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 75 of 82.
“It should be noted, however, Mr Speaker, Sir, if I understand from economists, that in the theory of those who give most prominence to the control of inflation, it is only the real wage resistance which poses a problem to the reconciliation of internal with external balances, and not inflation. Singapore up till now has had no labour market problem. Bargaining is centralized and controlled by the Government which determines the appropriate level of nominal wages in accordance with macro-economic targets. I am glad to see that the Minister has drawn attention to a possible pitfall in continuing this practice of a centralized body determining the wages. Mr Speaker, Sir, is there perhaps a lesson for us to be learned from Germany which has paid excessive attention to the control of domestic inflation resulting in deteriorating economic performance in terms of growth rates of industrial output and rising unemployment since the mid-70s? It has grown much lower than Japan, the United States or France over this period. The downturn in manufacturing productivity indicates that employers are hoarding labour and, if recovery in demand does not take place, unemployment can become a problem. On the other hand, the Minister has drawn attention to a possible problem if the economy picks up and demand for labour increases. He warns that we may once face a tight labour market which under- mine our economic restructuring and that the problem could be worse with the repatriation of foreign workers over the next few years. Mr Speaker, Sir, I propose now to try and see how the Statement tries to meet the objectives that I have outlined for it.”
“Before I go on to examine the Budget Statement to see how it has met with the two objectives that I have outlined, may I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, a few words generally about the recession, I, of course, appreciate that I am no economist. The past year has seen a contraction in the OECD industrial output which has been particularly severe in the European community and in the united States. As the Minister has pointed out, and I say this again, it did not come as a surprise, Singapore suffered as a result. We are subject very much to what happens outside Singapore. The decline in Singapore's growth rate last year, even though commendable when compared with other countries, was largely due, if not wholly, to these unfavourable external events. But having said that, we must ask whether our own economic policy has in any way exacer- bated the decline. The Minister hints at this when he 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. We should ask whether the decline has been exacerbated, Mr Speaker, Sir, by our pursuing an unduly tight interest and exchange rate policy which undoubtedly resulted in the substantial decline in the competitiveness of the manufacturing sector. The fall by 6% in the manufacturing sector is a far more severe decline than in 1975 and, whilst it is not as large as in the United States and Europe, it is much greater than in Japan. The Hon. Minister draws satisfaction from the fall in the inflation rate.”
“Well, I hear Members saying "hear, hear", and I say "hear, hear" too. But I say, "Please acknowledge the contribution made by our workers to this economic growth." Is it because the productivity has dropped? And has it dropped because it is thought perhaps our workers were not pulling their weight in our country? Mr Speaker, Sir, the drop in productivity cannot be blamed on our workforce or our workers. It is due to a number of factors over which we have no control. They are mostly external. The Minister's Statement, however, does not, in my humble view, go far enough in spelling out the measures that the Government intends to introduce to increase this productivity in the year that lies ahead of us. It is, if I may say so, Sir, without again being disrespectful, full of exhortations and pious hopes, without actually spelling out what measures the Government proposes to take in the coming year to see our people through the recession that is, we are told, undoubtedly in store for them in the coming year. It is not enough, may I say, Sir, to indulge in pious hopes and exhortations. it is the business of the Government to spell out the measures, and it will be my endeavour to show that the Statement does not do this adequately. It is, as I have said, filled with exhortations and pious hopes that somehow everything will be all right if we can only tighten our belts. May I say again, talking about tightening our belts, this exhortation would appear to be addressed mainly to our workers. Why is it - I know that it is not only in this country but all over the world - that when people are being asked to tighten their belts, it is the workers who are being asked to do this?”
“I say this without disparaging the contribution that is made by others, the capitalists, the entrepreneurs, But I say, without any hesitation, that our greatest resource comes from the workforce that we have in Singapore, and of which we can be justifiably proud. Last year the Minister acknowledged, albeit a little grudgingly, the contribution of our workers to the economy of the country. Of course, we must remember that our economic growth in 1981 was greater than the one under review. He said then: 'A large part of this (economic growth) came from the efforts of individual Singaporeans. They worked harder and smarter...' This year I am sorry to see that the Minister has not made any acknowledgment of the contribution made by our workforce to the economic growth last year. May I point out that, in spite of the depression around us, our economy still continues to grow. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear.”
