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 72 of 82.
“Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Sir, on the problems of defects of the flats in Toa Payoh, these flats were built 10 to 15 years ago, as rightly pointed out by the Member for Toa Payoh. It is HDB's policy - in fact, in almost all the arrangements with property developers and owners - that once the owner takes possession of a house he is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the house. This is the universal practice, and it is not just applicable in Singapore. However, HDB is doing a good deal more than what the developers are doing when they sell their flats. HDB maintains the common areas and arrange for the five-yearly redecoration of the buildings. This quite often leads to people thinking that since HDB is doing so much and is looking after the whole place, why not HDB also maintains and looks after the interior of the flat like water pipes, the rooms and other things? But this is not possible. That is as much as HDB can go. HDB usually asks the residents to look after their own flats and if there is any defect within the flat which they are not able to rectify, HDB will help by telling them who is able to repair their pipes or paint the flats and that they can go and see this group of contractors. This is a private arrangement between the owner of the flat and the contractor, and HDB is just acting as a middleman to bring them together. But HDB cannot possibly be responsible for the defects of the flats which are already 10 to 15 years old. So on the suggestion by the Member for Toa Payoh that HDB should be responsible for making good the defects of the old flats owned by the residents, this is not possible. HDB is a big organization but the resources are also limited.”
“They told the resettlement officer that it would be most inconvenient for the mother to be in Jurong East or Jurong West because she has got to go to the hospital every week. Apparently the answer was, "No. You either take it or leave it." What is more, the son tells me that the resettlement officer went to them and said, "If you don't get out, you know what we will do. We will come with the police. We will just throw all your things out and then break down the house." It is most unfortunate, Sir. I have written about this particular case to the HDB. I do not know whether the Minister has seen this. Perhaps not, he does not see all letters. But I have written about this particular case mentioning the name of the officer who said this to the son. They are very upset about this. They have been living there for 30 years or so in Anson Road and all that they are asking is that they be put somewhere quite close to the hospital in Covent Garden or some other area. I think some account should be taken of their needs. They should not be just brushed aside. Finally, Sir, may I ask the Minister whether he knows anything yet about the resettlement of my people in Kampong Bahru. I suppose it is too soon yet. But the hawkers in Kampong Bahru market are worried and anxious as to where they are going to be resettled. Would he be able to tell us whether they would be given places in the Bukit Purmei market or hawker centre when that is completed? I understood from the Minister for the Environ- ment that the idea was to try and locate them nearest to their existing stalls or businesses. May I know from the Minister what is the policy as regards hawkers in Kampong Bahru market and also the residents in Kampong Bahru area generally.”
“The other point, Sir, is about the deposit. Again, these people paid their deposits years ago, some as much as $3,000 or $4,000. They do not get any interest on these deposits. I think I heard the Minister say that HDB does not allocate any flat at the time of booking, like the private developer does. So I do not know what is the reason for collecting the deposit then in the first place. When these people have lost interest on their deposits for a number of years, should not one look into this? If it was left with the CPF, they would have been earning interest all this while. May I move on, Sir, because I know of the limited time. About the resettlement problems, mention has been made of the lack of feeling among some HDB officers - I do not say all - of the lack of appreciation of the sensitivity of the problem that is caused, particularly in the case of resettlement. Resettlement is an upheaval. A family is being uprooted from a familiar place, familiar surroundings, into somewhere new. I would ask the Minister to tell his officers who are dealing with this resettlement problem to show a little more sensitivity to the feelings of the people. May I just give him an example. In my constituency there is an old woman living in Anson Road and she has to go regularly to the hospital once a week for treatment. She has a son who is living with her, but apparently he is not eligible for resettlement because he moved in after the cut-off date although he did not know about it and he had been away. But he applied for joint balloting with his mother. The mother has been given a place in Jurong West or Jurong East.”
