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 76 of 82.
“I am indebted to the Minister. But I am trying to confine myself to this Bill. I am talking about the Industrial Relations Act because that vitally concerns the trade union movement. It removed, from the sphere of negotiations between trade unions and the employers, these questions - questions of transfer, questions of employment, termination. These are matters on which trade unions are vitally interested. I shall not refer to the Employment Act which also came into force that year which, as in the article in the Sunday Times, provided less fringe benefits. They were being stripped of their fringe benefits. So began this systematic erosion of the trade union movement. And then was it last year, Mr Speaker, Sir, that there was an amendment again to the Trade Disputes Act which made it an offence, as I see it, for any leader of a trade union to sit down with his colleagues and talk about whether there should be a strike or not, under a definition in the Act. So they have been rendered, as I said, completely powerless now and they exist only as social bodies. And I think this was what the Hon. Minister was saying - that this was the new modernization policy for the trade unions, grand words, forgetting that in all this the workers were being systematically driven to the position of serfs in all these grand words that are being bandied about - co-operation. Mr Speaker, Sir,.there has been talk about the co-operation, as I said, between the Government and the trade unions. Someone talked about the symbiotic relationship. May I draw the attention of the Minister and the Government to the dangers of this close symbiotic relationship between the trade unions and the Government.”
“They had made enough use of the workers. They were no longer needed. So in 1968, the trade unions were excluded from including in their areas of negotiation with the employers several matters which were of vital importance to the trade union movement, matters like the employer's right of termination of the worker. The employer was given a free hand to terminate any employee regardless of whether he had worked five years or 15 years. So that we have in Singapore today the position of a worker who has worked, say, even for 20 years and all that the employer has to do is to, I have said this before, serve on him a notice saying, "We don't need your services any more. Here is four weeks' wages. Our magnanimity will only allow for four weeks' wages because the Government says so, and goodbye." That is one of the -”
“Minister and the speeches from the hon. Members who have spoken before me. But let us be realistic, Mr Speaker, Sir. You can only have co-operation between two equals. You then speak of genuine co-operation. Otherwise you speak of coercion. Where there is a stronger man and a weaker man, and the weaker man gives in to the stronger man, then there is no co-operation. There is no partnership. If you want co-operation from the workers, give them their rights and stretch out your hand to them in partnership. You do not denude them of all their rights. You do not render them impotent, powerless, and then talk of co-operation as between employers and workmen. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill, as I said, takes away at one fell swoop the trade union movement as it has tried to exist over these years and is making a mockery. At least in Poland, Mr Speaker, Sir, the military rulers there have been honest. They have abolished and made it illegal for the independent trade union movement to function. But we go on with the sham of a trade union movement still in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I referred to the days in 1950s, 1960s, when the new party was then actively supporting, wooing the workers and came to power on the backs of the workers. Having got into power, having been put into the seat of government by the working class, not very long after, they began in the 1960s, after Singapore came out of Malaysia, a series of measures to denude the trade unions of their rights. Notable among these were the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill which came into force in 1968. Let it be said, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Industrial Relations Act was passed by the Government after it had come to power on the backs of the workers. But in 1968, it decided things had to change.”
“And not only the workers, Mr Speaker, Sir, but the students in the University then, and all for a right cause. May I say here, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I for once cheered what was being done for the workers in Singapore. But it must be galling to the workers today. It must be adding insult to injury that the Government, which came to power on the backs of the workers in 1959, should now do this to the workers in Singapore. They who took the sword on behalf of our workers in Singapore in those days should now turn the sword on the workers themselves. I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a betrayal of our working class and our workers in Singapore to whom, as I said, we owe a great debt. We owe a debt to them not only for being in the forefront of the independence movement for Singapore and which was eventually won for us by them. We also owe them a debt for our present prosperity that we now enjoy. May I say, Sir, that we in the Workers' Party are not ashamed of the role played by the workers in those days. We are not ashamed of what they did for Singapore and what they have done over the years. If anyone is ashamed, it would appear that the Government is ashamed. Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said, we owe the workers, our working class in Singapore, a debt. And let me say from this House that this debt will be repaid. We, in the Workers' Party, are committed to repaying this debt that we in Singapore owe to our workers and it shall be repaid, let me assure the workers in Singapore, whatever may happen today. It has been said, and as was reported by the Ministry of Propaganda at Times House which carried articles on the Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill, that confrontation is out, co-operation is in, and that has been the keynote of the address by the Hon.”
