumours and speculation. Does not anybody know that? What is wrong with telling me what the true facts were? I could then explain to the mother instead of moralizing and preaching. Now, I have mentioned the case of the legislation in Singapore. I have not heard the Minister of State refer to it at all. What does he think about it? May we know? Does he think that our soldiers should be deprived of bringing an action or the dependants of these soldiers should be deprived of bringing an action to recover the full amount of compensation or damages that they would be entitled to under the civil law, if they should suffer injuries or should suffer death while doing national service? May I know what the Minister thinks about this, and why they should not be given these rights?”
“I am making a complaint under the Standing Orders.”
“Sir, on a point of order. I would like you to rule whether it is -”
“Sir, on a point of order. The Minister of State is attributing an improper motive to me. I resent this. I do resent this and it is in the Standing Orders that a Member will not attribute improper motives to another Member. I am not raising this for publicity. The poor woman travelled a long way from where she was living to come and see me because she thought I would get something for her. I am not raising it for my publicity. As regards the details, I asked the Jurong Police Station because they investigated it. What do I get? "Oh, we cannot give you the details." That is something else which I have to take up. So please do not lecture to me.”
“They need some practical help, and I would ask whether the Ministry would consider now doing away with this legislation which prevents any action being brought in respect of deaths or injuries suffered by any national serviceman and, where the fault can be attributed, not to him, but to somebody else acting at the same time as the national serviceman in the performance of his duties. I think that is the only fairest thing to do, so that the person can get all the compensation that another subject is entitled to. In this particular case, the poor mother, as I said, has got no one on whom she can depend; she has a daughter who is married and now the son-in-law is trying to help her out. But why should she be dependent on the charity of the son-in-law? She should be looked after now, I think society owes her a duty and an obligation to look after her. I have been talking about the death of a national serviceman. There is another case, which came to my notice, of a soldier who was paralysed. And again, as a result of an accident. If he had brought an action in the civil court, he would have been entitled to about $150,000 damages if the fault could be attributed to the person who caused the accident. Why should he not be awarded that sum by the Ministry or the Government? I think it is all wrong. This duty to the country is not only the duty of our soldiers. There is a corresponding duty on the society, as I said; to look after our soldiers and to look after their dependants in the case of their deaths.”
“Under the legislation we have, the Government Proceedings Act, it is not possible for the dependants or for the serviceman to bring an action against the Government in respect of any injuries sustained by him or by the dependants in respect of any death. He is barred. He is only allowed to accept whatever is offered in the regulations. Similarly for the family. I do not know why that should be? I understand that is the practice in Britain. But why should we adopt that? If it was a case of a private citizen and he suffers an injury or dies and if the fault can be attributed to his employer or to somebody else, then he can bring an action in the court to claim compensation for himself or his dependants can if he has died, for the negligence of the employer or the other person who was responsible for his death. Why should it not apply in the case of our national servicemen? If, as in this particular case, it can be shown that he suffered death because of the negligent driving of the driver who was driving this vehicle, why should he be deprived of what any other citizen would be entitled to under our law? May I say, Sir, that the compensations that are awarded by our courts will be far greater than whatever the person may get under the regulations, and I think this is an unnecessary and unwarranted deprivation of something which they should be entitled to. I think the family deserves some help, not just a letter from the Ministry saying, "We are very sorry about your son's death." That is not enough.”
“Then it was investigated and the mother received a letter from the Ministry of Defence saying, "You will be paid a year's salary under the regulations" and they calculated it at $300 a month because the man's previous employer said that he was only paying him $300. But according to the mother he was earning much more doing his own work outside. She was told that she would not get any pension because it was not attributable to military service. I do not know why it was not attributable to military service. Be that as it may, she came to see me. She does not live in my constituency. She came to see me and I wrote to the Ministry, and I still have not heard from them on my question as to why it was not attributable to military service. Because under the regulations if it was attributable to military service, the mother could get a pension. I have not had an answer. The latest that I had was for the Ministry to ask, "Is the mother living in your constituency?" I see they are getting wise to the HDB practice. "Or if the mother is not in your constituency, has she got a business there?" I propose to reply to that, but may I raise this matter in the House at the moment. Sir, as I said, I do not know why it was not attributable to military service if the man was actually on duty, travelling in a military vehicle and the vehicle overturned and he died in the course of his service. He was not, of course, in the front line, but he died whilst in military service. I do not know how they interpret military service. But what I do want to do is to draw the attention of this House to the legislation at the moment.”
