S Jayakumar
Singapore
“It is well and good for countries to announce various targets and emissions. But one vexing issue ultimately is: what will be the method for verifying compliance with each country's announced measures? Another vexing issue, of course, is the issue of financing.”
“I would appreciate it if she were to give me some specifics of the negative feedback. But the general feedback I have had about our judiciary, both of the Supreme Court and the Subordinate Courts, has been nothing but positive.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the information that I have is that there is always medical advice present when caning is administered and that if the medical opinion is that caning cannot proceed beyond a certain point, that medical opinion will be observed and the caning will not proceed.”
“Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Transport in view of the recent announcement to make immediate improvements to the public transport system (a) whether the Ministry has set a timeline for the increase in frequency of feeder bus services; and (b) whether the Ministry can immediately target such services that are currently running at…”
“SCDF will continue to work with HDB and other relevant agencies to ensure that such older buildings with one exit staircase meet the prevailing fire safety requirements when they undergo major renovation or upgrading works. CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONERS 3.”
“The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Mr Teo Ser Luck) (for the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like to take Mrs Jessie Phua's and Dr Lim Wee Kiak's questions together as they both relate to the same issues.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,291 lines we hold for S Jayakumar, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 61 of 66.
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill be discharged and the Bill be withdrawn." Sir, in view of the amendment to Article 39 (1) of the Constitution which this House has approved whereby the number of elected constituency MPs will be equal to the number of constituencies, the present Bill becomes redundant and superfluous. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill be discharged and the Bill be withdrawn. LEGAL PROFESSION (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 6.36 pm”
“Now, Sir. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."”
“Between the great exposition on constitutional law of the Member for Anson and the learned considered opinion of the Attorney-General's Chambers, I think Members will agree with me that it is more prudent, safer and wiser to rely on the opinions of the Attorney-General's Chambers.”
“I think you are quite right, Sir, in assuming that there is no merit in this amendment but nevertheless for the record, I ought to reply to the Member for Anson. He has raised what he thought is a great constitutional issue. I completely oppose the amendment and he should know by now that the Government considers every legal aspect of every one of its moves in Parliament or outside Parliament. This point has been thoroughly considered. The opinion of the Attorney-General's Chambers has been obtained and only after the opinion was obtained was the course of action of having the two Bills taken through this sitting adopted. He is right in saying that the Constitution (Amendment) Bill does not have the force of law until it is assented. There is no quarrel with that. But that does not mean that, until that is assented to, Parliament cannot consider any other Bill. This Bill, after it has been taken through the Second and Third Readings, also does not have the force of law until it is assented to. Both Bills will be presented for assent as required by the Constitution, and only when all these stages have been completed can the Member for Anson ask, and address himself to, the question whether the provisions of the Constitution have been violated. As I have said, we have taken the opinion from the Attorney-General's Chambers. There is no violation of the Constitution or the Standing Orders in taking this Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill through Second and Third Readings after the Constitution (Amendment) Bill has been taken through its Second and Third Readings as we have just seen.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, can I comment on the amendment?”