“Sir, I would like to assure the Minister that I am not going to talk about these HDB accounts now. I move this amendment under Development estimates to talk about other matters. May I, first of all, speak a little about the waiting time for purchasers of HDB flats. We have heard various announcements from the Minister and from other Ministerial statements about the waiting time being about 3 1/2 to four years - I stand corrected, of course, but I think that was the time period mentioned. I would tell the Minister that I know of several cases where they have been waiting for more than five years, some as many as nine or ten years. May I tell the Minister that I am very encouraged by the news that the HDB is speeding up the construction of flats, and may I compliment him on the steps that have been taken to do this. I am not averse to giving credit where it is due, although people think I am. 6.00 p.m. I have said before about the record of housing that has been provided in Singapore. But that does not mean that it is perfect altogether. I would ask the Minister whether he would give special consideration to those who have been waiting for, say, five years and more, first. I think they deserve some consideration. We have been talking about the 1-room flats being overcrowded. I know of at least three families in my constituency who are living in 1 -room flats, and there are about six, seven, eight or nine of them, and they have been waiting to move into a 4-room or a 5-room flat but they have not been accorded this. Would he see that these people who have been waiting for more than five years are now dealt with first? I do not know how he is going to arrange this but they deserve some consideration and not get pushed back and back all the time because of resettlement.”
“Yes, from rents collected by the HDB. But that does not mean you go and ask them to pay for the painting. You provide out of all the rents you collected. It is as simple as that. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to withdraw this amendment.”
“I said it should not be debited against service and conservancy charges. Some hon. Members: You said it should come from rents.”
“I am sorry, Sir. The Minister has asked me a question. I am used to this distortion of what I said. I said this should not be debited to the monies collected for service and conservancy.”
“He is. I told you that he is an authority on municipal accounts. An hon. Member: There are other authorities better than him.”
“No, Sir. May I just by clarification ask the Minister this question? Would he accept this challenge to send it to the Chief Financial Officer? He is not my friend, the Chief Financial Officer of the Public Utilities Board. An hon. Member: He is not the authority.”
“Yes, there are a lot of things we do not know. That is true.”
“It is no good pointing at my party, I will answer for my party. But you have got to answer for the HDB. I am sorry to say this - that if you cannot answer for the HDB on these matters, the only recourse for you is to resign. I think Ministers must take their duties seriously. In any other country, the Minister would resign. I say, if you cannot answer this, the only recourse is for you to resign. Then go and meet your electorate; explain to them and see if they understand and agree that the way the HDB has presented its accounts is in order and that they themselves will have no quarrel with them: otherwise you are failing in your duty.”
“" He said that these items should not come under this head. So if you take away these items, you are not left with a deficit on the service and conservancy account; you are left with an excess of something like $3 million. I have only selected these three items. He said that even the other items need looking into. I think the HDB must accept its obligation to present all its accounts for inspection by any Member of the House or even by the public so that they are all satisfied with how the accounts are presented and maintained. It is not a question of a private organization. The HDB is a statutory body and it must be made accountable, just as the Government must be made accountable to the public. Now, I have asked the Minister a number of questions and I am afraid he has not answered a single one of them. He hides behind the trumpet blowing on behalf of the HDB. But I was not asking for trumpetblowing of the HDB. I wanted specific answers to specific questions. Why were these profits not brought over to the HDB accounts year by year? Will you please answer that question? Why were they left with MND Holdings? As I have said, if the profits had been brought over, they could have been used for the benefit of our citizens. The rents might have been made a little cheaper for them, or the purchase price could have been brought down a little bit. Or even if he did not want to do that, he could have invested the profits elsewhere and earned income on that, thus adding to the funds of the HDB. Why have all these monies not been properly used? Is that not a waste of your funds? It is no good saying, "Your party cannot look after its own accounts." That is not the answer, Mr Minister, with respect. You have got to answer for the HDB.”