“Secondly, it must go on to see that the acquisition of wealth in the country or the subsisting wealth in the country is equitably and equally divided among all those who call this country theirs and who belong to it and who have some claim to the wealth that is being generated in this country. I propose to examine how this statement meets these two objectives. But before I do that, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say that the Budget Statement must address itself to all our people. I have just heard the hon. Member, speaking before me, say that the Government must legislate, take action, for the greatest number in the community and not be concerned with the needs of a minority. It is the majority with which the Government must be concerned, not the minority. And it must address itself, as I say, in its Budget to all our people. It must have something to say to everyone in our country; what it is doing to meet their needs, what it is doing to alleviate their hardships, what it is doing to give them relief, if relief were needed. In my respectful submission, Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall try and show that in this respect the Budget Statement fails abysmally. Mr Speaker, Sir, in his Statement, the Minister says that we are not alone in recognizing the fundamental truth that our people are our greatest resource. I should have thought, Mr Speaker, Sir, that our people are our only resource. But of that resource, the greatest share or the greatest contribution is made by our working class, by our workforce. Now, how does this Budget Statement, this annual statement of the Government's intention, address itself to the workers who are our greatest resource?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, last year this time round, speaking in my first Budget speech, I said that the Budget debate in this House provided us an opportunity, as it were, to state our goals for our society and to see how far we have progressed along the road set for ourselves in the year under review. Sir I am not going to again set out the goals. i take it that we are all agreed on our goal and that is a caring society. This year we have heard from the Hon. Minister, in presenting his Budget, that the road last year has been a dismal one for us and that there is very little prospect ahead of us to mitigate the hardship or the suffering that might be brought about by the world-wide recession. May I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, without any disrespect to the Hon. Minister, that it did not need him saying that. I think all of us are aware, or should be aware, of this world-wide recession; that all around us there is an economic slump. People are not buying the goods that are being produced because they do not have enough money and workers are being thrown out of employment. And we are all aware that Singapore particularly will be hit by economic forces outside Singapore. It does not need saying. It is obvious, as we are a country without any natural resources to cushion us against hard times. May I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, without appearing to be presumptuous, that in presenting its economic plan to the nation for the year ahead, the Government must plan to do two things. First, it must plan for economic growth in the year ahead. In this, it should go on to spell out the measures that the Government proposes to take to maintain the economic growth or to accelerate the growth, if that were possible.”
“Our soldiers will therefore show no hesitation in responding to the orders of their leaders if they lead by example during their training. Our unit commanders report that this development in management style has been well received by servicemen. There are some junior commanders who need a little more time. As in other things, not every member of a large organization adapts at exactly the same pace. The great majority of the officers, especially the senior ones, are pleased with the results thus far. Most NCOs are now beginning to realise that their initial fears of lower discipline were unfounded. The soldiers them- selves, after a cautious start, are adjusting well. The signs of change are very encouraging. We can see them, for example, in the responses to the SAF Suggestions Scheme, and in the Work Improvement Team movement. For example, 1,337 suggestions were received in the 6-month period, July to December 1982. This compares with an average of 210 suggestions per year in the previous years, i.e. an increase of over 1,200%. Also, as of 31st December, 1982, a total of 272 WITs have been formed. Nevertheless, MINDEF will continue to monitor the progress of the development of the people-oriented approach in the SAF. SINGAPORE ARMED FORCES (Computerization of training and administration) 10. Mr Yeo Choo Kok asked the Minister of Defence and Second Minister for Health, in the light of the Government's computerisation policy, how the Ministry of Defence is harnessing computer technology to improve training and administration in the Singapore Armed Forces.”
“By retaining the same disciplinary regulations, procedures and standards, MINDEF has clearly shown that there is no intention whatsoever to lower the level of military discipline. The formal announcement of the SAF's management philosophy as peopleoriented management and leadership by example, does not mean that this is a philosophy that has suddenly emerged overnight. Such a management style has, in fact, been gradually evolving since the formation of the SAF in keeping with the evolution of our society. But MINDEF believes that this is the right time to accelerate the process. Hence, its occupation of the centre-stage last year. Nation-wide, Singaporeans have been encouraged to work as a team for greater effectiveness. Training and operating as a team has always been the SAF's approach. Our objective is to have a work environment that will encourage free interaction among officers, NCOs and soldiers. We seek to establish a climate where work methods and practices are constantly discussed by all to see if they may be improved. The soldier is regarded as an important member of the team and not as a mere digit. He respects his superiors and is, in turn, looked after by them. The officer knows his responsibilities and is able to lead his team. Through his superior ability, knowledge and leadership, his men will comply with his orders and will volunteer suggestions of their own. The superior who clearly demonstrates in day-to-day training that he is the one who has the ability and knowledge to lead his men in overcoming difficulties and in meeting operational objectives will gain their confidence that in a battle situation he is the one who knows best what to do.”
“You have the difficulty. SINGAPORE ARMED FORCES (Adoption of informal and people-oriented management style) 9. Mr Sia Khoon Seong asked the Minister of Defence and Second Minister for Health if the informal and "people oriented" management style adopted by the Singapore Armed Forces will not result in a drop in disciplinary standards and how the Ministry of Defence will ensure that high disciplinary standards are maintained; why the approach was considered necessary; and how the Ministry sees the National Servicemen responding to this change. The Minister of State of Defence (Dr Yeo Ning Hong) (for the Minister of Defence and Second Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, Sir, the SAF is a citizen armed forces manned and led by Singaporeans for the defence of Singaporeans. Its practices must, therefore, be responsive to our changing social environment and population profile. Our soldiers are now much better educated than they were some 10-15 years ago. Hence, the SAF needs a management philosophy which, while maintaining military discipline, is characterized by close rapport between, and a high esprit de corps among all ranks. Such a philosophy requires mutual understanding, close interaction and good communication. The soldier sees the need to comply with orders. The Commander is open to innovations and suggestions from all the men. A people-oriented management incorporating such an approach will not result in a drop in discipline. Initially, some servicemen had misunderstood the more "informal" style to mean an intention to lower military discipline. This is not so, and has been made clear to all in the SAF.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I understand from the Hon. Minister of State, the reason for the increase was the rising costs in the construction of these apartments, and yet he has said that the HUDC was not making a loss when it was previously selling them at its prices. May I know from the Minister whether his Ministry or the HDB is able to present a costing of these apartments. I do not know what the great difficulty is. If the Ministry or the HDB wants a form on how this costing is arrived at, I will be quite happy to give them to show how it can be done.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indebted to the Hon. Minister of State for his lengthy statement on the considerations that must be taken into account. I would ask the Minister of State whether he would set out specifically the requirements that must be met before permanent residence is granted. Are there specific requirements or not?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Hon. Minister of State able to say when he expects this Committee, which is studying his matter, to report, and when our writers may expect to see some protection for their literary works?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the concern of the Singapore writers is over the lack of protection for their literary works outside Singapore. There are two conventions, the Universal Copyright Convention and the Berne Copyright Union. I understand we are not a signatory to either of these conventions. May I know if that is so? And if that is so, why is it that we are not a signatory to either of these Conventions?”