“Secondly, any CPF balances at or below the stipulated minimum amount can only be withdrawn at staggered intervals so that a person will receive a certain sum to see him through the intervening years until the next withdrawal. Thirdly, all contributors should be subjected to the staggered withdrawal of this minimum amount. Fourthly, contributors who have amounts in their CPF balances in excess of such basic minimum amount should be allowed to withdraw such excess at the age of 55. Mr Speaker, Sir, an approach along the lines I have mentioned can be a reasonable basis to guide Government in taking a decision on this question of CPF withdrawal age. Such an approach, I believe, will enable us to meet our concerns and, at the same time, allow persons who have balances in excess of what is the minimum necessary to withdraw at the age of 55 and to use it for whatever purposes they consider necessary. Finally, Sir, I also believe that such an approach would also accommodate the views of many MPs who have spoken in the debate, such as the most recently expressed comment of the Member for Boon Lay. The problem is not one for which there is an easy solution. The approach I have mentioned as well as other workable alternatives, including suggestions made by hon. Members during this debate and those which will be made by the speakers who are scheduled to speak later, will have to be carefully considered by Government before a decision is taken. 4.23 pm”
“These figures show that about 40,000 families, comprising 9% of the households in HDB flats, have difficulties in managing their monthly cash flow, if not other financial difficulties. In addition, many of us have also had cases in our constituencies of families who are in arrears of PUB bills and even have had their supplies cut off. In many of these cases, this may not be due to lack of income but more due to inability to manage their income and expenditure. If they are unable now to manage their monthly or fortnightly salary, can all of them manage their CPF balances for as long a period as 10 years, or even more? Therefore, Sir, the Government has a responsibility, in my view, to anticipate future problems that may be faced by some senior citizens and their families and to take corrective action to reduce hardships. Let us take the Home Protection Insurance Scheme instituted by CPF, for instance. Since it came into operation on 1st January 1982 up till now, 634 families (where the CPF contributor died with outstanding sums due) were paid a total of $5.7 million, averaging $8,900 per case. If it were not for the HPIS, I can state with confidence that many of these 634 cases would have been evicted from their homes. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is my considered view, therefore, that the Government's approach to the question of withdrawal age should be guided by the following principles. First, there should be determined a minimum amount which can be reasonably deemed necessary as the basic amount an individual may need to see him through the next 10 years after 55 (or for the 10 years after 65 since on present trends we can assume more persons between 55 and 65 will be working and earning).”
“However, what has to be stressed is that while the majority may be able to manage their CPF balances in a way that makes them self-sufficient for the rest of their years, there are also people who do not have this ability. The Member for Kebun Baru has said that the "vast majority" of Singaporeans know best how to invest their money and maximize returns. Sir, I believe he is right. In this regard, the Member for Alexandra felt that the number of persons who may not be able to manage their CPF balances was small. As such, he felt that the majority should not, as he put it, be made to pay for the sins of a minority in having the CPF held back five to 10 years or more. But what about the minority? If the majority of our citizens are able to look after themselves and their families, this should not cloud the fact that there are persons who are unable to do so. Mr Speaker, Sir, our target of concern, then, is really with the minority, who are not able to husband whatever balances they have left in their CPF accounts at the age of 55. They are persons whose CPF balances are low and who, if the CPF balance is withdrawn in its entirety at the age of 55, may not be able to efficiently manage the amount to tide them over in the ensuing years. These are persons who are the lower paid of our population. Some of them may be prudent, others will not be able to manage their CPF savings because they do not have the experience or the expertise. Sir, if Members are sceptical that there are such persons, let me give them certain figures. As at May, 1984, 15,800 or 12% of the HDB tenants are in arrears of rental payment for one month or more. Further, 24,400 or 7% HDB flat owners are in arrears of payment for one month or more of their monthly loan instalment payment.”
“But if we are not satisfied, then the question is: is it not the obligation of the Government to ensure that suitable modifications are made to the withdrawal age, so that in respect of withdrawal of the entire sum at 55, there would be at least a minimum sum, the withdrawal of which could be staggered, say, over a period of 10 years? Is this not an obligation of the Government? No one will be happier than the Government, I am sure, if we could categorically state that we are confident in the ability of every one to manage their CPF savings efficiently to tide them over the 10 or 20 years after the age of 55. Sir, we can look at the problem in a different way. What does it cost an individual to meet his basic needs after retirement? $200 a month? If we take that figure, a person will need about $24,000 to tide him over the next 10 years to the age of 65, not taking into account inflation and so on. If we think $200 is too meagre a figure and we put it at $250, then he would need $30,000. Suppose at 55, a person has a balance which we may determine to be the minimum necessary, or even less, the critical question is: can he carefully or prudently manage this balance and spread it over the next 10 to 15 years? Can we ensure that he will not become destitute, whereupon taxpayers' money will have to be used to dole out social welfare payments? Sir, several Members have said that most of our Singaporeans can be left to manage their resources on their own after the age of 55. They have also criticized any blanket rule which postpones the withdrawal age and which does not take into account the quantum of the contributor's balance. Sir, I think there is merit in their arguments.”
