Lee Siew-Choh
Singapore
“Sir, of course, this is going back to old history. He is asking whether such a thing has happened? I say it has. That was in 1972. But it is no use my going back on what had happened then. In fact, I did consult a lawyer and was thinking of taking up an election petition. But, unfortunately, so many other things happened.”
“One final word, Sir. I can assure the Minister that many violations had been committed in past elections. Do you believe that if we make a protest, it will be published in the newspapers?”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 4, line 12, to leave out "4" and insert "30". Sir, I have also other amendments (Cols. 291 - 294) to clauses 8, 9, 16, 22, 23, 25, 31 and 36. All my amendments are related to the process of election of the President, though on different aspects. Perhaps it might be convenient to consider all of them here.”
“Consequent on what the Minister has just said, the Government is very keen on market forces and they want conclusive results of the new system. Dr John Chen has already asked the question whether those people who make high bids be made to pay the amount of the bid so that they will not make high bids.”
“Sir, the date of the Observer article was 28th April and it states: 'Arms from China and North Korea are being shipped through Singapore where they are being reloaded.' Is that true or not true? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. Standing Order No.”
“Has the Minister read of an article in the Observer in late April about shipments being transhipped in Singapore? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know what Observer article the Member is referring to, but we have no records of transfers taking place.”
The complete record
Every one of 828 lines we hold for Lee Siew-Choh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 17.
“The Minister has missed out something. He said something about life and death. If the Criminal Court of Appeal normally gives only one judgment and the other two judges merely concur, would he now require that in future every judge must give his own judgment?”
“Jeyaretnam has announced his intention to take his case to court that he had been wrongly convicted? I do not know, Sir. The facts are there. Of course, it is up to the Government to explain. And we would like to hear what the Government has to say.”
“Unless the Minister tells us that in Singapore there is no such thing as common law. Or that we have had no time to develop it in spite of all these years, and that everything else is different. Therefore, Sir, such an argument is a fallacy. It is wrong. From what the Minister has said, it would appear that many things too are wrong. May I remind the Minister again, Sir, what he once said although he tried to counter that himself, namely, that the Privy Council is a litmus test of judicial independence. I have got a photostat copy here, Sir. It says: 'the litmus test of judicial independence, said Home Affairs and Second Law Minister, S. Jayakumar.' And may I also refer to what the Prime Minister himself has said. Referring to the Singapore judiciary: 'Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew told Parliament last year "in Singapore we have an extra supervision on them. When they write their judgments they know that they could go up to the Privy Council."' Sir, the issue here today is plainly whether the Government intends to uphold justice or not uphold justice. That is the key argument and the key ingredient in the present Bill. Let us also remind the Minister that recently there have been a number of misjudgments in the Singapore courts. Therefore, one must ask: is it opportune to abolish appeals to the Privy Council at this juncture? If confidence in the judiciary has been shaken, I think Government should not try to shake this any further. We should try and make sure that everybody is happy with the judgments here, and that those who are dissatisfied with what has happened, at least have a chance to go up to the Privy Council, either in civil or in criminal cases. Finally, Sir, let me just ask again, why has the Bill been suddenly pounced on the House? Is it because Mr J.B.”
“What about the core value for the protection of the life and liberty of the common man? Is the Government interested in that? The Minister has tried to explain to us why Government has embarked on this new Bill and why we cannot keep on appealing to the Privy Council. The main argument here is, I think, that the local conditions here are different from those elsewhere. But what are the local conditions here that are different? Are we in the jungle? Or are we in the Arctic or the Antarctic? Why are we different? We have the same things over here, we have the similar judges, we have the same facilities, cars, TV, everything els. The only difference, Sir, is that we have a Government that has continued to be the Government for the last 30 years, and a Government that imposes its authority over many many aspects of our life. So, as far as we can see, there are no real differences between our local conditions and those elsewhere. The other argument which the Government usually brings up, and has today lightly touched on, is that the local conditions are best interpreted by judges who are part of the local culture and so can review cases not based on a culture. And also that the UK is now affected by constitutional changes as a result of its entry into the EEC. Sir, justice is the same justice the world over. It is the same whether it is in Singapore, or in the EEC, or in Japan,or in UK. Why should it be different? In fact, three or four days ago, the King designate of Malaysia made certain remarks and his remarks (he was the Lord President of the Federal Court) were to the effect that it is untrue to say that Malaysian courts apply the English Common Law in giving judgment in Malaysia. I believe the same holds true in Singapore.”
