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 78 of 82.
“So we had the appointment of an Executive Director of the Straits Times, a man who had served the Government well as Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs - I think his last appointment, I stand corrected. I do not know whether he has any experience of editing newspapers. But we all do know that he was at one time in the intelligence service of the government. What is perhaps not widely known in Singapore is that he also worked for the Japanese Police during the Occupation days. So we have seen after that a total clamp down on any news or views that may be considered in any way a criticism of the Government policy or programme. I ask, Sir, why is this Government, so passionately believing in free enterprise and competition in other fields, so frightened when it comes to exchange of ideas? Are they really so frightened of the other political parties that they must not be given any space in the media? Sir, a political party applied to hold a public rally on the 9th January this year. Under our present laws, before a political party can hold a public meeting it has got to get the permission of the Ministry of Culture. An application was accordingly submitted, and whoever was in charge of issuing this permit rang me up and said, "What are you going to talk about?" Sir, I told him that I was going to talk about the sun, moon and stars. The poor man took me very seriously. The Minister of State of Defence (Dr Yeo Ning Hong): You mean you told a lie!”
“Why are they frightened that people should not be allowed to listen to other views, views put forward by people other than those who are in the Government or in the ruling party? As I said, the newspapers that were prepared to accept this control were allowed to continue with their publications, so long as they agreed to accept the strict control from City Hall, from the Ministry of Culture. At one time this control was exercised from City Hall. There was still a bit of a distance between City Hall (I am talking about the English papers) and Kim Seng Road where Times House is. But after the 31st of October last year, after an event that happened in Singapore - I need not tell this House what took place on the 31st of October last year - it appeared to those in authority that the control from City Hall was not good enough. It seemed to appear to those who had the direction or control of the media that perhaps the papers were getting a little out of line. They were perhaps being carried away by this event that had taken place on the 31st of October. So we saw the censor moving into Times House. No longer was the distance between City Hall and Times House allowed to intervene between strict control over the papers.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head J be reduced by the whole sum in respect of Subhead JC-04 of the Main Estimates. Subhead JC-04, Sir, as Members are probably aware, is a vote for the Regulatory Services of the Ministry of Culture. If one looks at the programme description, it is for "the control of films, public entertainments and publications by the Board of Film Censors, Public Entertainments Licensing Unit and the Publications Section." It is the control of the media that I shall be confining myself to in this amendment. Sir, we have heard in this House, not just during the last week or so but even before that this Government believes in free enterprise and competition and how good it is for the economy of the country and that the Government is firmly anchored to free enterprise and competition when it comes to economic activities. But there is one area where it would appear that the Government does not believe in free enterprise and competition. This is the exchange of ideas, ideas which are so vital to the health and well-being of a community. 3.30 p.m. We have seen ever since this Government came to power the draconian control of the press and all forms of media. We have seen the disappearance of papers, newspapers, notably the Singapore Herald. We have seen how papers which made themselves amenable to this control were allowed to carry on; papers which tried to challenge this in any way were soon put out of business. So the matter continued, with Singaporeans being regaled every morning with news in their newspapers about the various activities of the Government, to be repeated over TV and radio. I ask, Sir, why is this Government so frightened of allowing the free interplay of ideas and exchange of ideas?”
“All right. BILL INTRODUCED SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Societies Act (Chapter 262 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Chua Sian Chin); read the First time; to be read a second time on the next available sitting of Parliament; and to be printed. MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1982 TO 31ST MARCH, 1983 Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [7th Allotted Day]. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 2.52 p.m. Head O (cont.) - Resumption of Debate on Question [24th March, 1982]. "That the sum to be allocated for Head O be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead OB-01 Object Group 1210 of the Main Estimates." - [Mr Yeo Choo Kok]. Question again proposed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with all due respect, I think the Hon. Minister has missed my point. I am talking about the inquiry before dismissal. I am saying that it should be made mandatory for an inquiry before dismissal, before the employer dismisses the employee. I think we must try and keep this clear. I am talking of an inquiry conducted by the employer before dismissal.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am aware of the provision. The Hon. Minister will find it in section 14 (1). Here it is: 'An employer may after due inquiry dismiss without notice an employee . . .' It is that that I was talking about and I thought that the intention of the legislature was to require employers to hold an inquiry before they dismiss an employee without due notice. Now that the Court of Appeal has said that it is not obligatory for an employer to hold an inquiry, I want to know whether the Hon. Minister would consider amending this section to make it obligatory for an employer to hold an inquiry before he dismisses an employee without due notice.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the point of my question to the Hon. Minister was this: that section 14 says "an employer may dismiss an employee after holding an inquiry." I thought the whole intention of the legislature was that there should be an inquiry before the employer dismissed an employee. But the Court of Appeal said in their Judgment that section 14 did not make it obligatory for the employer to hold an inquiry before he dismissed the employee. And my question to the Hon. Minister was this: would he consider amending that section to make it obligatory for an employer to hold an inquiry before he dismisses the employee?”