“I was reading in the papers a few days ago the account from a housewife who is an executive. She was talking about the conditions in Japan, and she said, "In Japan the employees are at the mercy of the employers." That is not me saying, Mr Speaker, Sir. It is someone who has lived in Japan. Why are we doing this to our workers in Singapore, our workers who have contributed to the economy of this country? Be it remembered, Mr Speaker, Sir, as was reported in the Economist sometime ago, that "our trade unions were the cradle of the independence movement in Singapore". Why are we doing this to our workmen? Why should we reduce them to the position of serfs and slaves? Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. Minister referred to the infiltration in the early days of the trade union movement - I take it, the 1940s, 1950s - by the Communists and pro-Communists who used the trade union movement, he said, for their ends. Mr Speaker, Sir, reference has been made, not once but several times, by leaders of the Government to those tumultuous days of the 1940s, 1950s and even the 1960s, and the suggestion has been made that we in the Workers' Party want to return to those old days of the 1950s and 1960s when there were wild men running about. Well, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether there were wild men running about, but I do know that there were a lot of men running about in Singapore in those days in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. There was a new political party that had just come into existence, Mr Speaker, Sir. There was a lawyer who had just come back from England and he was leading the new party. He was the darling of the trade union movement in those days. He was the idol of the workers.”
“If the employer is carrying on or asking them to undertake work which is hazardous or in conditions which are hazardous to their health or injurious to their safety, then trade unions as a body have a right to require that those conditions be removed, that there be restrictive conditions providing for proper safeguards, proper amenities for the workmen. That is taken out. The other thing that is taken out is "the representation of either workmen or employers in trade disputes." Well, that, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the primary object of trade unions. They are not there to hold tea parties for their workmen. They are not there to hold picnics for their workmen. Neither are they there to go into finance, into business or supermarkets, or the running of taxis. Their primary object is to represent workmen in trade disputes. Now, this new Bill takes that away. What are trade unions going to do? Hold parties, have their employers there, bow to their employers and say, "Yes, yes, yes"? Then the other object in the Act is "the promotion or organization or financing of strikes or lock-outs in any trade or industry". This, Mr Speaker, Sir, is another essential right of the trade union movement. It is the right of the workers to withhold their services from the employers, and that is the only way in which the workers can enforce their demands and their rights on the employers. Take that away from them, and they are no longer able to promote, to organize or to finance stoppage of work. What are they supposed to do? What do they do when the employer rides roughshod over them? Today, Mr Speaker, Sir, the workman is at the mercy of the employer. We have emulated, it would appear, the situation in Japan and other countries.”
“Under the Act as it stands at the moment, the objects of a trade union are set out as: '(a) the regulation of relations between workmen and employers, or between workmen and workmen or between employers and employers; or (b) the imposing of restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business; or (c) the representation of either workmen or employers in trade disputes; or (d) the promotion or organization or financing of strikes or lock-outs in any trade or industry or the provision of pay or other benefits for its members during a strike or lockout, and includes any federation of two or more trade unions.' Now all that is swept aside in one fell blow, Mr Speaker, Sir. And now, we have high-sounding objectives for the trade union movement in Singapore, and that is, to promote good industrial relations. Yes, we say "Aye" to that. The purpose of a trade union as defined in the Bill is: '(a) to promote good industrial relations between workmen and employers; (b) to improve the working conditions of workmen or enhance their economic and social status; or (c) to achieve the raising of productivity for the benefit of workmen, employers and the economy of Singapore, and includes any federation of two or more trade unions;'. Mr Speaker, Sir, the point in all this is, after this Bill comes into force, how are the trade unions in Singapore, to enforce their rights for their own members? If you look at the Act, Mr Speaker, Sir, the trade unions have a right to insist on "the imposing of restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business". This is a necessary right for workmen. This is a right, perhaps they might find it necessary, to impose on the employer in the interest of health hazards or safety.”