“If it will save time, yes. But I would ask that the names of Members voting against it be recorded.”
“I would have thought that any secondary school child would know why for Singapore, as one of the busiest ports in the world, port facilities are an integral part of the economy; how can it be said that our port facilities are unrelated to any public purpose? Mr Speaker, Sir, I think his remarks do not warrant any detailed examination for I think any disinterested observer, whether in Singapore or abroad, coming to Singapore, seeing the situation, marvels at the way in which we have been able to achieve the progress in national interest in all sectors of development. Could this have been possible by a land acquisition policy which followed the archaic concepts in other countries where land is plentiful and where private property interests prevailed over over-riding national interest? The answer is obviously no. Let me now come to the specific points he raised about this individual piece of legislation. He has made equally unsu- portable propositions. First of all, he said that this has denied these landowners, most of whom are wealthy, immunity from legal process, and he has said that no landowner will be able -”
“Those pronouncements clearly explained why it was necessary for Singapore in its particular circumstances, considering that land was a scarce commodity and that the situation of land is unique in Singapore as compared to other countries, to have adopted the policy that we did and why the land acquisition policy evolved the way it did. And the Member for Anson has shown in his speech that he is not conversant with these fundamental considerations. Land is a special situation in Singapore. He has made the preposterous statement that if there is any Act in Singapore which has impoverished large numbers of people, it is the Land Acquisition Act. My response is that it is not only untrue but that is a clear falsehood. In fact, I challenge the Member for Anson to point out to me any other country in the world which has such a scarcity of land, which has such a high density of population but which nevertheless has been able to achieve the degree of success in housing, industrialization, port facilities and other important social, economic and industrial development, notwithstanding the scarcity of the land. Indeed I would go so far as to say that if this Government had not the foresight and wisdom to evolve the land acquisition policy it did over the years, we would not have the Singapore that we know today, where more than 70% of the population are housed in public housing, where we have roads, and other facilities. He referred to the Port of Singapore Authority and wondered, with some feigned incredulity, how port and warehouse facilities could be equated with public purpose.”
“It seeks to amend several laws, to delete certain provisions, certain words, which had given rise to litigation. In the course of the litigation, the High Court came to a clear judgment as to the meaning of those words, and this Bill seeks to remove any further uncertainty or doubt which may arise as a result of such legislation not being changed. I do not think that one can seriously criticize this Bill if one did not have a very good grasp of the judgment of the Judge in the High Court on this particular case. I thought that the Member for Anson, when he took the floor, had such knowledge. After his long speech I am convinced that he has no idea of the key essentials of the judgment of the High Court. If one reads the judgment, it will be very clear as to how absurd it would be to interpret the words to arrive at any other meaning than what the Court had reached. Secondly, although the Member for Anson tried to pre-empt a reply from me on his remarks about the Land Acquisition Act by saying that we are not debating the Land Acquisition Act after his rambling pot shots at the Act, let me say that I also assume that a Member who wants to take the Government to task for the land acquisition policy in this House must be presumed to be very familiar with the various important considerations and grounds which have influenced the evolution of the Government's land acquisition policy, starting with important pronouncements made in this House, either by the Prime Minister or the Minister for Law and National Development (and now Minister for Law) in 1961, 1963, 1964, 1966, (as well as the debate on the Constitutional Commission in 1967) and in 1973.”
“This was sometime before I became a Member of Parliament, and before the NTUC started its correction classes for taxi drivers to stop them talking too much. We were passing a site which had been acquired by the Urban Redevelopment Authority. He was a Chinese man. He was talking to me in Malay, and he said, "Look at this. Who can't get rich like this? You buy at 10 cents and then you sell for $100. 1 can also get rich like this." He was not the owner of the property, but he could see the whole injustice of it. To him, it was daylight plunder. And that is the view of many of our people about the Land Acquisition Act. Today we are not debating the Land Acquisition Act. We are debating the Port of Singapore Authority Act and the other Acts. But I brought this in because what this Bill seeks to do is to equate the acquisition by these statutory boards with the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act. I would, in all seriousness and in earnestness, ask the Minister whether he would give further consideration to this Bill. I would address this to the Minister personally - would he ask his colleagues in the Cabinet to consider this Bill further and, even if it is not necessary to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, whether there is any reason why statutory boards which are run like commercial organizations or undertakings should not pay, forget about the market price but, at least, some reasonable adequate compensation to the owners when the boards are going to use their property for a commercial under-taking. Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson has spoken at length. My response need not be lengthy because this Bill has a very specific purpose.”