“We have allowed usage of CPF funds before the age of 55 for approved housing schemes, SBS shares, Home Protection Insurance Scheme, Medisave, all of which are consistent with security for old age. Similarly, Sir, when proposals are mooted for new uses of CPF, whether it be for education, home renovation or for travel abroad, whether for pleasure or for religious purposes, these must be appraised on whether they advance or are consistent with this objective of ensuring security for old age. Likewise, Sir, it is my view that any modification or change to be made to any withdrawal age must be related also to this fundamental objective. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Report of the Committee on the Problems of the Aged has dramatically highlighted the implications of changing demographic patterns and projections of old age structure of our population. Life expectancy has increased. There will be more aged persons in our society. No one can deny that all this has a direct bearing and a serious effect on the financial security of our senior citizens. As a responsible Government, we must address this problem. We must alert our people. It seems to me, therefore, that we must ask ourselves certain fundamental questions. Can we honestly say that we are satisfied that all of our citizens who withdraw their CPF savings at the age of 55 will be able to carefully manage their savings to tide them over the next 10 years to the age of 65, or even for the next 20 years to the age of 75? We must not forget in this regard that there will be a greater number of older persons with fewer children to support them when they have financial problems. There are already such casualties today. What more with more old people in the future? Secondly, if we are satisfied, then of course there is no problem.”
“Some supported a scheme of withdrawals phased out over certain intervals after the age of 55. Some felt that if the withdrawal age is to be deferred, then a distinction should be made between old and new money and that the new withdrawal age should apply to contributions received after the implementation date. Other Members wanted to draw a distinction between new and current CPF contributors and suggested that any new withdrawal age should apply only to new contributors. Several MPs supported deferment of the withdrawal age provided, however, that this was linked to an actual raising of the retirement age. Yet others, Mr Speaker, Sir, suggested voluntary or optional deferment age and suggested a variety of attractive incentives for them to opt for such deferred withdrawal age, such as a two-tier interest rate scheme. Other Members had suggestions which combine one or more of these approaches. In support of their criticisms and proposals, several of the hon. Members made the following pertinent points: First, they felt that there are many people who will not squander their CPF balances; Second, they felt that there are many people who can be left to take care of themselves; Third, they felt that if the 55 years withdrawal age is to be deferred, then it is reasonable that this should be staggered over several phases up to 65. Sir, in the midst of all this debate, it may be useful to come back to certain basics. What is CPF? Why was it instituted? What is its objective? Its fundamental objective in my view, Sir, is to ensure financial security for old age. That is the basic objective from which we should not depart.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope it does not surprise the Minister for Health and other Members that I have sought this opportunity to speak. The CPF happens to fall within the area of responsibility of my Ministry and, unwittingly or deliberately, the Minister for Health and the Committee on the Problems of the Aged have brought about this debate which necessitates some comments from me. Sir, as expected, this debate on the Report has been both lively and interesting, with Members concentrating most of their energies on CPF issues, in particular, on the proposal to raise the withdrawal age. Various comments have also been made on other aspects of CPF generally. Some have protested and criticized the existing uses of CPF for the benefit of its members. On the other hand, other Members have passionately argued for new uses of the CPF. Some of the points raised were repetitions of points at previous sittings, particularly at past Budget sittings. Some other points were new. These points have been noted and will have to be carefully studied for their implications. I do not propose to touch on them now because this is a debate on the Report of the Committee on the Problems of the Aged and not a debate on the CPF. Sir, however, as Minister in charge of the CPF, I would like to express certain important considerations which, in my view, should be taken into account when the Government takes a decision on this question of CPF withdrawal age. On this question of deferment of CPF withdrawal age, views and criticisms have been expressed by Members who have spoken thus far, and their reservations and points fall into different categories. A few have taken the view that no change should be made at all.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the operative part of section 125A(l)(a) is based on British law. The differences as to burden of proof, onus of proving and as to who should make the application to the court, whether for permission or whether to object. There are differences. But I hope that with the earlier assurance I gave, the Member for Rochore will be satisfied. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.”
