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 74 of 82.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am obliged to the Minister of State, but I would ask whether he would convey his answer to the Minister of State for Home Affairs. We were told just a little while ago that I should persuade them to move out. Now we understand from the Minister of State for National Development that they have not been offered alternative accommodation as yet. They have not been offered resettlement benefits. So I would ask him to lend his voice to my plea to the Minister for Home Affairs and to the Fire Service to do something to protect the lives of those citizens who are still living there until such time as the Ministry is able to get them out.”
“The include recommendations on work station design, for example, the-positioning of the keyboard, screen and seat; level of illumination; work-rest periods and medical examination. Because people are built differently and work in different ways, VDU work stations should be designed so that it can be adapted to the needs of individual operators. These guidelines may be used by management and operators to assess the adequacy of VDU work conditions.”
“I am talking about the debris in the vacant houses. VISUAL DISPLAY UNITS (Legal norms for usage) 5. Dr Wan Soon Bee asked the Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour, in view of the widespread use of visual display units, if he will consider introducing legal norms concerning the use of visual display terminals, especially with a view to enabling the factory inspector to exercise control with special attention paid to the global effect of radiation to which workers are continuously exposed. The Minister of State for Labour (Dr Wong Kwei Cheong) (for the Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour): Mr Speaker, Sir, we appreciate the concern of the Member over the possible ill effects of radiation on workers operating visual display units (VDUs). VDUs do emit a low level of radiation which is no more than that emitted from a television set. This level of radiation is not harmful to the worker's health. This was the finding of the Department of Scientific Services of the Ministry of Health which conducted a test on VDUs in December 1980. The finding concurs with those in the UK and the US. However, it is recognized that prolonged work on a VDU may give rise to eye-strain and other complaints like fatigue, headache and muscle aches. These subjective complaints vary with individual operators and are more common under working conditions which do not cater to physical comfort. To minimize such complaints, many countries have drawn up guidelines on lighting, avoidance of glare, working postures, rest and hours of work. My Ministry has also, in 1981, prepared and issued a set of guidelines on visual display unit work. These guidelines were prepared after a study of recommendations made by authoritative bodies overseas.”
“Are we to understand, Mr Speaker, Sir, from the Minister of State that nothing has been done in these premises that are vacant, from Nos. 243 to 235, and that the dried wood has not been cleared away and that it will not be cleared away until all the other residents have moved out? May I tell the Minister and the Government that the neighbouring residents live in mortal fear. They are unable to go to bed at night because they are worried that there might be a fire and they begin to wonder whether the intention of the Ministry is that they should be forced out of their homes by fire.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister of State says that the Fire Service is aware of the danger and has advised the relevant agencies. But I have been to this site twice and I find that the premises have all been left open. There are a lot of dried wood, debris lying about, and the residents in the neighbouring-”
“This could be done by giving a rebate where the hawker is able to produce his accounts or income tax returns to show that he is not making very much; that was all he was making. Then he could get his rebate. This would be something to show that you are taking care of his particular condition and situation, and not imposing a flat fee applied everywhere all over Singapore to everybody regardless of his earnings or his ability to earn.”
“Sir, besides the question of hawker fees, I also asked the Minister what the objection in principle was to granting licences to itinerant hawkers. I do not think he has dealt with that, and may I know what is the objection in principle to that? Not to everybody but to selected people who have been in the trade for years. Secondly, I asked him also about the criteria of hardship, and I said that last time he gave us an example of persons drawing public assistance. So I asked, "Is that the only criteria?" I would like to hear more on this from him. The other question is the fees. I do not want to go over what the Member for Whampoa has said. But there is this question of the cost to the Ministry. The Ministry is not selling the stalls, as I understand it. It only rents out these stalls. What is the span of years over which the Ministry expects to recoup its expenditure? I take it that when these markets are built, they are not going to last only five years or ten years. What is the life span of these markets? And over how long a period are you planning to recoup your capital outlay on these markets? I think we need to know a little bit more about all this. It is no good saying, "Construction costs have gone up. So, my dear chap; you have to pay 1 1/2 times your fees." I think the public have to be informed. The other point which has been mentioned is that hawking is not only the livelihood of the hawkers. The hawkers are still rendering a public service to the people of Singapore. That must be considered. So I would ask the Minister to consider this. He talks about hawkers owning Mercedes Benz cars. May I suggest then that perhaps the Ministry could think of varying licence fees, depending on the earnings of these hawkers.”