“If you want the name, I will give it to you. HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD (Computerization) 2. Dr Chau Sik Ting asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board has commenced its computerization programme, and, if so, what are its priority areas to improve efficiency through computerization, particularly in view of its shortage of manpower and the fact that it has the greatest degree of exposure to the public.”
“All I want to say is that whilst I appreciate the need to stamp out any illegal bookmaking, would the police take steps to ensure that innocent persons who are not there for bookmaking or betting are not suddenly trundled off to the police station? This man told me that the only questions asked were, "How many fathers and mothers have you got here?" And then he was released at 6.30 p.m. Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have listened to the hon. Member for Anson. I have answered the question fully. He persists in maintaining . . . now it is not "persons" in the plural but an innocent "person" in the singular . . . if he maintains that innocent persons or an innocent person has been harassed or wrongfully arrested, then if he sincerely believes in this, the question is, why has he not made a written complaint to the Ministry of Home Affairs or to the police, giving particulars as to who, when, where, location and time, so that this can be investigated? And we will investigate. Not to have made any written complaint but to have raised a general question, thereby raising the spectre of innocent persons being trundled off, gives the impression to this House, to me, and certainly to members of the public, that here we are not really hearing a case of a genuine accusation or complaint against the police but just to score a debating or publicity point.”
“The man who saw me about this is a man who was innocently having a bowl of mee at the Henderson market at about 5 o'clock one afternoon on a Saturday. He was suddenly trundled off to the police station at Queenstown where he was kept until 6.30 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I assure the Minister and the Members that I have not been approached by an illegal bookie. An hon. Member: Not yet.”
“Division, Sir. The Committee divided: Ayes, 1; Noes, 42; Abstentions, 1; Absent, 31. Ayes Abstentions Jeyaretnam, J.B. Hwang Soo Jin Noes Absent Abbas Abu Amin A. Rahim Ishak Ahmad Mattar Barker, E.W. Ang Kok Peng Chai Chong Yii Chan Chee Seng Chen, Bernard Chandra Das, S. Cheong Yuen Chee, Eric Chau Sik Ting Chiang Hai Ding Chin Harn Tong Chor Yeok Eng Ch'ng Jit Koon Chua Sian Chin Dhanabalan, S. Conceicao, J.F. Goh Chee Wee Fong Sip Chee Goh Chok Fong Goh Keng Swee Ho Kah Leong Hon Sui Sen Ho See Beng Howe Yoon Chong Jabbar, M.K.A. Jek Yeun Thong Jayakumar, S. Lau Teik Soon Koh Lip Lin Lee Chiaw Meng Lai Tha Chai Lee Khoon Choy Lau Ping Sum Lee Kuan Yew Lee Yiok Seng Ng Kah Ting Lee Yock Suan Ong Pang Boon Liew Kok Pun Ong Teng Cheong Noes (cont.) Absent (cont.) Lim Boon Heng Phua Bah Lee Lim Chee Onn Rajaratnam, S. Mansor Haji Sukaimi Selvadurai, P. Othman bin Haron Sia Kah Hui Eusofe Tan, Augustine H.H. Ow Chin Hock Tan Soo Khoon Rohan bin Kamis Tay Eng Soon Saidi Haji Shariff Teh Cheang Wan Seah Mui Kok Toh Chin Chye Sia Khoon Seong Yeoh Ghim Seng Sidek bin Saniff Tan Cheng Bock Tan Keng Yam, Tony Tang See Chim Teo Chong Tee Wan Hussin Zoohri Wan Soon Bee Wong Kwei Cheong Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Yeo Choo Kok Yeo Ning Hong Yeo Toon Chia Question on the amendment accordingly negatived. The following amendments stood on the Order Paper Supplement:”
“No, Sir. Question put, "That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by the whole sum in respect of Subhead PC-02 of the Main Estimates."”
“No, Sir, I am not. I wanted to explain because I have been told that we are lying all the time. I am saying that if one looks at this programme one can see what is our concern. Our concern is with the poor who cannot afford to pay for their medical services.”
“Sir, if one reads the whole of this programme under Health, one can see what our concern is. Our concern is, as we say here: 'Today whilst our poor cannot afford to pay for the basic medical treatment, the rich flaunt their wealth to get the best treatment available in the country. The Party is committed to changing this.' Our concern here in this programme is with the poor who cannot afford to pay for the treatment.”