“On my first appearance in this House on 22nd December, 1981, I drew the attention of the Minister to the accounts for 1980-81 which, I said, showed that the HDB was collecting something like $30 million more by way of service and conservancy charges than the amount it spent. Then, of course, there was a reply from the Minister of State saying that the accounts did not tell the whole story. Of course, we know that these accounts are not telling the whole story. He said that there were a lot of other things that I did not know about. And so after that there was a statement in the HDB journal, Our Home, trying to explain the service and conservancy charges, trying to show that the Member for Anson did not know what he was talking about. They brought into the expenditure account a number of things which inflated the expenditure so as to show a debit balance. What do we find from the 1981-82 accounts? For the first time, in the 1981-82 accounts, the Auditor draws attention to the service and conservancy charges. We find this at page 21. He gives the income as $134 million, total expenditure as $142 million, showing a deficit for the year of $8,209,571. This is what the Minister is talking about when he says that there is a deficit. But what do you find under this expenditure? I have only got to take one item, Sir. There is an amount of $10,716,100 which is put against "Contributions to Repair Fund for repairs and repainting." I have asked a Public Accountant about this, and he said that that should not come in here. That should come under the Rents collected. It should not come under service and conservancy charges. That is how you show a deficit. There are two other items, "Contribution to Fire and Damage Fund" and "Fire Insurance premia.”
“Sir, speaking for myself - I know I do not speak for the other Members - speaking for myself, I find the Minister's reply, in one word, pathetic. I am sorry. There is no other word that I can think of. It is pathetic. He says, "We have got so many things to look after. It will take time for us to switch our accounting system. We inherited it from the British. We are building houses cheaply. We are doing everything. Please do not ask us about our accounts." That, Sir, is not the answer one would expect from the Minister. I am not alone in saying that your accounts are not presenting a proper picture. I will give you a challenge. Would you like to send your accounts to the Chief Financial Officer of the Public Utilities Board? I understand that he is a member of the Institute of Public Finance and Administration, a very respectable body, and it is a body in the United Kingdom for all municipal accountants. I am told that perhaps he is the only person in Singapore who is a member of this Institute. Would you like to send your accounts to him and ask him to say whether you have followed the proper accounting system for municipal accounts, and whether your accounts tell a true and fair story? Simple. Do not take my word for it. Ask him, unless you are saying that you cannot accept his word either - the Chief Financial Officer of the Public Utilities Board, who is a member of the Institute of Public Finance and Administration. It is up to you now. I am glad that the Minister has brought up the service and conservancy charges. He says that the HDB is making a loss on the service and conservancy charges.”
“Yes, Sir, I am going to refer to the Minister's reply. Other Members had been given the chance to reply to the Minister's statement. I would like to have the same opportunity, Sir.”
“There is another thing, Sir. These accounts, I am told, although reference has been made to double accounting, these are really not double accounting at all, as I understand.”
“I want to know from the Minister why he allowed these accounts to be presented to this House. He has made himself a party to the presentation of the accounts. As I said, if it was under the Companies Act, he may find himself on a charge of aiding and abetting the presentation of accounts which did not comply with the Companies Act. But that is perhaps technical. I am not very anxious to see the Minister charged, or anybody else charged for that matter. The question is, why have these profits not been appropriated to the HDB year by year? Why have they been left lying with MND Holdings (Pte) Ltd? I would like to know that, If they had been appropriated, HDB would not show a loss at all. These profits could have been used for the benefit of our citizens to make the cost of the flats to them a little cheaper. Why was it not used for their benefit? Why was $50 million left secreted away with MND Holdings? I think the public is entitled to know why. And the Minister, in presenting his case for an increase in the flats not very long ago, talked about the HDB going bankrupt. As I said then, I did not think the HDB was going bankrupt. Here it is. HDB is not going bankrupt. HDB has, as I said, $50.9 million. That was at the end of 1981. What is the position at the end of 1982? Sir, I am sorry but I must emphasize the seriousness of this. Here is a statutory board presenting accounts which do not tell the whole story, which secrets away the profits of HDB so that people may not know what the position is. That is used as a justification for increasing the prices of flats to our citizens. In 1981 it went up by 38%. I know my ten minutes is coming.”