“Why are they being put to this duplication? I know of people who are in their 40s or 5Os who are unable, for some reason or other, to do any other job and the only thing that they can do is hawking, either set up a stall or go round. Why should they be deprived? Why should they be told, "You wait till you are 60-65 years old and then go to the Ministry of Social Affairs, get your public assistance, and then come to us." The Ministry should re-think this policy. May I suggest to the Ministry and to this Government that policies and rules must be made to suit people and their conditions. It is not a question of making your policies and then getting people to suit them. It is the other way, as in the old adage, laws are made for man, not man for laws. I would ask the Minister not to be so rigid in the application of Government policy or rules but to try and fit them to the needs and conditions of the people.”
“But I think itinerant hawkers do serve a useful purpose and I really cannot see what is the objection to allowing selected itinerant hawkers. If they present a traffic problem and if they are causing obstruction, then I am sure the Traffic Police will deal with them. But if they are moving from house to house, or area to area, what is the problem? After all, we have got lots of others moving from area to area. What is wrong with a hawker on his mechanized tricycle or motorcycle moving around selling bread, milk or ice-cream, or anything else for that matter? What is the objection in principle to this? I have had an itinerant hawker coming to see me in my capacity as a Member of Parliament and he has been an itinerant hawker for many, many years. That is his only livelihood. And he brought to me a sheaf of fine tickets that he had to pay and he said that he has been driven to his wit's end. I wrote to the Ministry and I was told, 'We have stopped issuing any licences. We can't issue it." What is wrong with this man having a licence to carry on his itinerant hawking? I cannot see anything wrong with it. Finally, Sir, may I ask the Minister to explain a little bit more about the criteria of hardship for the issue of a new licence. When I asked him last time, he said that one criterion would be where they were in receipt of public assistance. Is that the only criterion? If that is the only criterion, it would mean that hardly anybody would get a new licence. But why should they, first of all, go and get public assistance? It is hard enough already trying to get public assistance from the Ministry of Social Affairs. So why should they be asked to get that first and then go to the Ministry of the Environment to get a hawking licence?”
“Thank you, Sir. May I add my plea, along with the pleas that have been made by the other hon. Members to the Minister, to think again a little about the announced increases for hawkers in the licence fees that they would be required to pay. I see that the fee for cooked food hawkers would be going up by about 150%, no doubt in three stages beginning from April this year, and others - the piece goods and sundry hawkers and market produce - differentiated in varying degrees, less than 150%. The reason given by the Ministry was that the construction cost of the hawker stalls had risen. They said it had risen from $6,000 in 1973 to $40,000 today. I do not know whether the Ministry would care to explain how these costs have been arrived at. I have suggested to the Housing and Development Board that they should present actual building costs of their flats and that it is possible to prepare a costing of their flats. I am sure it must be equally possible for the Ministry of the Environment to present a costing of these stalls today. Would the Minister consider doing that? Secondly, again may I lend my plea to the request that has been made that there should be a variation in the licence fees depending on the areas where the hawker stalls are situated. It must surely be apparent to the Ministry that a hawker in People's Park or in other densely populated areas of the city will be able to sell far more than another hawker selling in the suburbs, in one of the new towns or in one of the very low density areas. Is it not possible to have a variation of these licence fees? What is so difficult about it? The other point is the question of itinerant hawkers. The Member for Telok Blangah says that they should be eradicated.”
“Sir, as I understand the Minister, he made this declaration - was it last month or was it at the recent sittings? The point that I am making, which seems to have been lost, is that there was this solemn declaration and if you are now saying you are going to take it for general revenue purposes then you are bound, duty bound to refer to the earlier declaration and say, "Very sorry, we are not going to honour that pledge. We haven't honoured it. We are taking it for revenue purposes." That is the least that can be expected.”
“Would the Minister please indicate when he made this declaration? Not now. We know he is making the declaration now. But when did he make the declaration, because he should have referred, otherwise it would have been, may I say with respect, dishonest, if he did not. When did he make the declaration referring to the earlier declaration made by the Minister for Labour, and then announce the intention of the Government to change the purpose for which the money was being collected? May I have an answer to that?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said, it is not my intention to embarrass the present Minister for Finance. As I said, this was a solemn declaration. Does not the Minister think that a declaration like that made by a Minister of the Government in Parliament should either be honoured or, if it is not going to be honoured, they should have come back to the House and explained the change in the intention to which the monies were going to be put? I have asked the Minister whether there was any declaration made to the House about the change in the intention which was proclaimed by the Minister for Labour then. The then Minister for Labour is now away in London. Perhaps he should be asked. Perhaps the Prime Minister should be asked. I see he is not here today. Perhaps he might have an answer to this. I say, Sir, and I repeat, this is a gross violation of a declaration made by a senior Minister in this House speaking on behalf of the Government and I must take it that he had the authority to speak on behalf of the Government when he announced the intention. That is all I wish to say, Sir, and having said that, I wish to withdraw my amendment. 4.30 p.m.”