“The Prime Minister is reported to have said not very long ago, Mr Speaker, in Suva when he was there after attending the Commonwealth Conference, that it was healthy to have the truth acknowledged. I say "amen" to that, and I think it is very healthy to have the truth acknowledged. And what is the truth as regards the trade union movement in Singapore today? Mr Speaker, Sir, only two days ago. I was talking to an old trade unionist and he said, "Mr Jeyaretnam, are there any trade unions in Singapore today?" "You tell me." This Bill, what it does, is to administer the last rites to the trade union movement, such as we have had in Singapore for the last 40 years or so. This Bill, once it becomes law, will put a stop to all genuine trade union movement in Singapore. What will continue is a mockery of the trade union movement: impostors, unions that are masquerading as trade unions in Singapore. I am aware, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I am not a trade unionist but I know enough to know that this Bill takes away all the objects and the purposes for which trade unions have fought all over the world to win for themselves. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Hon. Minister, in moving the Bill, referred to the definition in the Act and to the definition in the Bill. With your permission, Sir, I propose to go through this definition to show that what is proposed now is to take away the last bargaining rights that trade unions have in Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill is entitled the "Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill". Mr Speaker, Sir, I would be happier if the Bill had been called the "Trade Unions Abolition Bill." An hon. Member: Very funny!”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose this Bill. But before I say any further, in view of your ruling in the last two sittings of this House, may I say that I do not have a direct personal pecuniary interest in this Bill, although my firm has acted and is still acting for workmen as defined in the Trade Unions Act or the Employment Act. May I proceed, Mr Speaker?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Constitution provides that there shall be no discrimination as between one person and another on the question of any benefits that a citizen may be entitled to receive. There is, in the examples given by the Minister, discrimination between families who themselves have not been convicted before a court of law and other families. Where is the legislation for this?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my question was directed at the families or relatives of persons who might be convicted of arson or vandalism or other offences and who, the Housing and Development Board announced sometime ago, would be deprived of their right to continue to live in these HDB flats. Would the Minister accept that punishment is provided in the Act, Penal Code or otherwise, of persons who are convicted in the courts and there is the punishment for the offence? Where is the legislation in Singapore which says that such persons should also be deprived of his civic rights and not only him but also his family or his next-of-kin, his relatives? Would the Minister point to this legislation?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I was not asking for the policy of the Government to be explained again and again and again. What I am saying is this: that a citizen must be told why his particular case does not fit in with the Government's policy. I have had letters from Ministries with one short sentence, "It is regretted that the application cannot be granted." Why not? As far as I could see, it came within the policy of the Government.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst it is accepted that Ministers have explained their policies, would the Hon. Prime Minister accept that one of the fundamental principles of accountability to every citizen is that the Government explains in each particular case why it is unable to accept his application or makes a decision that may adversely affect his livelihood? For example, why his case does not come within the policy laid down by the Government?”
“I beg your pardon, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is just that the Hon. Minister was directing questions at me, so I thought I could answer. But I beg your pardon.”
“I quite well understand about expenditure of money on submarine cables because that would be providing information services for Singapore. That is not my point. The clause would appear to give the Corporation power to invest any funds. It is a question of investment. We are talking about surplus funds for the development of information communication services whether in Singapore or elsewhere. What I wanted to know was: does this envisage the Corporation taking an equity, for example, in information services undertaken in other countries? It is not the laying of submarine cables between Singapore and other countries but development of information services. For example, in Indonesia there is an undertaking there. Does this mean that the Authority may also join in in that undertaking and invest its funds there and will it get an equity?”
“I see, by the Third Schedule, the third paragraph provides for the auditing of the accounts of the Corporation 'by the Auditor-General or by an auditor appointed annually by the Minister in consultation with the Auditor-General.' I do not know the reason for including in this paragraph the appointment of an auditor outside the Auditor-General. I would commend to the Hon. Minister that accounts of all statutory boards (and this Corporation will be a statutory board) should, in principle, be audited by the Auditor-General, and no power should be given to the Corporation or anyone else to appoint any other auditor to audit the accounts of the Corporation. That is all I wish to say on this Bill, Sir. 6.22 p.m. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]”
“Again, in clause 71 you will find that it seeks to punish persons who do a number of things but there is an exemption, and that is this. You will find it in paragraphs (b) and (e). Clause 71, paragraph (b) says: 'except in obedience to an order of the Minister or an employee specially authorised by him to make the order, wilfully omits to transmit or intercepts or acquaints himself with or detains any message or part thereof or deliberately causes a call or connection to be disconnected or not to be connected;' he shall be guilty of an offence. So if the Minister orders this, then he is exempt. He is immune from any prosecution. In effect it gives the Minister very wide powers to detain any message or to acquaint himself with any message or part thereof. When we come to paragraph (e) of clause 71, it says: 'except in obedience to an order of the Minister or the chief executive or the direction of a court, wilfully opens or causes to be opened contrary to his duty any mail bag or postal article in the course of transmission by post or wilfully detains or delays or causes to be detained or delayed the mail bag or postal article;'. I am glad to see in this clause there the provision of "the direction of a court". I should have thought that in all these cases there should be the direction of a court. I can understand that sometimes it may be impractical to seek the direction of a court before powers to stop or to open any mail, letters, or telegrams are exercised, but one must recognize the right to secrecy and that it is something that should not be openly infringed without adequate reasons and security provided. Finally, there is the accounts of the Corporation.”