“Sir, in the case of criminal matters, the Explanatory Statement says: 'The Bill seeks ... to restrict appeals to the Privy Council in any criminal matter only to cases where the offence is punishable with either death or imprisonment for life [all right, let us go on that] and the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal is not unanimous.' The Minister has passed round two sheets of paper which tell us of the number of petitions of appeals registered and the number of appeals heard. But has he also given us the number of the unanimous decisions in the Court of Criminal Appeal? How many of them have given different decisions? Does the Court always give a unanimous decision? Sir, I understand that in Singapore it is very often that only one judgment, is given, and by one single judge, and usually the other two judges merely concur. If that should be the case, it amounts to only one single judgment. If this system should continue, it only means that the ordinary man, in future,will never have a chance of appeal. Unless, of course, if the Government intends to make sure that in future each single judge of this Court of Appeal must deliver his own judgment. Then at least we have three judgments in the Court of Criminal Appeal and not, as I have been told, usually only just one judgement with the other two judges merely concurring. Therefore, Sir, this means something that is very unfair and unjust to the ordinary man. And if such life and death cases are allowed to go on in this manner, then it reflects very badly, I think, on the moral judgment of the Singapore Government. It only shows how much value it places on the life and librty of the common man. Recently, Sir, Government has been speaking a lot about moral values and core values.”
“I think Government will benefit a lot from consultations with the Law Society or with other people. It will get more valuable opinions. However, let us consider the Bill itself. According to the Explanatory Statement, 'The Bill seeks .... to restrict appeals to the Privy Council in any civil matter to parties to the proceedings who at any time before the hearing of the case by the Court of Appeal have consented to be bound by such an appeal;' Two previous speakers have touched on this issue. Naturally, Sir, only the multi-national corporations, all the big companies, will have this safeguard. They always have this safeguard. Whenever things go wrong, they want to make sure that if there should be any dispute, then the final arbiter is the Privy Council. But what the Minister has not mentioned is: what happens to the ordinary citizen, the ordinary man-in-the-street? What happens when he has a case against the Government, when he is a critic of the Government, when he is a political opponent, when he is picked up by the Government and he has to go to Court against the Government? Is the Government saying that all such cases will be denied appeals to the Privy Council? Do not forget that the Government is a party to the litigation. And under those circumstances, just to limit appeals only to big companies and MNCs is patently unfair. If it is only limited to big companies, I must ask: why the discrimination against the common man? Is he not more important than some big company? Is he saying that the common man means nothing to the Government? And as the Constitution says, Sir, everybody is supposed to be treated equally before the law. But it does not appear that this amendment is intended to allow that.”
“Nevertheless, I think all Members of the House should be adequately informed well before-hand. An hon. Member: They are.”
“What the Minister has said may be true, Sir.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has said that this Bill is a follow up of the recent amendments to the Constitution, the ISA and the Legal Profession Act. But may I correct him, Sir. I say it is more correct to say that it is a follow-up of Government's reaction to the Privy Council's judgment on J.B. Jeyaretnam's appeal. If you remember, Sir, a whole series of amendments have been brought up because of the Privy Council's judgement on J.B. Jeyaretnam's appeal. And the Government in defence of its action has said that it wishes to uphold Singapore's indepndence and sovereignty. Well and good, Sir, if that was true,although today the Minister has not emphasized too much on that aspect of it. But this argument rings rather hollow, in view of the fact that it was never brought up earlier, eg, in 1965, but only recently following the judgement on the appeal of J.B. Jeyaretnam. Therefore, many jpeople can see that all these amendments have come about as a result of knee-jerk reactions to what has happened recently. And I ask, why the unseemly haste about this Bill? We received this Bill last week. It was not then in the Order Paper. It was not there. I received today's Order Paper this morning, and I suddenly discovered that the Bill is at the top of the list. I was misled by the Order Paper that was sent to me before. I am suggesting, Sir, that such a thing should not happen again. The Opposition and all the other Members should be informed of any change well beforehand. At least, that would give us some time for preparation and allow us an opportunity to consult other opinions which may be very useful to the Government.”
“Can the Minister assure the House that consumers in future will not have to pay more for their gas and electricity? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, how much a consumer pays for gas and electricity depends on how much PUB pays for the gas when it has negotiated an agreement with Malaysia, and how much it has to pay for fuel oil, which is not negotiated with anybody but settled by OPEC. PARKING LOTS FOR CONTAINER TRAILERS 13. Mr Chng Hee Kok asked the Minister for National Development whether there are sufficient parking places designated for container trailers.”
“When the Minister says "people" whom does he mean - only those people who could afford to buy the shares? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, everybody who uses utilities in Singapore, which includes every household in Singapore, will benefit from this. Of course, for those who buy the shares, we will make sure it is a good investment. It will be, provided the company is well-run, and yields a reasonable economic return, the same way in which SBS yields a good return for people who hold SBS shares. When we privatize a company, one of our objectives should be to spread as widely as possible among Singaporean, so that there will be maximum incentive for that company to look after these investments and to operate effectively without making a loss.”