“So far from the financial position of the HDB showing a deficit of $6 million, HDB has in fact secreted away profits of $50.9 million, an excess of $44 million over the deficit suffered for 1981. I will say to the Minister, quite seriously, that this is scandalous. Why were these profits not consolidated into the accounts? The holding of HDB in MND does appear but the profits have not been consolidated into the accounts. And the Auditor says that, in his statement, "the accounts of the company and its subsidiaries are not consolidated in the Board's accounts." May I tell the Minister that if the HDB came under the Companies Act, whoever was responsible for preparing these accounts would find himself at the end of a criminal charge. May I remind the Minister and the Members that not so very long ago a director of a company was sent to prison for six months for the very same thing, that the accounts did not show the true state of the company's financial position, that the report of the directors did not disclose the profits that had been made by a subsidiary company. So there we have a director who was sent to prison for six months because the accounts of his company did not reflect the true financial position. But as for HDB, of course, the Minister will say, "We don't come under the Companies Act." But that is not the answer. HDB is a statutory board. I have said this before, and I was glad to see - I think the Member for Rochore also mentioned - that it is accountable as a statutory board to this House first, and then to the members of the public. And it has a duty to come clean, with a clean slate before the House when it presents its report. I say these accounts do not reveal the true state of the financial position of HDB.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by the whole sum of Subhead TE-01 of the Main Estimates. I am sorry I should put the Hon. Minister out of humour by this amendment that I am moving. As has been observed, he has been in very good humour. But I am duty bound to bring this to the attention of the House and indeed to the public. I am, again, on the question of the HDB accounts. Sir, if you look at the Accounts for 1980-81, you will find under the Income and Expenditure Account that the HDB would appear to have suffered a loss of $6,540,578. But it is the burden of my speech here today to show that this is completely misleading. These accounts are misleading, and are keeping from the public and from this House the true state of the HDB's finances. Sir, it is only when you turn to the Notes of the Auditor which appear at the back of these Accounts, at page 19 of the last report (81/82), what do you find? You find that HDB has an investment of $15,650,000 in MND Holdings (Pte) Ltd. He says this amount of HDB's holding represents 49.99% of the issued share capital of the company. I would like to know from the Minister who are the other shareholders who hold 50.01% in MND Holdings. Is HDB the biggest shareholder, the dominant shareholder? Perhaps he will answer that among other questions that I have for him. You find in this Report that, as at 31st December 1981, that is December 1981 and we are now talking in 1983, the unappropriated profit of the company was $18,034,109. If you include the profits of the company and its subsidiaries, it comes to $101,853,765. If HDB owns 49.99% of MND Holdings, the HDB's share of the profits up to the end of 1981 works out to $50.9 million.”
“I am sorry, Mr Speaker, Sir, all this seems to me double Dutch. May I ask the Minister a direct question and perhaps may I have a direct answer to that? The Minister talks about persons who do not wish to see me but goes to see a PAP MP and that would be perfectly all right. But according to him, as I heard a little while ago this afternoon, it is not perfectly all right if somebody living in his constituency, who does not want to see him, comes to see me. The Minister says that it is not all right because it is repetitive work for the HDB. What I would like to know is, how does he justify this double standard, which I know has been in existence? 4.15 p.m.”
“I will, Sir. As I suspected, there would appear to be double standards. I had long suspected this and now it is borne out by the Minister; from the horse's mouth itself you get it. I am quite happy for anyone in my constituency to see somebody else if they wish. But I would like to know what is the basis for the Minister's statement.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have an amendment on this, but may I just deal with this matter?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether the Minister should answer this, but is there a ruling that MPs only represent constituents in their own constituencies? Who has made this ruling?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with respect, I do not think the Hon. Minister has answered my first question. Why is the Minister assuming that the MP to whom the man goes will not know all about his history? It is for the man to tell the MP all about his history. What if the man does not want to go to his own MP but he nevertheless wants a representation to be made on his behalf? What is so very wrong about it? Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Sir, I think the Member of Parliament has been elected to serve his constituents and if the Member of Parliament is not prepared to serve a particular constituent, then it becomes a separate case. But if a person, say, from another constituency, goes to see the hon. Member for Anson, I think the Member for Anson will ask for the reason why he does not see his own MP. This is the first question he will ask. And if he gives a rational explanation as to why he does not see his own MP, then if the rational explanation is given to the Housing Board, then I think the Housing Board will consider his case.”