“And sub-clause (7) says:- '(7) if any doubt arises as to the existence of a public emergency or as to whether any act done under paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (6) was in the public interest, a certificate signed by the Minister shall be conclusive evidence of the matters stated therein.' In other words, the Minister is made the sole judge again of what is public emergency or when a public emergency exists or what is in the public interest. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would counsel against such wide powers being given just to the Minister, again without any reflection on the Minister who is introducing this Bill. We are talking about the principle of the Bill and whether it is advisable that powers should be vested in just one man. Then, if I may talk about the transfer of employees. Concern has been made by an hon. Member for the employees who are being transferred. What I would like to know from the Hon. Minister is about the protection of the present employees of the Postal Services Department who are public servants, the protection that is given to them under the Constitution which says that before their services can be terminated or they can be reduced in rank certain procedures have to be followed. Will that protection be safeguarded when employees are transferred from the Postal Services Department to this new Corporation? Because if we look at clause 29, it says: 'Until such time as regulations are drawn up by the Corporation, the regulations relating to the schemes and terms and conditions of service in the Government . . shall continue to appIy . ." But what will be the position when regulations are drawn up by the Corporation? Will they in any way detract from the protection given at the moment to the employees in the Postal Services Department?”
“It talks about the investment of funds. I see that funds may be invested: 'in securities in which trust funds may, by any written law for the time being in force relating to trustees, be invested . .'. We can find out what are the investments that trustees can make. But then there is this: 'for the development of information communication service whether in Singapore or elsewhere.' I do not quite understand what is intended by this. Is it intended that funds of the Corporation should be used to finance development of information communication services outside Singapore? Would that give the Corporation an equity in the other information service, or would it be by way of an outright loan being granted to the other undertaking outside Singapore, and before any such investment is made, whether there would be obtained the approval, I would say, of Parliament? Then there is clause 22 where one finds the "public interest" powers of the Minister. This is in subclause (6): '(6) On the occurrence of any public emergency or in the public interest the Minister may, by order in writing, direct that - (a) the operation of any telecommunication . . should be subject to the control of the Government, and may - xxx xxx xxx (ii) provide for the taking of, the control of or the usage for official purposes of, all or any such telecommunication system and' and then, finally, (iii) provide for the stopping, delaying and censoring of messages and the carrying out of any other purposes which the Minister thinks necessary, . .'. So we have, here again, wide powers given to the Minister to stop, delay and censor messages, if he considers that the public interest or public emergency requires it.”
“I think it is necessary that in setting up a Corporation to undertake such vast undertakings as the Postal Services and the services provided by the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore, the people who are appointed should be capable people who can discharge the functions effectively and satisfactorily. There is, again, the power given to the Minister to remove all or an of the mem- bers of the Corporation. There is a qualification, that is, "necessary in the interests of the effective and economical performance of the functions of the Corporation . . There, again, is the power to remove members of the Corporation left to the sole discretion of the Minister. Will the Minister be guided by anybody else on this matter? Then there is what would appear to be a carte blanche power to the Minister to remove members of the Corporation or any member of the Corporation in the public interest. Now we find "public interest" power given to the Minister in other sections as well. Is the Minister to be made the sole judge of what is in the public interest, or would he again seek the advice of anybody else outside himself before he exercises these powers? There is the appointment of the Chief Executive. Again, one finds that although the Corporation is empowered to appoint a Chief Executive, it may only do so after seeking the approval of the Minister. So much for the powers given to the Minister for the appointment of members of the Corporation and the Chief Executive. I think it is desirable, and I hope the Minister will see that it is desirable, that perhaps the Public Service Commission or any other body should be drawn into the appointment even if it be in an advisory capacity. Then there is clause 18 on which I would like some clarification from the Minister.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, may I express my support, in principle, for this Bill. I think it is commendable that the Postal Services and the services provided by the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore should come under a single body. My only observation, and I say this without any reflection on the Hon. Minister who is going to be in charge of this Corporation, is that whilst he sets up the Corporation and appoints the Chairman and several members, it would appear from my reading of the Bill that they are really unable to do anything without, first of all, getting the approval of the Minister. It seems to me that too much power, again may I say without any reflection on the Minister, is vested in the Minister and not really in the Corporation. Mr Speaker, Sir, would this not bring about a lack of confidence in the Chairman and members of the Corporation? There are several sections where it would seem to me that the Minister's power is unlimited, and I wonder whether it is advisable that the power of the Minister should be unlimited. If one looks at clause 10, this deals with the appointment of the Chief Executive and other employees of the Corporation. We have, of course, the First Schedule which deals with the appointment of members of the Corporation. If I may take the First Schedule first, it would appear that the appointment of the Chairman and other members of the Corporation shall be by the Minister. I have no qualms about the judgment of the Minister, but I would like to know whether, in the appointment of the Chairman and members of the Corporation, the Minister would be guided by anybody, would he seek the advice of the Public Service Commission on these appointments, or would it just be left to the discretion of the Minister alone.”