“So my question is: why should it be thought not necessary for these people who occupy these houses to be paid adequate reasonable compensation? It is all wrong. I would ask the House to consider seriously whether it is right that the principle of the Land Acquisition Act be applied in acquisitions by statutory boards which are, really, carrying on commercial undertakings. I expect the Port of Singapore Authority, when it builds its warehouses, will let them out at competitive rates. It is not going to let them out at a pittance - at cheap rates. I should think not. So why should the poor owner be made to sacrifice his hard-earned wealth and give up his property? There are eight statutory boards mentioned in the Schedule and except perhaps for the Monuments Board and the National University of Singapore, the others are really commercial undertakings, although one would, I suppose, include the Housing and Development Board as a board for a public purpose, even though the Board carries on its activities as a commercial organization. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is my respectful submission to this House and to the Mem- bers a principle worthy of adoption by us that, first of all, the Government and statutory boards, Government agencies, should be on the same footing as private citizens when it comes to acquisition of properties and the prices that are paid. You have this anomaly. The Government acquires properties at prices which are far, far below the market price. As the Judge said in the High Court, it is unbridgeable. It is an exercise in futility if you try to match them. Yet when it comes to selling these properties, what does the Government do? It sells them at the inflated market price. I recall to mind, Mr Speaker, Sir, the remarks made by a taxi driver to me.”
“So this became an accomplished fact in 1966, departing from the accepted principle in most civilized countries that if you must acquire property from your citizens, then you pay your citizen adequate compensation, you do not impoverish him. That Act continued until 1973 when more drastic provisions were introduced, and as the Judge observed in his judgment the gulf between reasonable adequate compensation, the market price, i.e. the price prevailing at the time of the acquisition, and the compensation paid under the Land Acquisition Act pursuant to the amendments in 1973, was unbridgeable. So as the Judge himself observed there was a wide gulf between adequate reasonable compensation that should have been paid to the owner of the property and the compensation that the Act proposed to pay. One might say that the poor man has to accept this in the national interest if the land is required for a public purpose, for example, for defence purposes, or for the building of a hospital or a school which is intended to serve and benefit the community at large. But why should he be asked to accept this sacrifice where the acquisition is by a commercial undertaking? The Port of Singapore Authority is a commercial undertaking. If one looks at the Schedule to the Port of Singapore Authority Act which sets out the functions and duties of the Port of Singapore Authority, one will find that the Authority is empowered to carry on various businesses like shipbuilding, shiprepairing, warehousing. So it is a commercial organization. And as the Judge observed, these properties were acquired for the purpose of a multi-storey warehouse and terminal for the businesses of the PSA.”
“When we became a part of Malaysia in 1963, this was safeguarded in the Constitution of Malaysia - that no law shall provide for the compulsory acquisi- tion of property without adequate compensation. In 1964, even while we were still a part of Malaysia, an attempt was made to amend the Land Acquisition Act, or Ordinance as it was then known, to provide for less than adequate compensation to property owners whose properties were acquired. That Bill was referred to a Select Committee and that Select Committee sent a report back to the House saying that, until the Constitution was amended, the main provisions of the Bill could not take effect because it might be considered to be ultra vires the Constitution. So that Bill, I think, died a natural death. And then when we came out of Malaysia, the Constitution was amended by taking out the requirement that adequate compensation be paid to property owners if their lands or properties were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. So the way was made clear for the introduction of a new Act, the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act in 1966 which went on to provide for compensation for the owners whose properties were acquired. And, as I said, these were less than adequate compensation. In a report to the Select Committee, the estate valuers body said that this Bill (that was then being considered), which was to provide for less than adequate compensation, departed from the accepted principle that when a government acquired property it should pay adequate reasonable compensation, and they thought that it was most undesirable.”
“This Act has impoverished many a person who is nowhere near being wealthy. I have in my constituency, Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Kampong Bahru area, people who probably really belong to the lower middle class, who own their little houses - they are situated in Miri Road, Borneo Road - and there are also the shopkeepers. They are not wealthy by any means. They are, as I have said, probably of the lower middle class group. If this Bill is passed and if their properties are affected by this acquisition as they are, they cannot complain that the Port of Singapore Authority had not in the first place approached them and tried to acquire their land by private arrangement. I am aware that there was a recent announcement by the Government of a change in policy that where the acquisition is of a house occupied for dwelling purposes, then the compensation that should be awarded should relate to an amount equal to providing the person with an alternative house. But that was a matter of policy I understood, and I do not think it has yet been implemented. That only applies to dwelling houses. There are the shopkeepers, the small shopkeeper who owns his own shop. You are going to bring the full rigours of the Land Acquisition Act to bear on him. Before the introduction of this Bill (and it only came to light because of these cases that went up to the High Court), the statutory boards would have been obliged to negotiate with him in the first place to see whether they can reach an agreement for the purchase of the property. Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Land Acquisition Act was first introduced, it provided for adequate compensation to be paid to persons whose properties were acquired under the Act.”