“Secondly, I would like to know when was this practice brought into effect. Thirdly, was it because of a directive from the Minister, or was it taken upon by the HDB themselves?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I understand the Minister, the refusal is to prevent any constituent, after having applied through his own MP, moving on to another constituency. I can well understand that. But what about the case where the man does not go to his own MP but goes to some other MP and that MP makes representation, for the first time, on behalf of this man? What is the objection to that? That is one question. May I ask all my questions now, Sir?”
“He voted "Aye". 6.15 p.m. The following amendments stood on the Order Paper Supplement:-”
“May it be recorded, Sir, that the Minister voted "Aye"?”
“Sir, the Minister says that those people in the countries in the West who embarked on this are on the road to perdition. Does he know that even Mrs Thatcher's government, the government of which perhaps his Government would approve so much, has refused to cut back on social subsidies in spite of demands? It is not a message of despair that I am preaching. I am preaching a message of hope for our people. What you are preaching is this message of despair, "There is nothing for You, you poor people out there." I said, you give back $1.4 million to people who have got enough and to spare, and you take from those who do not have it, a million dollars, assuming that you have got a thousand C Class beds. Is that really necessary? Answer that question.”
“Sir, I am afraid the Minister has just been abusive in trying to reply. I do not know why it is necessary for him to be abusive. I know about this Minister's pompousness, even way back in 1952 or 1951 when he was sitting oh the Bench. Perhaps he has forgotten that. But, be that as it may, Sir, he says there is no report. What I would like to know is this. I have heard this - that a British team was invited to look into our medical service and perhaps advise on the building of our new hospital. Is that true or not true? If it is not true, say so, because then I must relate it back !o the people who told me this. Did they present a report? That is all I am asking. There is no need to be abusive about this. One is entitled to ask for information in this House. The other matter is about the charges. He says that for the A Class wards, they are just charging a little bit more than what it costs them. The highest charge, as I see it, is $100 and $120 in the new General Hospital. These are much less than those that are being charged in the private hospitals.”
“We were talking about the medical health service, not about a specialist centre.”
“I want to know whether there is any rebate given where there is no X-ray examination or medical or lab examination for any particular day or days that the patient is in the hospital. Then there is the Accidents and Emergency fee of $12 that is being charged. The reason, as I understood for this increase in the Accidents and Emergency fee, was that it was being abused. People are using the Accidents and Emergency Departments of the hospitals when they should really be going to the outpatient clinics. But I see that this charge is made even when people go to the Accidents and Emergency Department of the Hospital after 10.00 p.m. at night. Should there not be a consideration as to whether this fee should be paid by those who are forced to go to the Accidents and Emergency Department at night when they would not be able to go, to the outpatient clinics or the private practitioners? Should there not be some relief for them when they go to the Accidents and Emergency Department not by choice but because they are forced to because of some calamity or emergency in the night? Then there is the question of the fee paid in accident cases. I think I raised this last year, Sir. 6.00 p.m.”
“And yet we think it necessary to raise the charges to these people who can only afford Class C wards and raise the charges by 43%. Was that really necessary, Sir, I ask, particularly at this time when we are talking about bad times ahead? This meant an increase of $3 per day for each patient in the hospital. I do not know how many Ward C beds there are altogether in our hospitals. But the Member for Rochore was talking about using the money collected from payroll tax to finance the hospital services. I am not going to go into the payroll tax. But only last week we handed back $1.4 million to the specially qualified women in the form of child relief. That is $1.4 million and a simple calculation will show that if you have a thousand C-class beds, the increase will only bring in just over $1 million. As I said, I do not know how many C-class beds are there. So we are collecting from these people a further million dollars, assuming there are a thousand beds, and we are handing back to people who do not really need the money, as I have said over and over again, $1.4 million. Is this an equitable distribution of our resources in Singapore? Is it not weighing very unfairly against those who are not able to pay for their medical services and for their other basic needs of life? I see, Sir, that the $10 is made up of $6 for the bed, $2.50 for the daily treatment, prescription, and $1.50 for X-ray examination and medical and lab fee. But I understand that this $10 is collected as a flat fee regardless of whether you have had any X-ray examination or medical or lab examination. And it is not to be supposed that there will be an X-ray examination every day that the patient stays in the hospital.”