“The person authorized by regulations. Is that a single person or a board?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise for a clarification from the Minister on clause 4 of the Bill where it says: 'Where an officer is found guilty of any of the offences specified in the Schedule to this Act by any person authorised by regulations made under this Act' May I know from the Minister who is the person who has been authorized by regulations? Is it a board or is it a single person?”
“Please. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 - Question put, "That clause 2 stand part of the Bill."”
“I am sorry. Are you taking the two clauses together?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know quite exactly what the Hon. Minister intends by his question. Of course, if a Prime Minister should cease to hold office, then under the existing Act he will, of course, be entitled to a pension. I am not asking for a repeal of any provision in the Act. We are talking about this Bill which says that even whilst a Minister is holding office he should be paid a pension.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no quarrel at all with the payment of pensions to Ministers and Members of Parliament if they have served the requisite number of years in Parliament when they cease to hold office. But what this Bill proposes to do is to pay them pensions even while they are still in office, i.e. while they are holding office or have not ceased to be Members of Parliament. This is why I say that, for all practical purposes, what this amounts to is an increase in the salary that is being paid at the moment. Call it pension if you like, but what does it matter? It puts so much extra into the pockets of the Ministers.”
“We have, Mr Speaker, Sir, in our society unfortunately people who need welfare, people who find it a burden to pay their hospital bills, people who are unemployed and who do not get any unemployment benefits, and people who are aged. I was reading in the Straits Times (I think it was yesterday) the speech made by a Minister about the plight of the aged in Singapore. In my view, it should be possible for some of these savings in Government expenditure to be directed towards caring for the needy and the less privileged in our midst. That is a deserving cause. We should not merely attempt to look after those in our society who are able to look after themselves, who can earn for themselves, sufficient to keep themselves. We should concern ourselves with those who are unable to do this, and we should see whether, with the funds and money available, this can be done. And I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it can be done if a serious attempt is made by this Government to examine Government expenditure to see what economies can be effected. Mr Speaker, Sir, I oppose this Bill.”
“The salary increases that are offered for our workers are very, very meagre compared to what increases (i keep saying "increases" because that is what it really amounts to) that are being offered to our Ministers. I think it is wrong, if I may say so, Mr Speaker, to try and equate service in the Government as a Minister holding a political office with that of the Administrative Service. It is wrong. For one thing, they are two different things. In the Administrative Service, the officer is paid to do a job and he does not enjoy the authority, the prestige, and the dignity that go with the appointment to a political office. So it will be wrong, in my submission, to try and equate service in the political field with that of service in the Administrative field. I have spoken about the high cost of government in Singapore today. I have mentioned about the salaries. I have tried to tot up the sum that is provided in the estimates for Administration, just pure administration of this country of over 2 1/4 million people. I would like to know what the exact figure would be from the Minister, if he is able to give that answer. The figure that I find is staggering, and I would urge the Minister to consider whether it is time that we examined Government expenditure, particularly in the salaries, and other economies that may be effected. I would propose to the Minister that this Government should give serious consideration to the appointment of a commission now in Singapore to examine Government expenditure to see and to recommend what economies can be effected in Government spending without reducing efficiency.”
“That, I am sure, must have been the motive which led our Prime Minister and his team, when they entered politics in 1959, to guide the destiny of this country. So I think it will be a folly to think that because they are Ministers, they carry responsibilities, and therefore they must be paid very high salaries. This brings me to the point of whether the Government in Singapore is costing the taxpayer perhaps a little too much. The high cost of government, I find, Mr Speaker, Sir, that in salaries alone paid to Ministers, going down from the Prime Minister to the Ministers of State, is an annual sum of nearly $4 million. This is in payment of salaries alone to Ministers in the Government. We have, unique to Singapore, two Deputy Prime Ministers. One of them is, of course, in full-time charge of a Ministry. The other would appear to be a supernumerary, super-annuated. And his main task, as I see it at the moment, seems to be to write long letters to the press as the political propagandist for the Government and the People's Action Party. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would urge the Minister to reconsider this Bill; whether it is right that the taxpayer should be burdened with these additional sums. They are not small sums. They are quite large sums particularly, I repeat, when the Prime Minister has drawn the attention of Singaporeans to the bleak future facing this country for the next year - I do not know how many years - and for the need to tighten our belts. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have had NWC recommendations and this year's NWC recommendations, I need not remind Members of the House, are $18.50 plus 2.5% to 6.5%.”