“I am sorry that this might cause some discomfiture to the present Minister for Finance for whom I have a very high regard. He was not a Member of this Parliament then and he was not a member of the Government. But I see that there was present at that time the trade unionist and the present Member for Khe Bong who was then a Member of Parliament. He is an ardent trade unionist. I would like to know what he did about this. There are only two courses open to the Government on this. One, either honour the declaration made by the Minister for Labour, i.e. set up a committee - and I say a committee appointed by this House representing both sides, the Government side and the Opposition side - so that this committee will administer the fund. Or, if the Government is not prepared to do that, then it should return the monies now to the persons from whom it has collected these monies because it has been collected under a false pretence. Sir, if the Government is not prepared to do either of these things, I think the only honourable thing for the Government to do is to resign and to go back to the electorate and to explain how it has over the years broken its solemn pledge made by a Minister of the Government in this House. Sir, I am not saying this in any jest but I am saying it quite seriously. We have a Minister making a declaration, and then it is completely ignored and disregarded. We have ardent trade unionists who were in this House and I said the Member for Khe Bong was one of them. Will he resign? He has failed the workers. I would like to know this. Perhaps I might ask the Minister first whether there was any resolution to alter the declaration made by the Minister for Labour then.”
“' Mr Speaker, Sir, here was a solemn declaration made by a Minister of the Government, the Minister for Labour, that all collections thereafter from December 1965 for this payroll tax, would not be appropriated for general revenue but be put into a special fund f-or the social security of the workers. We were told by the Minister for Finance, I think in the 4th December 1982 sitting, that a total of $819.1 million has been collected by the end of FY 1981. I understand from that answer and also through a telephone inquiry I made to the Ministry that the whole lot of this sum had been paid into the Consolidated Fund and had been used for the purposes for which the Consolidated Fund is available, i.e. part of the general revenue. Mr Speaker, Sir, unless this declaration by the Minister on 16th December, 1965 was changed by a resolution of this House that all collections from the payroll tax should thereafter be paid into the Consolidated Fund, I would venture to suggest that here we have a gross violation of a declaration made by a Minister, speaking in this House, that these monies would be set aside for the workers. Sir, I have not gone into the question whether it would be a criminal breach of trust but it is certainly a breach of trust that this Government, after having declared that all the monies would be channelled into a fund for the social security of the workers, has over the years in question used it for general revenue purposes. I say, Sir, that it is a gross violation. I would like to know from the Minister whether any resolution has been passed to change the declaration made by the Minister. There are only two courses open to the Government in this case, and may I suggest them.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead NF-06 of the Main Estimates. Sir, in view of the time, I will be very brief. I know I have only got 10 minutes. Sir, this, as you will gather, deals with Payroll Tax. My plea tonight is not the plea that I made in the Budget debate - that it be suspended - but on another note, and that is, the purpose for which this payroll tax was continued. It is, as I said then, a payroll tax and we have been told by the Minister for Finance earlier that this was introduced when we were part of Malaysia. It was a Malaysian enactment in the Parliament in Kuala Lumpur that brought payroll tax to Singapore. When we came out of Malaysia, this was discussed in the sitting of this House on the 16th December, 1965, in debating the Address of the then Yang di-Pertuan Negara. I do not want to read what was said then by the Minister for Labour when he came to talk about the payroll tax. You will find it, Sir, in the Parliamentary report of 16th December 1965. The salient part of this, he said after saying that Singapore had opposed this vigorously when it was introduced by Malaysia, is that Singapore thought it was most unwise. He went on to say: 'We intend to set aside the revenue collected under this head to form a fund for the social security of the workers. We will set up a committee to put up recommendations for the implementation of the scheme. As what we have done in all our major labour legislation and policies, the NTUC will be the first we would approach for their views and suggestions on the scheme.”
“I will ask the Hon. Minister of State not to be facetious. It is not a question of these people cutting down on smoking and drinking. They simply cannot afford to buy HDB flats at the prices they are being offered.”
“The Hon. Minister of State states that, in accordance with Government policy, HDB has ceased constructing 1-room and 2-room flats for rental. What is going to happen to the thousands of people who cannot afford to buy HDB flats at the prices that the HDB is selling as a result of their accounting?”
“May I ask the Minister of State what would be the position of a single resident on a site which is affected by resettlement, if he has not got any family to join and there is nobody else with whom he can "couple", as it were, as suggested by the Minister of State? What does the Ministry expect this man to do? Dig a hole in the ground and live in it?”