“Sir, who does the Minister think will benefit from privatization of the PUB electricity and gas, and has he heard of the experience of the privatization of electricity and gas in the UK? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the beneficiaries of any Government policy are intended to be the people of Singapore. By privatizing the electricity and gas company, in due course we hope that it will be able to run more efficiently, that it will be able to meet consumers' needs more responsibly, and that consumers will have a better, more reliable supply of electricity and gas at lower prices. These prices should still not be subsidized, but should be achieved, because the company is efficient and productivity, knows what people need, and provides it to them. I see no reason why in principle this should be impossible. The British have recently privatized electricity and gas. It will take some time for their situation to settle. In America, electricity and gas are routinely supplied by private companies, and their utilities are not more expensive than in Singapore.”
“Sir, I beg to withdraw my amendment. The sum of $39,233,710 for Head W ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. Head Y - The sum of $300,000,000 for Head Y ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $300,000,000 for Head Y ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Question, "That the sum of $6,741,003,170 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Main Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1989 to 31st March, 1990, contained in Paper Cmd. 8 of 1989," put and agreed to. Question, "That the sum of $5,127,537,180 shall be supplied to the Government under the heads of expenditure for the public services shown in the Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1989 to 31st March, 1990, contained in Paper Cmd. 8 of 1989," put and agreed to. Resolutions to be reported. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.”
“Sir, prices of flats, cars, oil have all gone up very much. So these are some of the items, for example, that I can give him.”
“I think it will be easy for the Minister to find out when he goes to buy things. The prices of many things have gone up tremendously. All this is not reflected in the CPI at all.”
“The Minister says the CPI has not changed very much. Surely, the CPI is not very representative of the actual situation in Singapore, Sir.”
“I am sorry. Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head W of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, those who have been pensioned off in 1981, before the salary revisions came into operation in 1982, draw comparatively very low pensions. They were all on the old salary scales. Since then, the cost of living has gone up tremendously, and the Government has given salary increases to the Government servants, and recently again to the civil servants and also the Ministers. But what of the lowly paid pensioners? Those with a pension of less than $800 a month get an allowance of only $75 a month, I am told, and that too was given in two stages. Those who draw above $800 a month do not get any extra allowance whatsoever. All the pensioners have not benefited from any salary increases so far and it is time the Government gave them more allowances. The other matter I want to touch on is that some of the pensioners have accumulated savings throughout the years and have put such savings into savings banks to earn some interest. Certainly such interest earned by the pensioners should not be taxed by the Government. I have been told that it has been taxed and I am just wondering whether the Government is willing to be more lax on such matters for pensioners and allow them to earn this interest tax-free.”
“Sir, I wish to speak on the allowances given to pensioners and the taxation of interest earned from their savings. The Chairman: Dr Lee, can you move the amendment?”
“A point of clarification, Sir. The Minister says that I have said that class C patients do not have access to consultants. I do not think I said that. What I said was that the people who were in class C feared that they might not have access to consultants. That is why they opted for class B2. That was entirely different from what he has said. He also says that his aim is to help the needy. Then why phase out class C? Why? And, of course, let us not forget about Hepatitis B vaccinations. At the present moment, is he saying that the Singapore Government does not make any profit from the vaccinations? Mr Yeo Cheow Tong: Sir, I may have heard him wrongly but I thought I heard him say the patients in C class beds are deprived. If his statement was that members of the public fear, then I hope that as someone who knows the real situation he would tell them the truth and explain to them that that is a misconception. As to the question: if we are so concerned about the needy and we wish to help them, why do we close off C class beds, Sir, the answer is very clear. At the present moment, there are more than enough C class beds. We have 2,000 beds, of which only two-thirds are occupied. As to Hepatitis B vaccines, there is a lot of cross-subsidy going on because certain babies requiring Hepatitis B vaccination come from mothers who are already Hepatitis B carriers. Dr Lee knows that for these babies they require additional shots and that these cost more and we are not charging them. So there is some degree of cross-subsidy going on and when the new supplies are delivered we will make sure that the savings are passed on to all the patients.”
“Although Government speaks of subsidies, Sir, on occasions, there could well be profits instead of subsidies. Let me give you an example. The Government has now extended the use of Medisave to Hepatitis B vaccination. The Government's charges for a course of 3 injections are: for new borns to 1 year olds, for those age 19 to 40, $90. What is the cost to the Government? The cost to the Government, as far as I know, is just $20 or $17 per phial of Hepatitis B vacinnine. But the charges for the newborns to 1-year olds are $30. You just work it out. They give only one-quarter of a phial for the under 1 year old. It works out to the cost of only $16 at the most for three injections. But the charges are $30. There- fore, there is no subsidy. Instead there is a profit of $14. Similarly, for 1 to 18 years, although the cost works out to also only $16, that is $29. For the 19 to 40 age group, the charges are $90. Here they give more than a quarter cc; they give half a cc and the cost comes to $32. If you have $90 minus $32, the profit is $58. For the over 40 years age group, the profit is $39. Sir, I will be very quick. Although Government speaks of subsidies and what nots, actually the Government is not subsidizing the people at all. Moreover, Hepatitis B so far as I understand, is a public health issue. Therefore public immunization against Hepatitis B should in fact be carried out completely free of charge. Nevertheless, Government is charging a lot of money for it. Now, after all the big increases in salaries for Ministers and civil servants, I think it is time that the Government stopped all these so-called subsidies talk, and really give the people free Hepatitis B vaccination. I hope Government will give what I have just said - serious consideration.”