“May I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it does not reflect very much confidence in this House, or the Ministry perhaps, in the judgment of the High Court that we should be asked to sit, as it were, like a Court of Appeal upon the judgment of the High Court and confirm it for all time. Why has it been necessary to introduce this Bill now rather than allow the litigants who were before the High Court to exhaust the whole judicial machinery? It interferes with a vested right that they had acquired when they commenced the action. On that ground alone I would say that this Bill is thoroughly objectionable. I would ask the Minister to consider this matter again, at least whether the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee not only on this question but also on the other matter on which I propose to speak, i.e. the second objective of this Bill which, in point of order, is the first one in the Bill [clause 2] to amend the provisions in the Acts specified in the Schedule so as to obviate the necessity for the statutory boards mentioned in the Schedule to first enter into negotiations with property owners before they acquire the land. As the Minister has pointed out, the provisions in the various Acts state that where land is needed for the purposes of the statutory boards, they should try and acquire that land by agreement, and only when the property cannot be acquired by agreement that they should have recourse to the machinery in the Land Acquisition Act. Mr Speaker, Sir, if there is one Act which has caused a lot of unhappiness in Singapore and which has impoverished the people in Singapore, it is the Land Acquisition Act. May I say, Sir, that it is not on behalf of the wealthy land owners that I am talking, people who own acres and acres of land in Singapore. They are few.”
“But they had a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal and, further still, to the Privy Council if they thought it necessary. But that was not all. As I have said, somebody else could bring an action, somebody who perhaps did not think that the decision of the High Court was right in this matter. He could bring an action complaining that the Port of Singapore Authority had bent the law. Now, what this Bill seeks to do is to tell them, "You cannot complain any more that the Port of Singapore Authority or any of the other statutory boards had bent the law." So what is the citizen to do in such a case when he sees this state of affairs? He is told that the Government, the Ministries, will not bend the law. He accepts that. I do not think anybody wants the law to be bent. But what has he got to say when he finds that when he makes a complaint to the court that a Government agency, a statutory board, has bent the law (because that is what it amounts to - not strictly following the provisions of the Act, the law), he is shut out. He is told, "You cannot complain. You have got to accept it. You cannot have any recourse to the courts." Mr Speaker, Sir, it is in my respectful submission a most reprehensible state of affairs. There cannot be one law for the Government, one law for the Government agencies, statutory boards, and another law for the citizens. We are all subject to the same law. If the citizen cannot bend the law and it cannot be bent for him, then it should not be bent or cannot be bent for a statutory board or any Government organization. I do not know what is the need for the haste with which this Bill was introduced.”
“This Bill is retroactive in that sense. It seeks to alter a situation that had existed in the past prior to the introduction of this Bill, and I do not have to remind the Hon. Minister of State and the other legal Members of this House that retroactive legislation has been considered to be most undesirable and should not be resorted to unless it is absolutely necessary. But this is what this Bill seeks to do. We have heard in this House, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this Government would not allow the law, the rules, to be bent for anyone. The Prime Minister, at the last sitting on the 3rd December, 1982, in reply to my question to him on whether he would direct the Ministries to give detailed answers when they reject any application from a citizen, said the rules were clear enough. He said, "What the Member does not understand is that the rules cannot be bent for anyone." And today we heard from the Minister of State for National Development again that I was here to ask that rules be bent. I am not here to ask that the law be bent or that rules be bent for anyone. But I do think I am entitled to protest at what is happening or what is sought to be done by this Bill. Here we have a situation where two parties, two litigants, albeit wealthy companies, were complaining to the courts, as they have a right to do, that the statutory board in question, the Port of Singapore Authority, had bent the law, that the Port of Singapore Authority had not followed the law when it acquired their properties. So they were complaining that the Port of Singapore Authority had bent the law, and they went to the court. They did not, of course, succeed in the court of first instance.”
“His complaint that the statutory board had not complied with the requisite provision in the law before acquiring the property can no longer be entertained by the court. So the citizen is left without any right where, before the passing of the Bill, there was a right in him to question the acquisition of his property by any one of the specified statutory boards. This right, which is a right which he thought was given to him under the law, is taken away now by this Bill which seeks to shut out any recourse to the courts by any property owner whose property has been acquired by any of the statutory boards specified in the Act. It is for that reason that I consider that this Bill is thoroughly objectionable. It interferes with a right that the citizen possessed before the commencement of this Bill. I am, of course, aware that the High Court has declared in the particular instances that there was no such right in the property owner to require the statutory board to enter into negotiation with him. But as I have said, Sir, the matter did not end there. It is always open to somebody else now to challenge the acquisition of his property in the High Court relying on this very same ground and to take it right up, as I have said, from the High Court to the Court of Appeal or, still further than that, to the Privy Council. Now, why is this right of the citizen being taken away from him? Is there any particular reason why it should be taken away? A citizen has a right to expect that if he once sets the judicial machinery in motion, he would be allowed to exhaust the whole of the judicial machinery and that his right to do so is not taken away from him at any stage during the proceedings. And yet this is what this Bill has done in the cases before the High Court.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill before the House seeks to do two things. If I may first take the second thing that it seeks to do which is provided by clause 3. It seeks to shut out any person whose land has been acquired before the commencement of this Bill by any of the statutory boards mentioned in the Schedule from challenging the acquisition before the courts on the ground that the statutory board in question had not complied with a provision in the Act. This, as the Minister has stated, was done in the two cases that were brought up in the High Court. In the result, the court decided that what the Port of Singapore Authority did in the particular instance was in accordance with the law. But that is not the end of the matter, Mr Speaker, Sir, because there is provided in the judicial machinery a right of appeal from the High Court to the Court of Appeal and from the Court of Appeal to the Privy Council if the party which is dissatisfied with the judgment wishes to take it up with the Privy Council. I understand that, in the particular cases that were referred to by the Hon. Minister, one of the parties lodged a notice of appeal against the decision of the High Court and the appeal was pending before the Court of Appeal. Before the appeal could be heard, this Bill was introduced in Parliament on 3rd December last year. And I understand that the party has decided to withdraw the appeal. What this Bill seeks to do is to grant immunity from legal process to any of the statutory boards specified in the Schedule from any person who might wish to test the acquisition of his property by the statutory board in question by recourse to the courts.”