“(11) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LD-02 of the Main Estimates.”
“Yes. Question put, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head U of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100."”
“No, Sir. Question put, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head U of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100."”
“So that you can send ISD men to see them!”
“Sir, we are departing from the amendment that I moved. But since the Prime Minister wants an answer, I will tell him why, It is common knowledge in Singapore and it has been for a long time, and it is only now that we are beginning to make a bit of headway on this, that there was a fear in the people of Singapore to be identified with any party that might dare to oppose the party in power. We found this time and time again. And I tell the Members of this House we have found it difficult to get premises in Singapore because no private landlord would want to let his premises out to the Workers' Party. The Prime Minister says we do not have members. Does he know that even when people apply to join our party, the first question they ask me is: "Will the all-seeing ISD, CID, come to know if I join your party?" Is the Prime Minister not aware of the prevalence of this fear in Singapore, until perhaps 31st October 1981? That is why he has been able to keep out people from our party.”
“Sir, my objection, in moving this amendment, is the use to which the People's Association's officials, the community centre officials and the residents' committee officials are being put. The Prime Minister is embarking on a long speech about the history of the People's Association, and why it was put up. We know that. What I want to know from the Prime Minister, quite shortly, is this: does he deny that these officials, the RC officials, community centre staff, consultative committee officials are being used to promote the fortunes of the party of which he is the Secretary-General? And whether he does or does not think that it is an improper use of the committees and these centres? 4.15 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I say that this is a most improper use of the organization and the citizens consultative committees that were set up. They were set up, as I understand it and as it is spelt out in the Act, to promote the interest of the residents, not to promote the fortunes of a political party. Mr Speaker, Sir, why should one political party be in this favoured position? To quote a local idiom, Mr Speaker, Sir, this is tak patut. You cannot have one political party trying to take an unfair advantage over the other political parties and using the People's Association and the community centres for its purpose.”
“Well, if you want that, I will give it to you later, but it has been reported to me. But may I carry on. It is common knowledge that the Party's candidates at election time are accompanied on their rounds by officials of the consultative committees, by the community centre staff, and even by officials of the Residents' Committees. Is this the use for which the People's Association was set up - to promote the fortunes of a political party? As against this, Mr Speaker, you go down to Anson now, after 31st October, 1981, where there is one constituency in Singapore which is not represented by this political party. What do we find? The Residents' Committees which were set up to work together with MPs in the constituencies - the MP for the constituency expected to be the guiding force in the Residents' Committees - changed overnight. What do we find? Immediately after 31st of October, 1981, the Residents' Committees in Anson became the Prime Minister's committees for Anson, and the Member of Parliament for that constituency was treated as a leper. The Resident's Committees would have nothing to do with him. They would not even speak to him, and we have the community centres and the consultative committees similarly ignoring the existence of the MP for the area. On the other hand, what do we find? We have a gentleman who is aspiring to be the next MP for Anson, and it has been reported to me that he is accompanied on his rounds, as he goes round the constituency, by community centre officials and even Residents' Committee officials.”
“But over the years - I do not know whether this was intended and whether it was one of the reasons for setting up the People's Association and the various committees - the community centres, the officials in the consultative committees and now even the Residents' Committee officials have been used more and more to promote the fortunes of a political party. 4.00 p.m. We read only on the 28th of last month, Sir, and this is taken from the Straits Times, that the Member for Queenstown, Mr Jek Yeun Thong, making his annual pilgrimage to his constituency, was accompanied by 25 Housing Board officers, members of the Queenstown Zone C Residents' Committee and community centre leaders. This is becoming common practice in all the constituencies. We have heard about the officials in the community centres, the consultative committee leaders being overtaxed. They are also, it would appear, being overtaxed in the interests of this party. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have seen over the years community centre staff - who, may I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, are public servants, paid out of public funds, funds provided for the People's Association - putting up posters for this political party in question. This was reported to me even way back in 1976. And it is common knowledge -”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head U of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, we have been talking for the last 20 minutes or so on the work of the People's Association, the community centres and the consultative committee officials, and it is about them that I wish to say something. This community work, Sir, has its origin in the passing of the People's Association Act in 1960. I see that by section 10 of the Act, the objects of the Association are: 'the organization and the promotion of group participation in social, cultural, educational and athletic activities for the people of Singapore.' This is to encourage our residents to live together as a community and to interact as a community. I see, in the Second Reading of this Bill, the then Minister for Labour and Law speaking, said this: 'This organization [referring to the People's Association] would be able to provide trained leaders who would be able to work on the ground amongst the people, popularise the community centres and youth clubs and organise their activities.' Sir, I have no doubt that they are carrying out a worthwhile object and activities for the communities. But what I am here this afternoon is to protest at the use to which the People's Association, the community centres, the officials of the consultative committees and the Residents' Committees have been put in promoting the fortunes of a political party. Sir, I do not find that in the objects of the People's Association Act - that they have been set up to promote the fortunes of a political party be it the party in power.