“Sir, under this amendment of mine I wish to draw the attention of the Minister and the Ministry to the payments by way of compensations, or what have you, made to people who are injured during the time of their national service or who are unfortunate enough to die. Sir, in the debates in this House on the question of increasing the payment of $90 allowance to our soldiers, it has been said more than once that national service is a duty and a privilege and an honour, and it is not a question of pay but it is a question of an allowance that is given to them and they must accept that; their duty is to the country, and it is a privilege they are given. I think that is all very well. But at the same time I think society must accept its responsibility for our soldiers and for their dependants, particularly if the soldiers happen to be the breadwinners in the family and they happen to die whilst in national service. Sir, may I illustrate by a case that was brought to my notice? But before I go on any further, Mr Speaker, Sir, sometimes I forget that I have cases - where my firm act for national servicemen for injuries but I have no pecuniary interest, in this particular case that I am mentioning which was brought to my notice as an MP and I have written as an MP to the Ministry of Defence. I have no personal direct pecuniary interest in any of this. This is the case of a private who was working before he was called up, and I understand that he was the sole breadwinner of his family. Whilst he was doing his national service, Sir, the military vehicle in which he was travelling overturned and he unfortunately died, succumbing to the injuries that he received.”
“I do not want anyone to get the impression that I have been in touch with this man because it might embarrass him. Secondly, I am grateful to the Minister about the case of the woman referred to. However, he has not answered my question about the hawkers in Kampong Bahru market. Could he tell us what he proposes to do about them?”
“Sir, just two words regarding the accounts. First of all, may I disabuse the Minister or anybody else in this House of the notion that I have consulted the Chief Financial Officer of the PUB on the HDB accounts. I do not want to embarrass the poor man. All I am told is that he is a member of the Institute which is the body for municipal accountants in England, and that he is an expert on this. I have asked why do we not send the accounts to him and ask him what he thinks about the accounts. I was not asking him to try and fault the Auditor-General or anybody else. I am told that the HDB accounts are really not double accounting system. Well, he is the man. I cannot speak. All I am saying is that, we ask him. Why do we not ask him what he thinks about the accounts?”
“For those people who are affected by resettlement, there is usually a certain amount of inconvenience and hardship. But this is unavoidable. In Singapore if we do not have resettlement, then we will not be able to carry out all the public projects. We will not be able to carry out our public housing projects. We will not be able to carry out our urban renewal programme. We will not be able to construct roads. We will not be able to build schools, and we will not be able to do a lot of other things. So resettlement is unavoidable. We must have resettlement. For those who are affected by resettlement, the HDB is always trying its very best to minimize their hardship. As regards the particular lady mentioned by the hon. Member, I do not know the details. I would not be able to make any comment because I do not know about the case. If, as the hon. Member has said, he has written to me -”
“But if anyone is not choosy and if he has waited for more than five years, he will be able to get a flat very quickly. On the question of interest to be paid to the depositors, in Singapore there are two ways of paying for a house. For private development, a person will have to pay in accordance with the progress of the building construction. First, he pays 5% and subsequently he pays 10%. Then there is a certain rule that a percentage should be paid as the building construction progresses. Another system is the HDB system. In the HDB system, when you register to buy a flat, you make a downpayment, a deposit. After that, you do not pay any more. When the flat is under construction, you pay nothing. You will pay the balance of the purchase price when the flat is allocated to you. In this way, it is, in fact, a saving for the buyer because if he has to pay according to the progress of the construction he would have paid very much more if you take the interest into consideration. Previously when the HUDC sold the HUDC flats, it was just like a private enterprise. They collected the money while the construction of the building was in progress. The HDB has made a calculation. By using the HDB method, there is a gain for those who buy flats. Although the HDB does not pay interest on the deposit, the HDB has to bear the interest during the period of construction. The HDB has, in fact, paid quite a lot of money to the contractors as progress payments because it has to pay 100% of the construction cost until the building is completed before it can allocate the flats and get back the money. On the question of resettlement, I agree with the hon. Member that resettlement is always a difficult problem.”