“Thank you. Would the Hon. Minister of State say why those permanent residents, who have lived in this country and who for some reason or other are denied citizenship quite unfairly, should be deprived of their resettlement benefit?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Hon. Minister of State about the criteria for eligibility for housing of squatters on sites that are being cleared. One of them, he said, was that they had to be there before the cut-off date. Does the Ministry, after the land has been acquired, put up a notice announcing the cut-off date so as to give due warning to anyone who comes on the site that he would not be eligible for rehousing if he chooses to come and live in that area? If a person in ignorance moves into that area, why should he be penalized? Secondly, the Minister of State states that only Singapore citizens would be rehoused. Mr Speaker, Sir, I know of people who have lived here for 20-30 years and who have been denied -”
“The second question for the Minister is: would he be good enough to tell the House what are the criteria of hardship that the Ministry takes into account when they grant new licences? Mr Ong Pang Boon: Mr Speaker, Sir, a recipient of public assistance is one example. TAXIS (Shortage during Chinese New Year holidays) 6. Mr M.K.A. Jabbar asked the Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour whether he is aware that only a few taxis were on the road on Chinese New Year and that some of them even failed to stop when flagged down and if he will look into the matter.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Hon. Minister what is the policy of his Ministry as regards the location of these street hawkers which, he says, is their first priority? Is it the policy of the Ministry to try and site them as near as possible to where they have been carrying on their street hawking trades, or is it the policy to send them out into the new towns?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I understand the hon. Minister of State, his Ministry, far from refusing to shoulder the responsibility, is doing all it can. But there was a statement, not very long ago, from the Chairman of the Singapore Association for the Deaf (this was reproduced in the Straits Times from its News Letter). The Chairman is on record as saying that the Ministry of Education has said that it is not the responsibility of the Ministry of Education to provide teachers for the Association's schools. Would the Minister care to comment on this, and may I know also from the Minister whether his Ministry is providing trained teachers for the classes run by the Singapore Association for the Deaf?”
“The criterion is not that because the buyer is able to afford it, the Board can increase the price. That would be a completely wrong criterion to apply for the Board. There is the other aspect of it, and that is this. I would commend to the Minister that before any prices are increased, he should first come to this House and present the statement and the accounts, so that they may be debated upon before prices are increased. I would ask the Minister whether he would consider now, quite seriously - this is a very serious suggestion on my part - that the prices that had been announced be suspended. They can take effect from 1st October but be suspended until the Board has prepared the accounts for these flats which are under construction and for which the new prices are to apply. I am not talking about the flats that have already been built but the flats that are to be built and for which the new prices are to be charged. That should not take the Board a long time. Would the Minister consider suspending the implementation of the increases until a true costing to the Board of the flats, block by block, is prepared, so that this House and the public know the true cost of these flats to the Board?. 7.58 p.m.”
“I asked another question at this Sitting of Parliament. This was a Question for Written Answer. I have not got the answer with me at the moment, but I have looked at it shortly before I came here. It was delivered to my office. From there, what I gather is that no appointment has as yet been made but that the Board's officials are discussing the matter with a number of other accounting firms of international repute and, in consultation with the Auditor-General, will take steps to implement the Auditor-General's recommendations. As I have said, the Auditor-General said that this recommendation was made in 1978. We are now at the end of 1982. Why is the Board dragging its feet over this? If there are to be any increases in the prices of flats, should not the Board present these accounts as suggested by the Auditor-General? And then go to the public, come to this House and say, "Look, these are the accounts prepared to show the true cost of the flats. We cannot go on building these flats and selling them at the prices that we are selling now, and that we need to increase the prices." As I have said, no one let alone just this House, would want the Board to go bankrupt in its operations. We need the Board. But the Board has to justify its increases. In the press conference, the Minister talked to the press about most of the citizens or the flat buyers being able to afford the prices that are being charged. That is not the criterion. May I say to the Minister that, as a public body, the test should be how much does it cost the Board to build these flats, the cost arrived at after a true costing, and then the charges that ought to be made to the members of the public for the flats.”