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with respect, I really cannot follow the Hon. Minister of State. As I understand the written answer to my question, a fee is charged when the transfer is from one partner to another partner. Now the Minister of State talks about a new tenant coming in. If a coffee shop is run by a firm, there are several partners. It is the firm that is continuing. And if it is considered expedient or, for some reason, necessary that the tenancy should be held by A instead of B in the same firm, what is the reason for levying a $500 charge? The Minister of State talks about it being a token. I do not know whether it is being regarded as a token.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister may rest assured that I shall not only inform him but I shall also make it known if I know where the man is. I shall make it known to the public. With due respect, all we have heard is a lot of euphemism from the Minister. Would the Minister state categorically what are the objections to it being made public in this House? He talks about hampering the efforts of Interpol. How will it hamper? I would like to know for one.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the public are entitled to know what efforts are being made to bring this man back to Singapore. I think that will be evident.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I said this is a matter of public interest. This House is entitled to know. It is not me who should be told this in confidence, that I can keep it to myself. It is a question of public interest. This House should know and the public in Singapore should know.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not asking questions out of idle curiosity. I think these questions are of public interest. Honestly, I cannot understand what objections there can be to the Minister informing this House of the country where he was last known to have been and the date. Secondly, I would like to know why the Police, with all the competence that they are known to possess in Singapore, have been unable to find out from the family whether they are in correspondence with the man or not.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. Minister states that he was last known to be in a neighbouring country with which we have no extradition treaty or arrangements. What is the date of this last known knowledge of the Police, and would he inform us of this country with which we have no arrangements? The other question is this. I understand the family is here. Are the Police aware whether the family is in touch with this man or not?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I knew you would call me up. Mr Speaker, may I just end by saying --”
“Why is it that only specially qualified women should get this help? What about the countless other working wives who have got children to care for? Why are we singling out this minority and ignoring the majority? As has been pointed out, it is the duty of the Government, of any government which is sensitive of its needs, of its responsibilities, to look after the majority in the community. But this Government goes on caring for selected minorities, completely ignoring the majority of this country. The Minister says that it is because the cost of domestic help has gone up. Of course, it has. Everybody knows that. But why should they be given relief? And has the Minister wondered whether in every case there would be domestic help engaged? I take it that domestic help here is domestic help to look after the children. What is the position in families where they do not need any domestic help?”
“I say this Government has, with its accent on the pursuit of wealth, as though that was the only thing that mattered, as though human needs do not matter, human suffering does not matter. Pursuit of wealth is the main object in life, the be-all and end-all of life. Mr Speaker, Sir, at the beginning of this century, a notable Prime Minister in England spoke of his country as being a country of two nations - a nation of the rich and a nation of the poor. I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that is what we are becoming in Singapore today. I tell this Government: take care that you do not accelerate this; take care to stop this trend towards Singapore becoming a two-nation country; caring or looking after only those with money, those who are able to pay, and be indifferent to the needs of those who are unable to pay. Let us restore in this country of ours dignity of the human being. Let us not despise the sick, the aged. They also have dignity. Let us give them the dignity. I said I would talk about the relief that has been given. I do not think I have the time, Mr Speaker, Sir, to talk about all the reliefs. But I want to talk about one relief that has been given, and this is the enhanced child relief for specially qualified married women. Why has this minority in our community being singled out again for another relief? In the 1981 Budget Statement - and last year we passed an Act to implement it - we handed back $3 million to them by way of tax relief when we provided that income from investments of earned income would also be assessed separately. This year we are going to hand back $1.4 million. Why do they need it? As somebody pointed out in a letter to the Straits Times, this has a snob appeal. Who is responsible for this?”