“No, Sir. May I just borrow the manifesto from the Minister to explain our position? [and crossed the Floor.]”
“We are discussing health now, not transport.”
“Nationalize public transport. Mr Goh Chok Tong: With or without subsidy?”
“They are sending them to private institutions because they are overcrowded. I've heard that.”
“Sir, I am not aware that a great many of our citizens who are earning a combined income of $600 or $700 are owning cars.”
“I am grateful to the Minister. May I start with the definition of "poor" that the Minister and his Ministry would seem to apply in granting free medical care and treatment. As I understand the Minister, at the moment free medical care and treatment is accorded to those who are drawing public assistance, those who are destitute. They are not just poor. They are destitute. We were told the other day that the public assistance allowance has now been increased to $170 for a family of four. They are not poor. They are destitute. I should have thought that by the cost of living here in Singapore today, anyone drawing less than $600 or even more for a family of four would find it very, very difficult to make ends meet. It is those people that I am concerned with. Why do we have to point to other countries and say, "Look. There they are starving." Let us talk about the situation here. Just because they happen to be starving in India or another place, there is no justification for any of our citizens to starve here. Let us stop this fallacy about pointing to other countries. It is these people, Sir, - I put it at $600-$700 but I would even take it higher-who find the cost of medical care and treatment a burden on them at the moment because of so many other calls on their moneys.”
“I know. I know all the boos about the British national health service.”
“I suppose I must not waste this one minute in trying to dispute this. Sir, why is the Government fighting shy of introducing a state health insurance? We now hear of something of a savings plan. That is not a health insurance scheme. A minimum standard of state health insurance would be cheaper in the long run. We have the example of several countries which have health insurance. We have the example of the British national health service. An hon. Member: Boo!”
“Sir, with your indulgence, may I take them as separate, one after the other, and carry on the whole -”
“But I have got two amendments, Sir. May I not go on for twenty minutes?”
“We have heard not only today but the other day in this House about the inadequate number of kidney machines to deal with people who suffer from renal failure. The suggestion was made in this House that they should be allowed to use their CPF savings to buy machines. I for one minute do not advocate that. CPF savings are meant for their old age, and if they are asked now to pay for their medical treatment out of CPF savings, then what is to become of their dependants in old age? I say, Sir, that it is the duty of any government in this age and time to provide adequate health care to its citizens, particularly and specially to citizens who are unable to provide this health care out of their own pockets. To fail to do that would be to fail as a society. 6.45 p.m. Let us not forget something which has often been said here and outside about our only resource, our own people, and the need therefore for us to see that the only resource that we have in this country is properly maintained and looked after so that we may continue on this road to progress. Sir, we have heard something about this -”
“It has never been my Party's statements or proposals that there should be free medical care accorded to everyone regardless of whether he is a millionaire or whether he is a worker earning only $300 a month. That has never been advocated by my Party, and I would like the Hon. Minister and others to disabuse themselves of this fallacy. What we are saying and what we have said over the years is that the medical charges in Singapore, for those who are unable to pay them, impose a burden on them, in some cases a crippling burden, which results in their putting off going to the hospital seeking medical care at the earliest possible opportunity, thinking "Oh. perhaps this will pass off. I will wait. I can't afford the money now. I'll wait and see if it gets any more serious." It does not need very much thinking to see that if this is encouraged the cost will increase in the end. The longer you leave attending to any ailment, the chances are that later on you will be finding yourself having to pay more. It is for these people that I am speaking tonight, Sir, not as I said for those who can afford medical care at Mount Elizabeth and other private institutions. They can look after themselves. Let us not forget that sickness is not a respecter of wealth. It does not only attack people with money. It attacks the poor and the rich alike. The question is, when it attacks the rich and the poor, what do we do? Do we say, "Yes, rich man that you are. We have got the best facilities for you. Come along. We will treat you. We will provide you with the best medical care that is within our means. And you, poor man, we are sorry. We don't have the facilities, the means, to look after you." Is that what we want in our society?”