“Sir, yesterday, I was speaking about the corporatization of the Singapore General Hospital. I was saying that a stay of two weeks in Class B2 would have cost $602 instead of $280 if there were C beds available. It is a big jump of two and a half times, and the low-income group will suffer. Sir, if you will notice, there are now only three classes of beds in the Singapore General Hospital, A, B1 and B2. And you will notice that Class B2 is right at the bottom of the list. It has, in fact, taken the place of Class C. It is not difficult to see that the scrapping of the C beds is part of the process of giving new names to old things. What was Class A remains as Class A. What was Class B has been changed to B1. What was Class C is now B2. This giving of a rather high-sounding name to what was Class C may make it a bit easier for the poor to accept the higher charges. I suppose the Government has employed psychologists to help in the and exercise thus hope that people will not realize all this. In the airlines, Sir, the economy class is in fact class C, but the airlines do not call it class C. Similarly, in the General Hospital, our Class B2 is in fact Class C. Therefore, you can see that the whole exercise is a matter of renaming old things and using that as a means to an end namely that of raising hospital charges, somewhat imperceptibly perhaps, but nevertheless resentfully felt by the patients. Sir, the Government always speaks of subsidized beds and whatnots. Let us remind ourselves that subsidies, in this instance, are merely small sums which the Government returns to the people after having taxed them to the hilt through direct or indirect taxes and now consumption tax.”
“Thank you very much. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.”
“Government collects the money well beforehand just in case the patient does not pay later on. We must remember why the Government does many of these things. I do not need to go into the number of people who have small Medisave accounts. 40% of these account holders have less than $1,000, and another 40% have between $1,000 and $5,000. Therefore, any catastrophic illness will be a great blow to them. I will try and finish it very quickly since we are short of time.”
“For class C beds, if they should stay two weeks, the total amount would come to 14 x 20, which would be $280. Whereas for class B2 wards, the amount would be 14 times 43, which works out to $602. And if you have treatment for some catastrophic illness, like intensive care, then the total sum can jolly well come up to nearly $1,000. With this corporatization, poor patients therefore will certainly have to pay much more. Of course, we realize that there are lots of new equipment in SGH, all sophisticated equipment. But let us not forget that whenever there are new equipment, there is also a tendency for doctors to make use of them. And if they make use of them, and if there are extra charges well, the patient would have to pay more again. Since there are no more class C beds, where people do not have to pay so very much, everybody would now have to pay very much more. Add them all up, and you find that the amount is not small. The Government says it will grant waivers or remissions of charges, but most people would not like to ask for such waivers because of the shame, the humility attached to them. And whenever possible, they try not to. They would rather go to wards with marked charges clearly stated. They would not want to ask for extra favours. This is in conformity with Confucianist teachings. This is in conformity with Chinese custom. I say, Sir, in this corporatization of the hospital, especially Singapore General Hospital, the Government is shirking its duty and responsibility to look after the poor and the aged. The trouble with the Government is that its philosophy is to make the people pay-and pay. That is the very basis why they have this Medisave. Medisave is merely a scheme to make people pay even before treatment.”
“The Government's excuse in phasing out the class C beds is that there is a falling demand for class C beds and because the people are more affluent. That is not true. Affluence has not really reached out to those people who have low incomes and to those who are poor. As we all know, 70% of the workers in Singapore earn less than $1,000 a month in wages and sometimes they find it quite difficult to make ends meet. One reason why patients opt for class B2 beds is that, as has already been mentioned by Dr Aline Wong, they have funds in Medisave. And since the Medisave accounts cannot be taken out, even as coffin money, why not make full use of them while there is an occasion to do so? Another more important reason, Sir, is that there are fears, fears that unless the patients go to class B2, then they may not have the best treatment available from the consultants. Hence, their wishing to go along to class B2 wards. There is yet a further reason, Sir. In Class B2 words, patients pay for everything, but many of these people who opt to go to class B2 do not realize that they have to pay so much more. And that is why we often hear stories of people coming out from hospital and saying: "Why so much?" They are shocked; they never knew all this before. Sir, class C beds used to cost $7 per day. Later on they were increased to $10 and then to $20 per day, whereas class B2costs $43 in the Singapore General Hospital and if you add the laboratory fees, X-ray, drug fees and all the extra charges, the total sum comes to very much more. And as has already been stated in this House, the average stay in the hospital for the aged is about two weeks. You can do a simple calculation, Sir.”