“I do not think that our people are unmindful of their duty to their parents. Let us not preach to them. Let us help them a little bit to carry out these duties. Only yesterday, Mr Speaker, there was a letter in the Straits Times. I am sure the Minister and the other Ministers must have seen this letter. The writer speaks about her aged parents. She says her mother is bedridden, and I think they are both over 70 years old. The writer says she is the only child. The mother is bedridden and the father has to struggle - it is a struggle for him to look after his wife - and she says that the father has grown thinner. The writer says she worries very much about them while at work and abroad, and ends with a plea for some practical help. That is what she wants. That writer does not need any moral preaching. She knows what her duties are, So I say to the Minister and to the Government: let us help where it is needed. But this Budget Statement does not do that. It does not meet the needs of our people, and that is the duty, I say, of any government which seeks to be a government, as an hon. Member said, of the people. This is not a government of the people. Let us not delude ourselves any more. You go out- side and you talk to the man in the coffeeshop, in the street, and he will tell you that this Government has long ceased to be a government of the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministers go on preaching day after day. We were told a little while ago about the Hong Kong syndrome, about the flaunting of wealth by the rich. Has the Minister who spoke this or the other Ministers sat down to think who was responsible for this state of affairs? If the rich are flaunting their wealth, who has contributed to this?”
“Is it not thought possible to increase it now? On that debate last year, 3rd March, a number of our hon. Members of this House spoke about that. I see that yesterday none has spoken this year on it. There is a growing discontent, may I assure the Minister - the hon. Members speaking before me then mentioned about the growing discontent - may I tell the Minister and to the Government Ministers that there is a growing discontent in Singapore about the inadequacy of the tax relief. We do not have to go very far, Mr Speaker, Sir. Across the Causeway the tax relief, as I pointed out, is $7,000 for a husband and wife. We lire supposed to be an affluent society. We claim to be affluent. We say everybody is very affluent. Yet we say we cannot afford to give, leave alone $7,000, but we cannot afford to give $5,000. I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a betrayal of the trust of our people. May I move on, Sir, to the other glaring omission, and that is the absence of any increase in the relief for aged dependants. Mr Speaker, Sir, this relief was introduced some years ago, and it was put at $300. We. along with other parties, protested at this pittance. It was then raised to $750, and last year it was raised to $1,000. We have heard, particularly over recent months, a lot about the filial duty of children to their parents, how children should look after their parents, how it is their moral duty and what a virtue it is for children to look after their parents. May I say from this House, Sir, that the people of Singapore could do with a little less of this moralizing, this moral preaching. They could do with a little bit of practical help. That is what they want. They want to know how the Government is going to help them to look after their aged parents. They are prepared to do it.”
“The Minister says he is not introducing any new taxes and for that we have to be thankful for small mercies, but he is going to give tax reliefs to a very small minority of the community. I shall come to these tax reliefs, that he is giving in his Statement, a little later because I want to talk about the tax reliefs that he has not given and which concern not a minority but the majority of our people in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am of course referring to the personal tax reliefs that are being given to our people in Singapore under our Income Tax laws. As I said in my speech last year on the Budget Statement, the Income Tax Ordinance was introduced in 1947 and at that time the personal relief that was given, was $3,000 to the taxpayer, an individual; and if he had a wife living with him, there was an additional $2,000, making it $5,000 for a husband and wife. This, Mr Speaker, Sir, was a relief that was given by a colonial government to its subject people, the colonialists. In 1959, we changed our colonial masters to local masters. In 1960, not very long after, our masters took steps to remedy this. They said we were getting far too much, $5,000 for a husband and wife. It had to come down. And so it came down, Mr Speaker, Sir, to $2.000 for the husband, for the man, and $1,000 for the wife - a $5,000 relief reduced to $3,000. Of course, there was thrown in the earned income relief. Today, the relief stands at $4,000 for a husband and wife. It is $2,000 for the taxpayer, $1,000 for the wife and $1,000 for earned income relief. So it stands at less than what was given in 1947. And this is 1983, Mr Speaker, Sir. As I said then, it was not a question of not increasing it; it was a question of deliberately reducing it. Why?”
“What is being done by the Government to ensure that these homes are going to be kept within the reach of our people, and that they are being built not just for those who come here from abroad with large bank balances to buy properties in Singapore? We were told yesterday that the HUDC was not making any loss. That was before it was taken over by the HDB, but somehow the HDB has, by its accounting suddenly discovered that the cost should be at least 78% to 143% more than what it used to be. There is the other construction that he has referred to, and that is the construction of the Mass Rapid Transit system. Mr Speaker, Sir, we welcome the construction of this Mass Rapid Transit system at the present moment, but I would ask whether the Government would take steps to ensure that some of the money that is being spent goes to our own people. We know that we spent $10 million in getting advisors from abroad just to come and tell us whether we should have MRT or whether we should have something else in preference. I do not know why it was not possible to find advisors from our own universities. What is wrong with our own university, with our own education system? So let us take care that a lot of this money does not go out. And let us take care also that when they do come here they bring their technological know-how and impart it to our workers, that access to the technological know-how is made available to our people and that it is not kept secret by these companies. Would the Minister tell us what steps the Government is taking in this regard? Now I turn, Mr Speaker, Sir, lo, what I call, the distribution or the caring for all sections of the community, This, of course, concerns the tax reliefs that the Minister announced in his Budget Statement.”