“If we look at Cabinet Ministers, again, by way of comparison, in Australia a Cabinet Minister is paid S$173,670. The counterpart across the causeway is paid S$105,279. In Singapore it is $170,016, again, inclusive of the allowances paid as Members of this House. And if you move further down to Ministers and Ministers of State, what do we find? In Australia, they are paid S$163,380. In Malaysia they are paid S$88,656 and in Singapore a Senior Minister of State is paid $127,176 and a Minister of State is paid $109,896. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have for comparison purposes not taken salaries paid in other countries in this region. I have not, for a minute, tried to compare the salaries paid in Singapore with the salaries paid, for example, in India. I have taken, I thought in fairness, the salaries paid in Australia. But one must remember that the salary structure in Australia is quite different. There, the salaries are generally much higher for employees and workers and the salary structure is different. Yet we find that what we propose to do in Singapore, if this Bill is passed, is to pay our Ministers far in excess of what they pay in Australia. Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said, I do not begrudge the Ministers, for a minute, the salaries that they should be paid. But it is a mistake to think that the only attraction for public service is the salaries that will be paid or the pensions that they will be able to draw. It may, may I say respectfully to this House, attract the wrong sort of persons because one comes into this public service not for what one can get out of it but what one can give to his country and to his fellow men.”
“Again, Sir, I have with me, for the information of Members of this House, by way of comparison the salaries that are paid to Ministers, again, in Australia and in our nearest neighbour that is over the causeway. In Australia, the Prime Minister is paid S$253,470. This is his annual salary. The counterpart across the causeway in Malaysia is paid a sum of S$127,443. The Prime Minister of Singapore is paid $230,016, not very far below what is paid to the Australian Prime Minister. May I say, Sir, that the Australian Prime Minister's salary that I have given here is the recommendation of their Remunerations Tribunal, which was made recently I think, and this is the salary that has been recommended for him for the future. But I read in one of the papers that, on his submission, this recommendation has been deferred for three months in view of the situation facing Australia. If this Bill is passed, what it will do is to increase the salary of the Prime Minister from $230,000 to $362,000 a year for all practical purposes. Then if we look at the Deputy Prime Minister's salary, byway of comparison, in Australia the Deputy Prime Minister is paid a sum of S$208,320. This is, again, the recommendation of this Tribunal which has not been implemented yet. The counterpart across the causeway is only paid S$116,361. In Singapore, the First Deputy Prime Minister is paid a sum of $203,016. All these figures that I give include the allowance paid to the Ministers as Members of this House. The Second Deputy Prime Minister in Singapore is paid $188,016. So the result of this Bill, if passed, will be to add, for the First Deputy Prime Minister, a sum of $114,000 annually to his present salary, and to the Second Deputy Prime Minister a sum of $103,995 to his present salary.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to ask what is the need for this Bill at this particular moment. We have heard from the Prime Minister not very long ago of the grim years ahead for all Singaporeans, not just for Singaporeans but for most of the world. Steps have been taken in other countries to curb public expenditure, particularly in the form of salaries paid to Ministers and others in the public service. What this Bill proposes to do, for all practical purposes - although it is paid in the form of a pension - is to increase the salaries that are already paid to those who will qualify under this Bill for the payment of pensions. If we take the case of the Prime Minister, what it will do is, for all practical purposes, to increase his salary by a sum of $132,000 annually. If we take the First Deputy Prime Minister, what it will do is to increase his annual salary by a sum of $114,000. If we take the Second Deputy Prime Minister, what this Bill will do is to increase his annual salary by a sum of $103,995. When it comes to Ministers who have served 18 years or more, what it will do is to increase their annual salary by a sum smaller than that of the Second Deputy Prime Minister, but not very much lower. For a minute, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not begrudge the Ministers the salaries paid to them. They have earned their salaries and they have done well for Singapore. But the question still has to be faced whether, in the present state of our financial situation, this Bill should be presented to Parliament to add on to the public debt the payment of an increase in salaries, because that is what it amounts to.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not want to prolong the debate. But may I ask the Minister for Law apropos his state- ment that leading members of the Bar had declined invitations for appointment to the Bench. May I know whether they were offered appointment as permanent Judges or whether they were merely offered appointments for fixed periods for one year or two at a time? One can understand the reluctance of members of the Bar accepting appointment under such conditions. Secondly, may I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it is wrong and it is fallacious to try to equate the Judges' salaries with the salaries of those commanding high figures at the Bar. For one thing, they are two different things. A Judge of the High Court carries with him a prestige and a position of authority and responsibility that no money can buy and he is in a completely different position from a member of the Bar who may be earning five times or 10 times more. A Judge remains a respected member of the society, a man who is making his contribution and a man of responsibility and authority, whereas a member of the Bar can only be regarded as one who is eminent in his practice.”