“Sir, about the SGH, they have used the word "corporatization" euphemistically. As everybody knows, it is simply privatization. Now they also call it "restructuring". The Government says that this is intended to give greater flexibility and autonomy to the hospital in order to provide "better personalized service to the patients", I quote what the Minister has said. But, Sir, all this could easily have been achieved without corporatization or privatization, and the experts present in the House here will easily confirm what I have just said. I suggest that the real reason for the so-called "restructuring" is that the Government does not wish to shoulder responsiblity for further expenditure in the running of the hospitals. In fact the Minister himself has confirmed this. Because he has said he wants to "cap" the increase in expenditure on the hospitals. Further, the Minister has said that it is inevitable that the fees will have to be increased periodically in line with cost increases whether or not the hospital is restructured. Therefore we have been forewarned that there will be further increases in hospital charges. But as far as I know the only thing that is really inevitable is death and maybe taxes in Singapore, but not the increase in hospital fees. The costs to the patient in hospital has been going up for a long time, and if the patient should be stricken with a catastrophic illness, like a stroke, then woe betide him! Therefore, Sir, all this means that the burden will be borne more and more by the poor and the lower income group. Since November 1988, all C class beds have been phased out in the Singapore General Hospital. The least costly beds are those in class B2.”
“Sir, I have two amendments here so I will take them both together.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I have no wish to add to what has already been said. In fact, Mr Goh has already said most of what I had wanted to say. But I want to stress this - that it is the small contractor who always has difficulties in getting work permits for his workmen. The big contractors find it very easy. Therefore, it is important that the Government does not ignore the small contractor.”
“I would suggest that the formula be greatly improved, that the loopholes by which insurance companies avoid payment or reduce the payment to the workmen be plugged, so that every cent due to the worker is duty paid by the insurance company or by the employer, whichever the case may be. And of course, this must be done expeditiously. I think it is only fair to remember that the Government's responsibility in this is very great. If it is a matter solely for the insurance companies, then pressure from the Government should see to it that the workman who has been injured be paid adequately, expeditiously, and even a little more than what he would normally get.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Encik Othman has already said that compensation for workers has been rather low-ish while the bosses get off rather easily. And the manner in which the compensation had been paid, when workers are injured, can be said to be scandalously slow. At the present moment, injured workers are sent to the orthopaedic surgeon for assessment as regards the loss of function of the injured parts. The surgeon merely reports that the injury is either temporary or permanent, partial or total, and that is all. The actual compensation itself depends on a certain formula and this formula includes factors like length of service and the last drawn salary. Before payment they sometimes even deduct wages usually paid during medical leave that has been given by the doctor because of the injury plus the medical fees paid to the doctor. Sir, probably this is not entirely the fault of Government. Maybe it is all the business of insurance companies that pay the compensation. But we all know that insurance companies always try to get away from paying the full amount due to the injured persons concerned. When the insurance companies should be sending the medical forms to the doctor for assessment, they get the patient himself to do so instead. In which case the insurance company does not even pay the medical fees and the injured worker himself will have to pay all the medical fees. You can see from this alone that the amount of compensation paid to the workman is really inadequate. Encik Othman has already mentioned a little about the ceilings being set in 1980, and they certainly are very low.”
“Well, to make it easier for you, I withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The Chairman: Amendment (4), Mr Choo is not moving. Amendments (5) and (6), the Members are not here. The sum of $438,138,150 for Head Q ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $151,807,800 for Head Q ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.”
“He would also try to pass a note from inside prison to somebody in order to get some news of what is happening outside, and also to let people know what is happening inside the prison. what is wrong with that? Again, the security grounds. Well, what security grounds? All our Ministers are sitting nicely here, with an increase in their salaries on to of that. They have nothing to worry about. They have a huge army which spends a bing chunk of our budget. So they have everythig they need for the security of Singapore. Nothing to worry about. Chia Thye Poh cannot do anything to harm the government. One single man, the Police force, the special Brance and the military, be afraid to let out one single man? And if they think it is such a good thing to stay in a bunglow with TV and all that, as I have said, let the Minister put himself in that situation, and see whether he likes being held under house arrest or not.”
“Under those circumstances, Parliament was no longer of any use to anybody; it was no longer a forum for debate. And of course, under those circumstances, as an Opposition Party, we were forced to carry out extra-Parliamentary struggle in order to tell the world as to what was happening in Singapore. As for his release to other countries, what other countries are they talking about? Chia Thye Poh was born in singapore. Why must he be asked to get out of singapore? Has he not a right to stay here? Of course he has. So why must that condition be imposed on him? Review by the Advisory Board? Sir, you know what the Advisory Board is. It has no executive powers. It cannot even recommend to the Mnister to release anyone. It has to accept the so-called "evedence" of the Special Brance, and that is final. On the other side, the detainee can say hardly anything. He cannot see the notes of evidence. He cannot even see what the special branch has said. So how can the detainee argue back? And that was why, after the jpeople who were arrested in 1963 had gone before the Advisory Board the first time, they never went before it again. Because it was all a force a humbug. It was no use going before the Advisory Board. Now they have made it worse with the recent amendments to the ISA. And why on conditional release? The answer is simple. Because there was no real reason why he should have been arrested in the first place, no good reason, no justifiable reason. It was said that while under detention, he subverted the Prison warders. Well, let the Minister himself be prisoner under those circumstances. I am sure he would also try todo the same.”