“Time is running on, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I shall no doubt be told very shortly that I am exceeding my time limit, and may I move on to this other matter about energy and water conservation. The Minister has mentioned the installation of thimbles in many high-rise buildings - schools, hospitals, public toilets and other premises. He says, "Water consumption in these places has dropped by 12%." He said "in many high-rise buildings". I know that most of the high-rise buildings in Singapore are those built by the Housing and Development Board occupied by our people. Are these thimbles for the conservation of water installed only in these HDB buildings, or is it being uniformly applied also to private properties? Or are private properties being spared this water conservation? If water is to be saved, it must be the task of not only our dwellers in HDB flats but it must also be the task of all those who live in private properties. What is the Government doing to see that this contribution is made by everybody, not just by our workers largely living in HDB flats? I know, Mr Speaker, Sir, that in many private properties - I have seen this myself - water is being used to spray on to the grass and the trees; there is considerable waste. I am sure Members are aware of this. Now we come to Construction. He says Construction is the only bright feature in the dismal year that we have just gone through. He talks about Singaporeans aspiring to own their own homes at a price within their means and that they can look forward to have their aspirations fulfilled. Only yesterday afternoon I was asking about the rise in the prices of HUDC apartments and drew attention to people opting out.”
“Yes, Medisave. We will talk about Medisave when we come to debate it. Last year, Mr Speaker, Sir, I asked about the question of giving our workers an equity in the companies that they work for. Is it not time we thought of a scheme linking workers' pay directly to the productivity and profitability of the enterprises they work for? This could be done, Mr Speaker, Sir, by linking yearly bonus to a fixed percentage of total current cost profits, as defined by standard accounting conventions. It should also be possible for workers to participate directly in the ownership of the companies they work for. This could be done through distribution of bonuses for long serving employees in the form of equity. Tax incentives could be given to private sector companies to encourage them to do this. In addition, part of the employers' CPF contributions might take the form of equity in the companies themselves. It will be best if public sector enterprises took the lead in this direction. We in the Workers' Party hope eventually to see the employees of public sector companies owning shares in the companies, with the result that they share directly in the need for risk-taking and improvement efficiency which at present involves only management. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I remind Members that it is standard practice in the advanced capitalist countries for senior management to receive part of their remuneration in the form of shares in the company they work for. Why should this not be extended to the workers? Let us start thinking about all this, Mr Speaker, Sir. Let us not go on year after year with archaic labour legislation, treating our workers as though they were only recipients of charity. Give them the dignity that they deserve.”
“How are we giving this stake to our workers? I have spoken before, not once but several times in this House, about the lack of security that is felt by our workers in their employment. I do not want to repeat what I have said before. Our employment laws are archaic. Is it not time we moved on a bit further and had progressive labour laws which guarantee basic rights for our workers? Why do we have to have colonial, archaic laws? Now, homes. What are we doing about providing our workers with proper homes? I said this last year and I say it again, homes within their workplaces, decent homes, so that they can feel proud of them. What are we doing? What about medical care? What are we doing to ensure that they and their families will be properly cared for in the event of any illness or sickness hitting them? An hon. Member: Medisave!”
“On the wages problem, the Minister says in his Statement that it is the intention of the Government to promote more direct bargaining between employers and the unions. Mr Speaker, Sir, was it in the December sitting of this House that we drew out all the teeth of the trade unions? Are we to understand now that the Government thinks that the trade unions should be strengthened? Some power should be given back to them so that they can bargain directly with their employers on the question of wages. Is it the intention of the Government now to strengthen the trade union movement? I would welcome that assurance from the Minister because, I say, a strong trade union movement helps us in maintaining our economic growth. Now, motivation of our workers. This is crucial. We have heard this time and time again. We know about Productivity campaigns. We hear from the Minister that in spite of the productivity campaign last year, productivity has slumped. Obviously the campaign is not getting through. Why? Why do we not ask ourselves the question honestly? Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say.in this House that you will not get the best out of our workers unless you give them a stake in their employment. You give them a stake in the prosperity of their employers, the company they work for, and you give them a stake in the prosperity of this country. So long as you continue to treat them as though they were recipients of charity, to take whatever is given to them, you are not going to get the best out of our workers. I would ask the Government to think about this. We can only get the best from a man, from anybody, if you con- vince him that his future is closely bound up with the organization or the company that he is working for, that he has a stake in the prosperity of that company.”