“We should not be running a colonial medical service which was run by the colonial government for the colonials. We have to run a medical service which is worthy of our people. I would ask the Minister whether he would enlarge on what the Director of Medical Services had in mind when he talked about our medical services having a long, long way to go. Perhaps could the Minister also tell us in this House what are the shortcomings of our medical service that the Director of Medical Services had in mind, and what does the Ministry propose to do? Incidentally, I understand that there was a report from a British team of medical experts who were invited to look at our medical service when our new hospital was being built. I do not know whether this report has been made public. I would like to know whether it has been made public and whether it is available. If it is not, may I know whether this House will be presented with the report for Members to look at. I think it is important. It is not just a matter for the Ministry. It is a matter that concerns the whole of Singapore and we should see what these people had to say. They were probably brought here at some expense to advise. May I turn, because of the limited time, to the increase in hospital charges that were announced to take effect from 1st January this year. Again, may I say that I am confining myself to the increases in the charges for Ward C. I see that the rates for Ward C have gone up from $7 to $10, an increase of 43%. We have been told for some months now that our times are bad. Everyone must tighten their belts, how people might be thrown out of jobs and that there might be less money.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead PC-02 of the Main Estimates. Sir, this Subhead deals with Patient Care and that relates mainly to the hospitals. Before I come to talk about the recent increases for Ward C treatment, may I say a few things about our health service. May 1, first of all, enjoin upon the Minister and the Government that the health care of the community, perhaps together with the education of our children, must form the first priorities of any government and it is a sacred duty that is laid upon every government. Perhaps one can throw in with that, the housing of our people. But health care is vital and especially in our case where it has been repeated so often that our only resource is our people. Two weeks ago I saw a report in the papers of the Director of Medical Services speaking at a seminar or conference that our health service had a long long way to go. He was not calling it a third rate service. But I thought that was what he was trying to say. He was talking about Singapore being a specialist medical centre. Are we, perhaps in our eagerness to promote Singapore as a specialist medical centre that will stand out in this region, caring for specialist treatment and attracting people from the neighbouring countries, neglecting the more important health service, and that is, caring for the greater part of our population in the treatment of their minor ailments? Are we giving our people, and particularly those who are unable to pay for themselves, the best medical care that is possible? Or are we treating them as we do with our workers, as I said, as recipients of charity, "Take this, or if you do not like it, you can leave it."? I think our people are entitled to something more.”
“Sir, by way of clarificaton, to assist the Minister, may I say that I should have thought the occupier would be liable.”
“Sir, I am indebted to the Minister for his statement, but I heard him say that the Ministry will not hesitate to prosecute anyone for criminal negligence if it is found that the death was caused by criminal negligence. I would like to know whether there has been any prosecution, either in 1982 or even before that, for criminal negligence under the Penal Code. There is one other case that I was going to bring up when I spoke but I overlooked it. There was a case - I do not know whether it was two years ago - of a worker falling to his death whilst window-cleaning the OCBC Centre at Chulia Street. As I understood from the report, his death was caused solely by the defective state of the hook or bracket which was affixed to the wall and to which he had attached his safety belt. I understand that it snapped, which sent the man hurtling down to his death. I would like to know whether any thing was done in that case to prosecute anybody. I should have thought that there was a clear case because anyone who is responsible for that building should be responsible for maintaining the building so that it does not present itself as a danger to anyone working either outside or inside the building. May I know whether there was any prosecution in that case.”