“You say I should not speak. All right. Mr Jeyaretnam resumed his seat.”
“I accept your ruling. If you say that I should not proceed, I will not.”
“I realize that, Mr Speaker, Sir, but we are talking about the Judiciary.”
“May I, Sir, commend to this House that it is undesirable that Judges should be made to hold office or that their tenure should depend upon it being renewed from time to time. It breaches the principle of the independence of the Judiciary, which is so vital in any society. There is the other matter, and that is, the upholding by the Executive of its determination to maintain the authority and dignity of the court. I am sorry to say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I have found that this Government has not always striven to maintain the dignity and authority of the courts.”
“There are one or two other things that must reflect the dignity and the authority of the court, and this is where I would urge the Government to pay full regard not only just to the salaries paid but to other aspects that reflect the dignity and the authority of the court. One is the appointment of Judges. It is of the utmost importance, Mr Speaker, Sir, that a Judge should hold his post without any fear as to his tenure. That was the position when we inherited the 1958 Constitution - that a Judge appointed will hold office as a Judge of the Supreme Court until he reaches his retiring age. In 1969 this principle was breached, the principle that a Judge should hold office until he retires or he is removed for misconduct, without any fear for his tenure. In 1969 Mr Speaker, Sir, there was introduced into the Constitution the provision, by Article 52B I think, that the President acting on the advice of the Prime Minister may appoint someone who is qualified to sit as a Judge, to act as a Judge of the Supreme Court, and the appointment may be for a specified period. Following that, we had one Judge who sat as a Judge of the Supreme Court for a number of years but whose tenure depended on it being renewed every time it came to an end. I think his appointment was for two years at a time. At the moment, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have seven Judges sitting in the High Court, of which four hold office permanently until they reach their retiring age and three of them hold office under this power - the President to appoint them for stated periods. Two of the Judges holding office under this power, of course, are Judges who have reached retiring age, but there is one other Judge who has not reached his retiring age and whose appointment is on a year-to-year basis.”
“Before I do that, may 1, in view of your directions to me to be very careful in future, say that I do practise before the Judges of the High Court. I am there in my practice of the profession as an advocate and solicitor. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say quite clearly that I am in support of the principle and of the need for our Judges to be paid a salary befitting their responsibilities and their powers and the dignity of the office that they hold. I would, however, draw the attention of this House to one or two things, and that is, that our Judges - I am not saying for one moment that they do not deserve the salaries but they are being paid far higher than any other Judges in this region. I have with me a comparison of the salaries that are being paid to Judges in Australia, for example. The Chief Justice of Australia is only getting a salary of S$195,300. And if we go across the border to our nearest neighbour, Malaysia, we find that the Lord President of the Federal Court is only drawing a salary of S$76,022, about one-third of what the Chief Justice in Singapore is being paid. I would, however, commend to Members of this House that it would be wrong to think that the independence and the authority of the Judiciary can only be reflected in the salaries that are paid to them. The Judiciary has a very important role to play in our society. They are, along with this House, one of the organs upon which society rests for the attainment of law and order within it. There are, besides payment of salaries befitting the Judges, their position and their responsibility.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indebted to the Minister for the explanation. It is a pity that the Bill does not explain that because the previous Amendment spoke of the Chief Justice's salary as being at $156,000 per annum. It is a pity that the explanation in the Bill does not say that they are taking into account the NWC awards and are bringing them into the annual pensionable salary now. But be that as it may, I am indebted to the Minister for the explanation which was, in turn, not evident to me looking at the Bill. But may I speak on the Bill, Mr Speaker, Sir?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, what this Bill proposes to do is to delete the present section 2 of the Judges' Remuneration Act and to substitute it with this new clause. But the present section, unless it has been amended before I came to this House, is that the Chief Justice shall be paid an annual pensionable salary of $156,000.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek a clarification from the Hon. Minister? I do not know whether I have got it all wrong but I see that the salary of the Chief Justice is being increased from an annual pensionable salary of $156,000 to $225,600 and the annual pensionable salaries of the other Judges of the Supreme Court are being increased from $112,440 to $163,200. If that is correct, I am afraid I am at a loss to understand that the extra financial expenditure is only of the order of $5,730 per annum. May I have a clarification from the Minister on that?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank the Leader of the House for his reply. All I wish to say is that I did not say that it should not be sent to the Law Society. All I said was that I did not see the need for the Law Society to be consulted. But if the Committee wishes to send it, of course, I have nothing to say about it. Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, perhaps at this stage, would you like to withdraw from the Chamber? Mr Jeyaretnam withdrew accordingly.”