“The fact that they have not produced him in court shows that they have not the slightest evidence against him. Otherwise they would have produced him in court. They are supposed to have all the evidence against Chia Thye Poh. So produce him in open court; and after that nobody will be able to complain. As regards his release being depednent on "security considerarations" and the condition that he renounces the use of force, let me ask: when has he said he was going to use force to overthrow the Government? He has said nothing of the sort, as far as I know. We were together. When he was arrested, he was sitting by my side in our Party headquarters, sitting side by side discussing party matters. When he said he wanted to carry out extra parliamentary struggle, the press distorted what he said into so called "fighting in the streets", which was vicious. Extra parliamentary struggle is a constitutional form of strug- gle. It is being carried out all over the world, in western countries as well as in Asian countries and in countries around Singapore in South East Asia. What is wrong with that? We were just carrying out part of the constitutional struggle, parliamentary struggle. But since we did not have a chance to speak in Parliament, we wanted to have a chance to speak outside Parliament. And that was the only way. You know, Sir, maybe you did not know. In 1964, for one whole year, although we repeatedly asked for the convening of Parliament so that we could put our views before the House, so that we could discuss important matters of State, we were never allowed the chance. There were only one or two sittings, I think, and short sittings too, all in one whole year.”
“I'll answer them one by one. He has given a full list of whatever Chia Thye Poh was supposed to have done. One whole list of it. Who has filed that list? Who? The Special Branch. You know, we always used to call the Special Branch the greatest of fabricators. They are amanufacturer of lies. I give you an example of why I say that. On one occasion, I think in 1971 or 1972, one of our Barisan Sosialis CEC lady members was arrested. She was supposed to have burnt a bus, and to have burnt a bus with another young man. Well, that lady very quickly admitted and said that she had a hand in burning the bus. They did not catch the young man. After some time, we met this young man. And I have no reason to disbelieve him when he told me that he was never even near the place. He never took part in the burning of any bus. Yet he was alleged to have done so. And all this was telecast on TV too. Sir, this is just one example. I can quote umpteen examples, many other examples, of how the Special Branch very often fabricated evidence against those people whom they want to arrest. Now, the grounds. What grounds? As far as I know, when Mr Chia Thye Poh was first arrested, whey never listed the ground that he was a Communist. That "ground" was only put in after many, many years, as an after-thought, by the Government. Therefore, that was not the real ground for arresting Chia Thye Poh. As regards his being a member of the CPM, he has denied it. Who is there to prove that he is or he is not? If he says he is not, he is not. If they say he is, all they have got to do is to produce him in court. Very simple, Sir. After all, the Communist Party is illegal. All they got to do is to produce him in open court and nobody will will be able to complain after that.”
“As I have said, the Minister and the Government always repeat the same arguments again and again. An hon. Member: What about you?”
“May I be allowed to answer some of the points that he has raised, Sir?”
“I withdraw my amendment, Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdawn.”
“I want to know if any of the Ministers take part in this training.”
“Mr Chairman, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head N be reduced by $10 in respect of Code NJ 1500 of the Main Estimates. Sir, the training of staff has been carried on for quite a number of years, since 1960 as far as I know. I would like the Minister to enlighten the House as to what is being taught nowadays, what are the subjects being taught, by whom, to whom, and whether the Ministers have anything to do with the training of these staffs?”
“He has commented on what a Vietnamese Politburo leader has said. Would he also like to comment on what a Japanese economist and industrialist has said, namely, that Singapore is a country of high salaries and low wages? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no idea which Japanese said that. But I do know that in Japanese politics, money is not an insignificant factor. The Member might perchance have heard of Recruit Cosmos. That is such an awkward and prickly pear because it is only one pear out of a whole orchard full of such pears. That is how the whole system works. Politicians need to visit constituents, whether for funerals or weddings. Token contributions are essential. It is routine. If you attend a funeral, you bring bai jin. I do not know what they call it in Japanese. If you attend a wedding, a gift is in order. There are 130 million Japanese and about 300 Diet members. So each Diet member has 300,000 constituents, quite a fair number of weddings and funerals. Where does the Diet member get his white gold from? From his faction leader. Where does the faction leader get his resources from? His salary? In many ways. Fund-raising breakfasts for one. Recruit Cosmos was merely thought up as some of the more ingenious approaches. Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Chiam and Dr Lee citied examples of advanced western democracies, the US, the UK, Japan. Each has it own problems. We had better find our own clean way to proceed.”