“Thank you, Sir. Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by the whole sum in respect of Subhead PC-02 of the Main Estimates. I have asked that the sums provided for both these Subheads PC-02 and PC-03 be reduced by the whole sum, not just because of any craving for publicity which might be imputed to me but to try and register the protest here in this House on behalf of the thousands of our citizens who feel very dissatisfied at the health care that is provided by this socialist government of ours. Sir, we have heard, and it has been mentioned tonight, about Singapore becoming a regional medical centre, a great institution as a medical centre. But, of course, that is designed to attract people from the neighbouring countries who cannot get the same care and treatment in their own countries to come here. That is all very well. It is economically productive for Singapore. I have got nothing against that. But it is not on behalf of these people who come here and are able to pay the charges at Mount Elizabeth Medical Centre or Gleneagles or the other private medical hospitals that I am speaking of. I am speaking of our own people who find it a crippling burden at the moment to provide health care that they need for themselves and their families. May I, Sir, commend to the Minister and to the Government that the Government owes a primary duty, first of all, to its citizens and not to the promotion of Singapore as a medical centre to provide care for non-citizens just because they will be bringing their money here to spend it. Sir, may I disabuse the hon. Members of this House of the misconstruction that is always put on anything that is said by my Party; the capacity for misconstruing everything that is said seems to be limitless.”
“Sir, I have two amendments* here, Subheads PC-02 and PC-03. May I speak on both these amendments now?”
“I am aware of that, Mr Speaker, Sir, but in view of the very serious allegations that have been made against me by the Member for Khe Bong, may I be permitted to say a little bit on this?”
“Sir, the renovations would have been capital expenditure, would they not? Why should they be included in the rental value?”
“Sir, is the Minister aware or was the Commissioner of Lands aware that in 1978 the property would have fetched a rental value of $4,000 in the market?”
“I did not mention that. You can come to my office to inspect.”
“Sir, could the Minister answer my question?”
“May I just briefly deal with this conservancy charges matter that has been brought up by the Minister for Foreign Affairs? I am afraid, as was said a number of times in the Budget Statement about me, that he was comparing oranges with apples, whatever that may mean. Conservancy charges are collected for a specific purpose. If you are going to include, in those charges, other costs, then will you please tell that to the residents? Don't say these are just conservancy charges which are being collected for the maintenance of the flats for the upkeep and for the lighting - and then when they see that you are making a huge profit, you say, "Oh, no, no, we are also including other things into this." The point is, you go to the people and tell them exactly what it is you are collecting. The other thing, Sir - may I ask a supplementary question? In view of the considerable concern about the pricing of HDB flats, would the Minister say whether there are any plans at the moment for any increase in the prices of HDB flats this year? 7.45 p.m.”
“Why should he be at the back of the queue when he has waited for nine years?”
“You must see the accounts as it is presented. 7.00 p.m.”
“There were two applicants who came to see me. They were successful in the balloting of flats. One of them applied for a five-room flat and the other one applied for a four-room flat, in the same zone. The one who applied for a five-room flat was allocated a four-room flat and the one who applied for a four-room flat was allocated a five-room flat. So they wanted to swap the flats. They came to see me. So I wrote a letter to the HDB and the answer was, "Oh, no, you can't do that. It is our policy."”
“- instead of presenting an account which does not tell the picture. May I finally end about the red tape that is tying up the HDB in knots. May I just give one illustration?”
“Why is the HDB exempted? Why is the HDB above the law? There is the conservancy charge. I pointed out sometime ago that if one looked at the accounts, the HDB was making a huge profit out of these conservancy charges. The Minister says, "Well, you just cannot look at the accounts. There are other things." If you present the accounts, they must tell the story. If they do not tell the whole story, then they are not proper accounts. Should not the HDB now be made to present its accounts and, as has been said by the Member for Leng Kee, "Let them open their books; let the public know the true picture" -”
“If he wants me to give him particulars, I will supply it to him later. Mr Speaker, Sir, is it not time that perhaps we looked at the whole system of allocation? Is it not time that the allocation system that is being followed by the HDB be thoroughly gone into? Should we not examine the priorities? Should we not see what is wrong with the system that is causing so much dissatisfaction among applicants? I would ask that the Minister consider very seriously a thorough examination of the allocation priorities at the moment. I would indeed go further - I would ask that the Government now appoint a commission to look into this whole system of allocation of the HDB and see whether it is fair and equitable to our people. I know time is running out, Mr Speaker, Sir; you will soon be pulling me up. But there are one or two other matters that I want to talk about and that is the question of the accounts. 6.30 p.m. The Auditor-General drew attention to the presentation of the HDB accounts in 1980 - that it did not comply with the Act, that the accounts did not present the true costing per unit of the flats built by the HDB. In 1981 some modification was made to the accounts to meet the criticism of the Auditor-General, but not far enough. The Auditor-General still continued to make his reservations about the way the accounts had been presented. We still do not know whether the accounts that will be presented for the year under review will satisfy the Auditor-General. I would like to know what is the reason for the delay in revising the accounts to meet with the statutory requirements. I am sure that if any company outside did not meet with the statutory requirements in presenting its accounts to the Registrar of Companies, they would have been dealt with severely.”