“I would again like to assure the Members of this House, if any further assurance were needed, that it was not for the purpose of any pecuniary gain that I raised the matter in the House. The thought of any pecuniary gain was never present. I spoke because of my concern that innocent persons might be wrongly detained and I wished to draw the attention of this House to the danger as I saw it. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I note that the Committee had not considered in its Report the question whether two Members of the Committee should have sat in the deliberations of the Committee on this matter that was referred to the Committee. You may recall, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I saw you after I had first appeared before the Committee on this matter. It is true that when I appeared before the Committee I did not raise this, but again it was simply because it had escaped my mind that I had acted against two Members in the Committee in my capacity as advocate and solicitor. That is all I wish to say, Mr Speaker. Thank you.”
“I confess that, before the Committee, I did not see the need to seek the views of the Law Society on what I thought was a matter for this House. But on further reflection, I am inclined to think that it might have been a good thing to have sought their views because the question is the interpretation of what is meant by the phrase "a direct personal pecuniary interest" which is, after all, a question of law. I see that in the end the Committee did not seek the views of the Law Society. Mr Speaker, that is all I wish to say on this question that I had a direct personal pecuniary interest. I have said enough and I will accept the decision of this House. It may be said that I have no choice but what I wish to say is that I will accept it gracefully, Mr Speaker, Sir, and bow to the ruling. But before I sit down, may I touch on two matters of fact. The Committee in its Report observes in paragraph 4 (page ii) that I did not inform the House that I had acted, be it noted, that I had acted for the applicants in Originating Motions Nos, 47 and 48 when I read the affidavits filed in those cases. I would ask Members to believe me when I said that I did not mention that fact because I thought it might amount to advertising myself if I drew attention to my having acted for these men in question. Members will recall that in those applications the men were released by the court. As for the action for damages still pending when I spoke, as I said in this House when the Minister raised the matter, it had completely escaped my mind at that time that there was that action for damages by this man Subramaniam s/o Marie still pending before the court. It is, believe me, Mr Speaker, Sir, simply not possible for an advocate to ramble all his cases in court.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to speak on this Motion. I do not, Mr Speaker, Sir, wish to reiterate in this House the reasons which I had advanced before the Committee why, in my view, there was no question of my having any direct personal pecuniary interest in the matter on which I spoke in this House. In support of my view, I referred, as the Committee says in its Report, extensively to rulings in the United King- dom House of Commons and I did this, as I said earlier at the last Sitting of this House, only because our own Standing Orders provide that when it comes to the question of construction of the Standing Orders then regard shall be had to the practice in the UK House of Commons. The Committee nevertheless have expressed the opinion that I had a direct personal pecuniary interest. The Committee's opinion would seem to be that the action in court constituted my direct personal pecuniary interest in the matter on which I spoke in this House. The opinion assumes that as a direct result of my raising the matter in Parliament I stood to gain in some way in the action in court. This was how the Minister put his case, Mr Speaker, Sir. Without attempting to be disrespectful to the Committee, may I say it is unfortunate that the Committee's Report does not say what the gain to me is and how it would arise. I confess that I still cannot see how I stood to benefit in the action in court by raising the matter which I raised in this House. As it appears from paragraph 43 of the Minutes of Evidence before the Committee, the Leader of the House spoke of his intention to recommend to the Committee that the Committee should seek the views of the Law Society on the question before the Committee.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I understand the Minister, the plan is to enable an employee to pay for his medical care out of his savings with the CPF. Would the Minister say what plans his Ministry has for those who do not make any contributions to the Central Provident Fund?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister of State whether, in implementing this 12-hour shift system, the wishes of the workers have been taken into consideration?”