“If in 1977 and 1978 people were getting their flats in less than one year, why should people wait for eight or nine years? 6.15 p.m. The reason is that this group of people usually insist on certain localities. We have cases - I mentioned 15 years - of applicants living in the Old Kallang Airport area. At that time in the early 1960's, there was no proposal to build flats in the Old Kallang Airport area. But they insisted on having flats in that area. Therefore, they said, "It does not matter. We will wait." The HDB informed them that they would have to wait for a long time. They said, "It does not matter. We are prepared to wait for 10 years. We are prepared to wait for 15 years. But we insist on getting a flat in that locality." Therefore, they have to wait for a long time. But if the people are not choosy and will accept flats in the various localities, usually in the New Towns where the HDB has built a very large number of flats, at present in Tampines, Bukit Batok, Jurong, Hougang, they will get their flats very quickly. The hon. Member has made a suggestion that those who have waited for more than five years should get their flats earlier. I can give him an assurance that if those people who have waited for more than five years are not choosy, they will get their flats early because the Housing Board's policy is, "first come, first served". If they have waited for more than five years, they are well in front of the queue. If they are not choosy, they will get their flats quickly. But if they are choosy and would like to have their flats in a particular locality, then it will be difficult because perhaps the number of flats in the choice locality is very limited and in such a situation they may not get a flat at all.”
“I am not very sure whether the Member's suggestion that HDB's accounts be sent to PUB's Chief Accountant is legal or illegal. I would like to remind the hon. Member that the PUB's own accounts are also audited by the Auditor-General. HDB's accounts are also audited by the Auditor-General. I do not know whether it is proper or not for HDB's accounts to be sent to somebody else, i.e. to PUB's chief accountant, when PUB's own accounts are also audited by the Auditor-General. I am not a lawyer and I am not very sure about the laws. His suggestion may not be proper. But if, as he has mentioned, the PUB's chief accountant has a lot of good suggestions, I would suggest that he write either to the Auditor-General or to me. The Public Accounts Committee in Parliament scrutinizes all the accounts of statutory boards. So I will not send HDB's accounts to anyone because I may be doing the wrong thing. Maybe this is against the rules of Parliament. Maybe it is against the rules of the Public Accounts Committee. This may be interpreted as contempt by the Public Accounts Committee. The Member mentioned that there are people who are on the HDB's waiting list for nine or 10 years and who have still not got their flats. This, in fact, is true. There are such cases. It is not because they cannot get their flats but they insist on flats in certain localities. I would like to quote an example. There are people in HDB's waiting list for as long as 15 years. It is not because they cannot get their flats. In fact, previously before this sudden upsurge in applications, people were able to get their flats in two to three years. In 1977 and 1978 the waiting time was so short that some of the people got their flats in Bedok after having waited for less than one year.”
“HDB has only 12,000 people to look after 400,000 units of flats, of which two-thirds are owned by residents and one-third is rented out. This is an enormous task. It is not possible for HDB to extend its services to also look after the interior of two-thirds of its flats. This would be beyond HDB's task. If HDB undertakes this, the number of staff of HDB would likely have to be doubled. On the refuse compound, I will ask HDB to look into this because this is something new to me. I thought that by providing a roof over the refuse compound, it would keep the smell away from the residents. I think HDB will find a solution. On mechanized refuse collection, mechanization is to save manpower because HDB is facing the problem of trying to get cleansing workers. As I mentioned many times - and this is widely publicized - young Singaporeans are not very keen to become cleansing workers. HDB has great difficulty in getting people to work as cleansing workers. So mechanization is a way to save labour, HDB is trying to experiment on separate types of machines and if certain types of machines are found suitable HDB will buy them. I think the cleansing work for about half of the HDB flats is done on a contract basis. HDB is trying to find ways to finance the contractors to buy the machines so as to save manpower because the contractors who undertake HDB contract also find difficulty in getting workers. The Member for Anson has mentioned that he would not go into the question of accounts again. But I would like to mention one or two points on the accounts which the Member may or may not know. HDB's accounts are sent to the Public Accounts Committee in Parliament for scrutinizing.”