“This is paragraph 2 of his Report on the audit of the accounts. He says: 'The Board's existing accounting system does not provide for the costing of flats built by the Board and the leasing of land. There are no detailed records to show the unit cost of the flats and land. The Board has agreed to adopt a suitable costing system as soon as possible for the purpose of more informative reporting.' Further down, he also refers to the policy of the Board in not showing certain items in the Income and Expenditure Accounts. In his Notes to the 1980/81 Accounts again, he says: 'The Board is unable to follow the desirable method of deducting the cost of flats and land sold from the long-term assets in the balance sheet because the existing accounting system does not provide for the costing of flats and land.' So we have this report by the Auditor-General that the accounts do not show or cannot show the unit cost of the flats. He says: "There are no detailed records to show the unit cost of the flats and land." And he says, in paragraph 9 of his Report for the previous year, that as far back as 1978 consultants had recommended changes to the accounting system for implementation by the Board. I have asked questions, since I came into Parliament, as to when the Board was going to implement the recommendations made by the Auditor-General to its accounting system so that the accounts, as he said, reflected the true cost of the flats and land. The Auditor-General said this was necessary "for the purpose of more informative reporting." On 27th July at the Sitting of Parliament, the Minister said that the Board was consulting with several firms and would soon be appointing somebody to advise on the implementation of the Auditor-General's recommendations.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have asked for or claimed this right to raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment because of the dissatisfaction that has been felt outside about the recent increases in the prices of HDB flats that were announced by the Minister for National Development on 23rd September, 1982, at a press conference. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister, in announcing the price increases, quoted what, he said, were the costs to the Board in the construction of the flats. He also said that these prices at which the flats were being sold were lower than the costs to the Board itself, i.e. the prices paid by the Board for the construction of the flats. And he said that if this trend were to continue the, Board would become bankrupt. I do not think any Singapore citizen wants the Board to become bankrupt. But what I would commend to the Minister is that the Housing and Development Board is a statutory board, set up and financed by taxpayers. Money is provided by Parliament for the construction of low-cost housing for the citizens. And being a public body charged with the responsibility of providing low-cost housing, I would commend to the Minister that the Board must be fully accountable to the public, to the taxpayers, for the prices that the Board charges for its flats. As I have said, the Minister has quoted figures, in his press conference, of the construction of the flats, but he has not, in his conference with the press, explained how these figures had been arrived at. What was the costing system that was adopted by the Board before these figures were arrived at? Mr Speaker, Sir, we fortunately have the Report of the Auditor-General on the Board's accounts and I will read from the Report of the Auditor-General on the 1981 accounts.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 6, lines 15 and 16, to leave out "the Minister" and insert "Parliament". As I explained in my speech at the Second Reading of the Bill, it is for Parliament and not for any other body, whether it be the Minister or anyone else, to levy or impose taxes. I would ask that this right of Parliament alone be preserved in this Act. Amendment negatived. Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 12 to 36 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. First and Second Schedules ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. SALARY OF SPEAKER 7.40 p.m.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 4, line 24, at end, to add - "(2) Before engaging in any commercial activity under the provisions of paragraph (c) of subsection (1), the Board shall obtain the approval of Parliament by resolution upon a motion presented to Parliament by the Minister setting out the commercial activity the Board intends to engage upon.". Sir, I have, in my speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, set out why I think this is necessary. I am not merely referring to the organizing of exhibitions overseas but this amendment gives the Board power to commit funds in the formation and participation of companies and entering into joint ventures with others. It is in that function that the Board should come to Parliament first, and get its approval before it undertakes any business ventures. Amendment negatived. Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 7 to 10 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 11 -”
“What I would like to know from the Minister is, will this tenure be protected for Government servants if they are transferred into the employment of the Trade Development Board? 7.21 p.m.”
“You did not? Sorry, I beg your pardon, a Member of this House. I see by clause 13 of the Bill that Parliament shall provide moneys for the functions of the Board and the Minister will make grants-in-aid out of these moneys provided by Parliament. My observation is this: should not Parliament be asked first, before the Board commits taxpayers' moneys in any commercial activity embarked upon by the Board? I have proposed an amendment to this Bill and I shall at the appropriate time move that amendment. The other provision is clause 11. Again, clause 11 gives the Board the power to impose "a levy on the export of such goods as may be specified in the order." Well, a levy is nonetheless a tax. Call it what you like - charge, levy, cess - it is a tax. Sir, it has long been recognized that it is for Parliament to levy any tax on its citizens, and it is only with Parliament's consent that any levy may be imposed on any citizens or companies in the country. I would ask the Minister to consider, when the Bill is in the Committee stage, whether he would accept the amendment that I have proposed which is, that the Board shall again seek the approval of Parliament before imposing any levy on goods. Finally, Sir, on the question of the transfer of employees. It does say that those who are in the employment of the Department of Trade "shall be transferred to the service of the Board on terms not less favourable than those enjoyed by them immediately prior to their transfer." Then it goes on to say that, until such time as regulations are made by the Board, the regulations of the Government shall apply. Sir, you are probably aware that Government servants enjoy a protection under the Constitution as to their tenure of service.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall attempt to be brief on this and may I assure the Minister that I am not opposing the Bill, although I do not suppose it would worry him very much even if I said I did. I support the Bill in principle and the objects in the Bill. All I want to do is to draw attention of this House to one or two matters in this Bill. First of all, Mr Speaker, Sir, on clause 4 of the Bill which deals with the constitution of the Board and the First Schedule to the Act. Again, may I say that this is no reflection whatsoever on the Minister who is going to be in charge of this. But it seems to me that the whole power is vested in the Minister. He appoints the Chairman, the Deputy Chairman and all the other members. And if you look at the constitution in the First Schedule, the Minister is again given the power not only to appoint but to remove any member or the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman without assigning any reason therefor. Mr Speaker, Sir, we do have in this country of ours Chambers of Commerce and other business houses. I wonder whether the Minister, in appointing members to this Board, will have consultation with these Chambers of Commerce. Does he not think that perhaps they should have some representation on the Board or should be consulted, because after all I am sure they are also interested in promoting trade overseas, and this Board which is to come into being is to help in this promotion of trade overseas. So I wonder whether the Minister would let this House know how he proposes to go about appointing the members to this Board. The other thing is clause 6 (c). This deals with the powers of the Board, Sir, and the hon. Member for Moulmein has referred to clause 6 (c) and, that is, that the Board shall have power to engage in any commercial activity.”