“Clarification, Sir. Mr Ng Kah Ting mentioned something about my mistake concerning the PPSO and ISA. I believe he must know that the essence of the PPSO and ISA is the same-it is the special branch. I mentioned the ISA merely to make it easier for the people present here in the Chamber to understand what it is all about. The other thing he mentioned was that there were no trump cards being used. Maybe he has forgotten that Mr Lee Kuan Yew used the PPSO to arrest many of our colleagues in the Operation Cold Storage in which more than 140 or 150 of our leaders were arbitrarily arrested. And, of course, we found it very difficult after that.”
“There are so many factors that make it unattractive to take up the challenge. There is in fact almost nothing that we can do to mitigate the pressures, the sacrifice in personal and family life that a person entering politics has to make. It is only a sense of service that can make the cause worthwhile. But there is one area that we can do something to mitigate the sacrifice and that is in the area of salary, to make it not much less than what that person would be earning if he were not in politics. Not to do something in this one area where we can do something would be irresponsible. Mark you, I am not saying that we should attract people through high salaries and that high salaries make up for the sacrifices. What I am saying is that this is one area where we can minimize the loss and we should minimize the loss. That is the reason why I support the First Deputy Prime Minister”
“Things were certainly not perfect. But the path to further economic and social progress seemed unthreatened. Thus the good were not being attracted to politics. Yet as we examined the situation it was clear that the first generation was entering the last lap and there was nobody in sight to take over the baton. Having understood the problem, it was not possible for us in good conscience to say that it was up to somebody else to provide the solution. We had to be part of the solution. We were not attracted by money, power, prestige or fame. We were aware of the costs to our personal life, to our family life. But I must confess that in 1976 when I decided, I was less aware of these sacrifices than I am today. We were not fully aware of the demands of the electorate and of the constituents. I am not so sure if I had been so fully aware in 1976 whether I would have come into politics. But I want to say this, and I want to underline this, that having been in politics for 12 years I am also aware of the vital importance of power being in the hands of honest, com- petent people. Looking at it today, I would say that though the sacrifice is greater than I ever thought it would be, it is still worth it, in order to have the reins of political power in the right hands. Therefore, Mr Chairman, Sir, when I from time to time have to speak to people to persuade them to come into politics, especially those with the potential to become office-holders, I am very very conscious of the fact that I am asking that person to do something that will change his or her entire life. It is not like working for a head hunting firm, just speaking to a person to persuade him to change his career. It is something that will affect his whole life and the life of his family, his wife, his children.”
“They should be able to provide for their families adequately. They should be allowed to do their jobs without feeling a sense of guilt that they have not done the best they can to provide for their own families. Sir, I believe that the salary revisions are necessary mainly to ensure that we will continue to be able to attract capable, committed young men and young women to take on public office in Singapore in the coming years. Without these salary revisions, Sir, to expect the best to come forward, I think is simply to leave too much to chance. For this reason, Sir, I support the salary revisions and I urge all Members of this House to have no qualms in supporting them. They are an investment in Singapore's future. The Minister for National Development (Mr S. Dhanabalan): Mr Chairman, Sir, I also wish to rise to support the statement made by the First Deputy Prime Minister. My colleague, Dr Tony Tan, has spoken on what motivates the second generation leadership and I want to take this opportunity to very briefly explain what motivated my colleagues and me to come into politics. When we were first approached we had to weigh many factors before entering politics. As we began to discuss and think about the prospect of entering politics, we became increasingly aware of the vital importance of continuing good political leadership for Singapore's future. We saw that the progress, the stability that the first generation leaership had succeeded to bring to Singapore had created many avenues for the young and talented to pursue and have a meaningful life. This very success had worked against good people, talented people, honest people coming into politics. There were no great injustices to be put right, no oppression to overthrow, no corrupt and venal leaders to unseat.”
“Singapore has had only one Prime Minister since we became independent. I think the challenge for the second generation leaders, above all else, is to show that an orderly transition of power is possible. When the Prime Minister hands over the reins of power to Mr Goh Chok Tong, it is our task to show that the present high standards of administration and honest and effective Government will still continue and that the success of the first generation leaders is not a fluke or an accident of history. But if the second generation leaders succeed, and I am confident we will, what is there then to motivate, as Dr Tan Cheng Bock has said, the third generation leaders, or the fourth generation leaders? With an orderly transition of power, those who come after us should be able in due course to look forward to a Singapore whose viability is not in question. There will be problems. There will be crises ahead. But unless circumstances change dramatically or we do something very foolish, these will not be such as to threaten the survival of our nation. You ask yourself then: what is there to motivate capable young men or young women to enter the political arena, to give up their comfortable lives, their privacy and take office as Ministers of State, or Senior Ministers of State, and get the necessary experience and expertise to become full Ministers? I think that the job of attracting competent and committed young men and women to take office will become more and more difficult in the coming years. A sense of mission and a sense of public service is still essential. Without that nothing will proceed. But it is not fair, Sir, that young men and women in future should be asked to take public office at the expense of their families, their wives and their children.”