“He went on to say: 'I want to reiterate here that the HDB's allocation policy is based on registration priority, i.e. first come, first served. No queue jumping on whatever grounds will be allowed even if such requests are made through Members of Parliament, Parliamentary Secretaries, Ministers of State and Ministers.' He went on to say: 'The waiting time for HDB flats .... was 2 1/2 years and now it is about three years.' [Hansard, 16.3.81, Vol. 40, Cols. 633 & 634] Sir, as I have indicated, I have had several complaints made to me of persons who waited much longer than three years. There are persons who have waited for nine years, ten years, and have still not been provided with a flat. I can well understand the frustration of these persons. They apply and they do not hear anything. Then they apply again and they are told, "If you move your application to this zone, you might get a better chance." So immediately they comply, however inconvenient it may be to them. And then they wait. Nothing is heard. Then they go again and they are told, "No, this area is closed. If you like to move your application to another area, you might get another chance." So we go on, in a merry go round, running around the bush trying to get a flat. Sir, the Minister has said that there is no jumping the queue. But instances have been brought to my notice where persons who have already been allocated HDB flats and who got the benefit of subsidized housing have been allowed to sell their flats and move on to a larger flat. I know of at least two or three cases of this sort. I would like the Minister to explain how, in spite of his statement about no queue-jumping, people already in occupation of a flat are now being allowed to move on to another HDB flat. How has this been made possible?”
“Contrary to what hon. Members may think, I am not here to criticise and find fault at every turn. I am here to try and give my reasonable, constructive views to this Government, and I hope they will be accepted in that spirit. Turning to this problem of housing, may I say that it is the biggest problem in Singapore today, as it concerns most of our people. In my Meet-the-People sessions, the one recurring problem is the problem of housing. People have been waiting for years to get a roof over their heads and they have not been allocated a flat yet. The HDB, as I have said, has a very good record. But over the last two years, it seems to have lost its momentum. We know from the report that was furnished for the year ending March 1981, it built fewer houses. It housed less people, and somehow the whole thing seems to have slowed down. I wonder whether we are not witnessing the Peter Principle in action. For Members of the House, the Peter Principle is that every person or organization will rise to his level of incompetence. Is it possible that, after all this spurt of activity, the HDB has risen to its level of incompetence? And that something should be done now to examine this machine and see what is clogging up its efficiency and do something about it? As I said, Mr Speaker, Sir, the biggest problem is allocation, people waiting to get a flat. Speaking in this House on 16th March 1981, the Minister said in answer to a question that there were more than 70,000 applicants on the waiting list for HDB flats, and he said it would be unfair to these applicants if priority to purchase is given to existing HDB tenants who are already enjoying the benefits of subsidized housing.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I start by saying that it would be completely uncharitable on my part if I did not acknowledge the contribution that has been made to the housing problem in Singapore by this Government and by the HDB after it has been set up. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!”
“Sir, is it proper for the speaker to impute motives that I am here for the sake of publicity? Is that in order under the Standing Orders, Sir?”
“Compulsory deduction from the pay packet.”
“Sir, that is one. And the Minister spoke of the powers that there are in the various Acts against employers who try and stand in the way of the workers. Of course, there are these provisions but the question is, what is the Ministry doing to enforce all these provisions? I have yet to see a prosecution in Singapore of an employer for thwarting any union formation in the company or for victimising employees for joining unions. We were told about the raids that were made on worksites. We were told that no one has been prosecuted.”
“The employee did not want to go back? Oh, I am sorry, I withdraw that. This power that has been given to the Minister is all very well, Sir, provided also that the employee is notified of the representations made by the employer to the Minister and the reasons why the Minister is unable, having looked at the representations made by the employer and the em- ployee, to order reinstatement. I do not know at the present time that the representations of the company are supplied to the employee, where there is an appeal.”
“I thought it was the employer, you said.”
“Is it any wonder that the trade unions have now departed from their traditional role of protecting the welfare of their workers whom they represent, to venture into businesses and other areas? Their role is to look after the workers, and perhaps they feel that there is nothing they can do in Singapore about this. Attention has been drawn in this House to the insecurity of tenure of employment. I have myself drawn attention to this. I do not propose to repeat this. But I would just like to say this. The Minister was candid enough to say yesterday, in reply to this question about the man who was dismissed for having the same name as the employer, that the employer had indicated to the Ministry that he was not prepared to reinstate him.”