“I would not. It is in clarification of what I said about the right to strike, Mr Speaker, that I want to say something now. It has been claimed by the hon. Member for Moulmein, and I think by another Member, that this Bill does not take away the right to strike. But I said it did and I want to, if I may, with your permission, clarify why in my opinion it does take away the right to strike. If you look at the definition of "trade union" under the Amendment Bill, it can have one or other of these objects, and you do not find among these objects any provision for the promotion or organizing of a strike so that now, if you want to register a new trade union, the Registrar will require that the constitution or the rules of the trade union contain no provision for the organization or promotion or financing of a strike. He will say that is not one of the objects of the trade union under the Trade Unions Act. I know there is section 28. Under the existing Act section 28 talks of the right of trade unions to organize a strike. But you will come into this difficulty, Mr Speaker, Sir, because the Registrar may, after the passing of this Bill, require trade unions to remove from their objects, from their constitution, any clause which says that the trade union may promote a strike or organize or finance a strike. So you will find this object removed from the objects of the trade union set out in its constitution or in its rules. And once that is removed, then section 28 is completely of no help at all because you must look at the objects and if the objects say you cannot strike, well then, you cannot have recourse to section 28. This is why I said that this Bill removes the right to strike.”
“A clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. May I clarify something? That is what I want to do.”
“Sir, I have to ask you to tell the hon. Member not to be so excited about the whole thing.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. I have been asked twice on a point of order. Is the Member speaking on the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill or is he speaking on political parties at the moment? Mr Seah Mui Kok: I say "thank you" to the hon. Member for Anson. This is exactly what I am trying to show him -that he did not confine his talk to the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill. But now he knows how to jump up. I will confine to trade unions. He has learnt a lesson.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I ask the Government: if it cannot see its way to allowing the trade union movement to continue to function as an independent trade union movement within Singapore, then it should state so publicly and change the Bill to call it "The Trade Unions Abolition Bill". That perhaps would reflect more accurately the explanatory statement which says: 'This Bill seeks to amend the Trade Unions Act in order to bring the Act up to date with the present conditions prevailing in Singapore'. Let us tell the workers that we do not want any more trade unions in Singapore. Let us be honest with them. Then at least they know where they stand, and at least the world will applaud us for being honest. But to continue with this sham trade union movement, all we are doing is to kill the trade union movement in Singapore. It does not do us justice, Mr Speaker, Sir. For that reason, I oppose this Bill. 4.47 p.m.”
“The purpose is to ask that the trade union movement be freed from all this Government embrace, and that it should exist in Singapore as an independent trade union movement and be You don't speak for the Government." That is the whole point of my bringing this in, Mr Speaker, Sir. Otherwise the world outside, knowing what the situation in Singapore is, will take statements from leaders in the trade union movement as statements representing the views of the Government. Is the Government aware of this danger? This is the whole point of my bringing this in. He is reported to have said that we are not interested in Arab countries except in the oil. This could have a very damaging effect on Singapore's economy. An hon. Member: How?”
“I am talking about the trade union movement and how it is at the moment, Mr Speaker, Sir, because of the way the trade union movement has been swamped, manacled. They are taken outside to be speaking on behalf of the Government.”
“I understand that he is an Assistant Director or Deputy Director in the NTUC in charge of industrial relations. There is a report that has appeared outside Singapore, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this gentleman with 10 others from the trade union movement in Singapore visited Israel last month to attend a dialogue/conference between Israel and Singapore. And according to the report, this officer is alleged to have told Israel that Singapore's sympathies were with Israel in the Lebanon war. This would appear to be contrary to the Foreign Ministry's statement that was issued, I think, in September of this year where the spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs deplored the massacre in Beirut. But this officer was quoted in this report to have said that Singapore's sympathies were with Israel in the war in Lebanon. And what is more damaging, Mr Speaker, Sir, is this report that he is alleged to have said - that Singapore was not really interested in the Arab countries except for their crude oil.”
“If one looks up the definition of "symbiosis", one finds that it is specially applicable to an association where one lives within the other. And it would appear that the intention of the Government is that the trade unions should live within the Government. If that is what the Government wants, where is the independence of the trade union movement? Where is the independence? Where is the right of the workers to enter into trade disputes with the Government, which is perhaps the biggest employer of labour in Singapore? We have, as I have said before, something which is a first for Singapore (not a first of which we can be very proud, but a dubious first) where the chief executive officer of the trade union movement is also a member of the Cabinet of the Government. And we have in Singapore a number of advisers, officials in the NTUC in one form or another, all of whom come from the ruling Party and from the Government. Why is it necessary, I ask, for this Government to manacle the trade union movement in this manner? There is the danger, and it is this. This close relationship, this close identification, this swamping of the trade union movement by the Government and its officers, by its Ministers and other officials in the Government, may lead to trade union movement officers being taken to be speaking on behalf of the Government outside. And that is not desirable. Not very long ago, there was the Secretary-General of the NTUC calling for a boycott. It is a pity that he did not make it very clear that he was only speaking on behalf of the trade union movement and that he was not speaking on behalf of the Government. I do not know whether the Foreign Ministry is aware of newspaper reports that have appeared outside Singapore of a trade union official.”