“I hope that is not what the Government wants to do. The Minister for Education (Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the measures announced by the First Deputy Prime Minister to revise the salaries of the political and judicial office holders and to revise the MP's allowance. As much has been said on this matter, I do not want to repeat what has already been said. But I want to make a few remarks. Many people including the Member for Potong Pasir and the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament have stressed the point - and our own MPs have also stressed the point - that a sense of mission and a sense of public service are needed for people who intend to go into politics. I agree that these are essential requirements. No one who does not have a sense of mission or a sense of public service should go into politics. While these are two essential requirements and they are necessary, we should ask ourselves whether they are sufficient, not now, but particularly for the future? Sir, the first generation leaders were the products of an era of monumental change in our country's history. They faced a great challenge-to found a new nation and to ensure its viability. Against this great challenge, all personal considerations paled into insignificance. I think, quite honestly, all Singaporeans should be grateful that at a critical time in our nation's history, there was a group of men led by the Prime Minister who were prepared to take on this challenge and their success can be seen in the thriving Singapore that we have today. What about the second generation leaders? What is there to motivate them? They went into politics at a time when salaries of Ministers were much lower than they are today. What is the challenge which they face?”
“Ministers then become ugly Singaporeans, not pretty ones. Sir, we believe that the gap between the salaries at the top and at the bottom should not be too wide. If it is already wide, then the gap should be narrowed. At the present moment, the proposed salaries will make the gap wider still. I do not think we want that. Lastly, Sir, may I just remind the Minister that their salary increases can trigger off a lot of unnecessary side-effects. Mr Bernard Chen has already warned of the possible effects this might have on the economy. And already the Singapore economy is supposed not to do as well this year as last year. So when the economy goes down, more people will be affected. Those people who are sitting pretty at the top are those who have high salaries. But let them think also of those people at the bottom, those people who have very low salaries and who can hardly make ends meet. We asked for an increase in the personal allowance for those who are in the lower income group. What did the Minister say? Nothing doing. How then can you help them? Yet those in the low income groups are the people we should help. All the incentives given in the budget so far are incentives which give more benefits to those people who are very well off. They do not benefit those at the bottom. Sir, I do not agree with all the salary increases that have been given and I hope that the Government would do everything possible to narrow the gap. If the PAP Government should still follow the old principle laid down in 1959, than what we want today is a really more equal and just society. If you increase salaries for those at the top and ignore those at the bottom, or merely give them a very small increase, then you are increasing social inequalities and increasing social injustice.”
“But more than that, as was also previously emphasized by the Prime Minister, there must be public conscience on the matter. The moral values of society must be correct. In China, when they had a slightly different system, there was hardly any dishonesty that we knew of. Nowadays, it is different. Conditions have changed. Singapore is a capitalist country with a developing expanding capitalist system. Giving high salaries, might help. If you have severe laws and penalties, that also will help. But most important of all is open public surveillance and it is important that we all have the correct social Asian moral values. The Government now stresses a lot on moral values. I agree with many of the moral values that they have suggested. But the point is how do they carry out the teaching of moral values and how do political leaders actually carry them out in practice, so that everybody is imbued with those moral values, and so do not go corrupt or things like that? We have seen examples of people who have high moral values, taxi drivers, chambermaids, and who have found lots of money and giving them back to the owners. They do not want to take the money though they do not have high salaries. They do not need high salaries in order to be honest and not be corrupt. Wonderful people we have in Singapore and they are honest not because of high salaries. To summarize, Sir, leadership is all important in this kind of things. In this instance, the Government has set a poor example. Ministers should, in fact, lead in not drawing high salaries, and as far as possible inculcate the moral values of dedication to service for the people by setting examples themselves. Otherwise, we will be following what Mr Rajaratnam had once said - moneytheism. We do not want that in Singapore.”
“Therefore, high salaries need not be such an important factor for recruiting people to become honest Ministers. How do you prevent corruption? The Prime Minister has given a good talk on this before, and I have tried to look up the old newspapers. But let me remind all in the House that we have a capitalist economy in Singapore. And in a capitalist economy where money is the main criterion of whether a person is a success or not, there is no way, no 100% way, of preventing corruption, however high a salary you may give a person. The only way, as I have seen from the newspapers,is that you have a vigilant CPIB. Yes, that is very important. And equally important is that there must be frequent checking. But how do you check? If the Ministers merely declare their assets to the Prime Minister, alone, only one person can check. I am not saying that the Prime Minister is not honest. But then he may not be the Prime Minister all the time. There may be other Prime Ministers. If you want the assets to be checked, then they should be checked (even if you want to have confidentiality in such matters), by a special committee of honest people whom we all respecst and trust. And better still, of course, if the Ministers could declare their assets publicly before they take office. That would tell the people exactly where they stand. That allows all the people to check and not only one person to check which, in principle, is wrong, just as in the case of the elected President. One person checking is wrong. You must allow more people to check, as already suggested by a Minister of State - better that checking be done by a committee. And that would reduce opposition from many people.”