“The Minister says that we must continue to ensure that our traders and export-oriented manufacturing firms are not handicapped by an over-valued Singapore dollar or unduly high domestic interest rates. I think it is becoming clear, Mr Speaker, Sir, that domestic interest rates are perhaps too high now in relation to the expected level of domestic inflation and to the desirable level of the exchange rate. Has the Minister got anything to say about this? Turning to manpower development, the Minister tells us, which I think we knew, that more than half a million of our workers have less than Primary 6 education, and he says that upgrading their basic numerate and literate ability will not be an easy undertaking. Sir, why have we come to this pass that more than half a million of our workers have less than Primary 6 education? What has gone wrong with our education system, Mr Speaker, Sir? What does the Government propose to do about this? What we are doing now are panic measures. We are conducting a basic education for skills training programme, duplicating our costs, efforts, spending more money on something that should have been done at the commencement when these workers were in schools, in the primary schools. Why are we now put to the expense of this BEST programme. It is simply because we have failed. Why have we failed in our education system? Would the Minister answer that? And what does the Government propose to do to see that our workers get the best education when they are in school, primary schools because that is where we start? You do not weed them out for the construction brigade by this streaming that we have got and then complain that they are not good enough. Why are they being condemned to this?”
“They want to know what are you doing to help them. And it is not just the cost of land, factory buildings, the rents. There are other overheads. We have, Mr Speaker, Sir, burdened the employers, people who are in the manuacturing sector among others, with taxes. We have, first of all, the payroll tax. This was introduced when we were in Malaysia by the Parliament in Kuala Lumpur, and I remember that there was objection to it here. Should the Government not consider whether it is still necessary to burden our employers, the manufacturing sector, the other sectors, with this payroll tax? I shall have something more to say about this when we come to the Estimates on the Ministry of Finance. Then there is the Skills Development Fund. We learnt last week, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Rochore, that we have accumulated $313.8 million in the Skills Development Fund but only $27.5 million have so far been paid out. So we have quite a substantial amount. Is it perhaps not prudent, I ask the Minister, for the Government to consider whether the collection of this Fund should now be suspended, if not done away with altogether, until the economy picks up again? I would like the Minister to say what he thinks about this. Then there is the question of the CPF contributions. We have been told that the contributions to the CPF, both from the employer and the employee, will be raised in order to pay for the Medisave scheme, or medical care. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say that our manufacturers expect some help from the Government. If they are to help our people here, I think we should give it to them when they are facing a recession.”
“Well, that is for the Minister to outline. And this is why l.say he has failed. Of course, may I assure the Members that when we take over, we will outline the measures. But at the moment I am here to ask the Minister how he proposes to do this. It is not for me to answer. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister what does the Government propose to do to, as he says, moderate the increase in non-labour costs, the cost of land, factory buildings, utilities and supporting services? Are the statutory boards that are responsible for the building and letting out of our factories getting the message that they must not keep increasing their rents to the factory owners or those who are turning out goods for export? Unless there is a clear direction from the Government on this, I suppose the statutory boards may feel that they have to keep increasing to keep pace with the market. Are we unnecessarily pushing up rents in Singapore so that it makes it no longer economically productive for our manufacturers? And it is not just factories we are concerned with. We are also concerned with offices for the services that we provide in this place. I do not have to remind Members of this House that rents for office space have shot up dramatically, astronomically. What are we doing about it to make it worthwhile for companies to come here because land is available at a moderate cost to manufacture or to provide services? What about our supporting services, utilities? Are we doing anything to keep these costs within manageable limits? These are what our manufacturers and those who provide services contributing to the economy of the country would want to know. They just are not content with exhortations that they must produce better goods cheaply to compete with the world.”
“First of all, how far it goes to provide the measures that the Government proposes for economic growth - to sustain or accelerate our economic growth in the year that lies ahead. The Minister said, and I quote him: 'To successfully attract highly-automated projects, our non-labour costs namely, the cost of land, factory buildings, utilities and supporting services - must be kept competitive. We will therefore work towards moderating the increases in these costs.' Mr Speaker, Sir, one does not have to be a Friedman or a Galbraith, two economists whose names come to mind, to know that Singapore's economy depends very largely on what we can produce with our labour, what we can turn out in our factories, and it is not good enough just to turn them out. We have got to sell them. We have got to sell them not only in Singapore where there is a diminishing market or a small market but we have- got to sell them outside. We have got to find the markets and we do not need the Minister to tell us that all the other countries are trying to do the same. There is less and less demand for goods, especially in a recession. So it does not need very much thinking to know that if we are going to survive, we have got to produce goods cheaper than the other man does, and you have got to produce not shoddy goods but quality goods. Some hon. Members: How?”