“I will ask them to send their particulars to you. VIDEO-FILM CENSORSHIP SYSTEM 6.”
“Sir, the Minister of State asked what would be the purpose for the visits. May I inform him that, as I understand it, they would go there to conduct classes in English or teach them some craft. May I know from the Minister of State whether I could ask these people to make their request to him?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister of State, by way of a supplementary question, whether his Ministry would allow lady welfare workers from outside SANA to visit the women detainees at these drug centres? I have had this request conveyed to me. I am told that only women welfare workers from SANA are allowed to visit them and nobody else, and that these women detainees are complaining of boredom.”
“I would rather speak tomorrow since, as you have said, I have only two minutes.”
“Sir, would you rather that I speak today or shall I speak tomorrow?”
“Sir, I would like a further clarification. As I understand the Minister, it is only when complaints are received that he sends out his inspectors. He does not have any periodic inspections, or inspectors dropping in on work places to see whether they are conducive to the health of the workers.”
“Yes. The Minister of State does not understand that.”
“Sir, I do not know where the Minister of State is reading from. But I see from the Programme Description, Labour Inspection, it states: 'The inspection of work places to ensure that employers comply with statutory rules governing terms and conditions of service and the investigation of violations of labour welfare legislation.' That is the Subhead on which I am talking.”
“Sir, as I indicated, this Subhead does not deal with industrial safety but with the "terms and conditions of service and the investigation of violations of labour welfare legislation." I am afraid the Hon. Minister of State has not answered my question. I must protest, I want to know how the Ministry carries out an inspection at work places to see that employers comply with the minimum terms and conditions of service, not safety at the moment. We are not concerned with that at the moment but with the minimum terms and conditions of service. For example, that they pay overtime regularly if any of the employees are asked to stay behind and work overtime. That is one aspect of their terms and conditions of service. The other aspect is proper provision of sanitary facilities. Another aspect is whether the work places are properly ventilated, whether they are being overcrowded. One can think of a number of things. I want to know how does the Ministry ensure all this?”
“What we want to know is what is the Ministry doing to ensure that employers are providing the minimum terms and conditions of service provided in the Employment Act for their employees and, what is more, what is the Ministry doing to see that employees or workers are not made to work in insanitary conditions, that proper amenities are being provided for them in their work place, and that the work place is a happy place for them. This is what I would like to know from the Minister before I say anything further on this Subhead. 7.30 p.m.”
“All right, then. All I wish to say to the Member is that, if he has to resort to distortions of the truth, it only shows the poverty of his argument. And I say that to all other Members as well, if they have to resort to distortions of their opponent's arguments. The Subhead that I have chosen to speak on is Labour Inspection and if you see the Programme Description for this Programme in the Budget, it says: 'The inspection of work places to ensure that employers comply with statutory rules governing terms and conditions of service and the investigation of violations of labour welfare legislation.' That Subhead has nothing to do with industrial safety. I have another amendment when it comes to industrial safety. What I would like to know from the Minister is, how is his Ministry carrying out this "inspection of work places to ensure that employers comply with the statutory rules governing terms and conditions of service and the investigation of violations of labour welfare legislation"? I would like to know how this is done? What sanctions, if any, are applied by his Ministry when employers are found to have violated the terms and conditions of service of their employees? What sanctions are applied, for example, if Inspectors from the Minis- try go to a workplace and find that workers are being made to work in insanitary conditions or in conditions which are not amenable to their health or their comfort? We hear in this House, time and time again, pious hopes - that employers will become more enlightened, employers will learn that they should treat their employees well in the interest of the company. It is not good enough to utter pious hopes.”
“The Member was allowed to carry on with his railings.”
“All right. I spoke on behalf of the wives, foreign women, who married Singapore citizens. They are no longer foreigners once they decide to marry Singapore men and choose to make Singapore their home. The second distortion, a gross distortion of the truth, is when he says that I suggested that the $819 million which I said had been collected under false pretence should be turned over to the employers. I said nothing of that sort. I said, first of all, you should set up a committee comprising Members from both sides of the House.”