“The second important modification is in subsection (5) where it is made clear that the operation of subsection (1) shall not apply unless both companies have gone into liquidation after the date of commencement of this section. So it will not have a retrospective effect which would have been the case in the original draft Bill as moved in the Second Reading. Nonetheless, I wish to assure the Member for Rochore that I have taken note of his comments. I can assure him that with regard to another exercise to review other parts of the Companies legislation,] will undertake to take his comments into con- sideration to see the implementation of this provision and also to take into account certain experiences in the United Kingdom legislation and certain recommendations made therein with a view to seeing whether in the implementation of this provision any further modifications will have to be made.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank the hon. Member for Rochore for his comments. As would have been clear from the Report of the Select Committee, clause 30 was the clause which gave the Select Committee the greatest amount of consideration and, in fact, it was postponed till the end until we had given it all necessary consideration. The problem really is one of balancing - balancing the interests of the public and balancing the interests of directors. In the drafting of this provision to meet the policy objective, we had in fact been guided by the equivalent provision in the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, the wording of their relevant legislation as far as section 125A(l)(a) is concerned is identical. If I may read: Where a person - (a) is or has been a director of a company which has at any time gone into liquidation (whether while he was a director or subsequently) and was insolvent at that time; and (b) is or has been a director of another such company which has gone into liquidation within five years of the date on which the first mentioned company, went into liquidation,' The opening part of section 125A(l)(a) therefore has been influenced by the wording in the United Kingdom legislation. Nevertheless, we did take into account the different representations and it was decided that we should modify the rigour of the provision in two ways. One is to make clear of the first mentioned company to add the words "or at any time within three years of his ceasing to be a director". In other words, the director's relationship to the first company's liquidation is within three years of his ceasing to be a director. That is one modification which is reducing the scope of the provision as it is worded in England.”
“The Select Committee were able to accept the bulk of the suggestions as well as further suggestions emanating from the Attorney-General's Chambers. The clause as a result of these amendments, we believe, is now better framed and more readily acceptable to the business and professional communities. As a final comment on the Bill as reported from Select Committee, I may say that the vast majority of the other amendments are either of a drafting nature or are new proposals made by representors to remove inconsistencies and defects in existing law. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.54 pm”
“Neither is it possible to distinguish in this particular case between insolvencies brought about by irresponsible trading and insolvencies attributable to normal business failures. It is considered, however, that the right balance has been struck as between the interests of management of companies and the interest of creditors. The latter are sorely in need of some form of protection under the law for they have given credit to these insolvent companies in good faith in the normal course of business and they are often confused and distressed that existing law does little to protect them unless actual fraud can be proven. However, Members will see from the amendments accepted by the Select Committee that we have mitigated the strictness of the provision in a number of ways. These amendments go some way to meeting the objections to this clause without disturbing the basic concepts in it. Sir, I now move on to clause 31 which deals with disqualification of persons who have been persistently in default in relation to requirements of the Companies Act involving delivery of returns, accounts or other documents to the Registry of Companies. The objections made to this clause in the representations were not so much concerned with the principles therein as with doubts about the scope of its operation, particularly as regards the effect that court orders made under sections 12 and 362 of the Act in respect of breaches of the Act would have on a person to whom the section applies and as regards the effect the clause would have on section 130 of the Act dealing with convictions for an offence in connection with the management of a company.”
“This is to safeguard the public and, in particular, creditors of companies, against persons who by their conduct have shown themselves to be unfit to manage the affairs of a company with limited liability. The law, at present, does not prevent a person trading through the vehicle of one or more companies with limited liability and allowing such a company or companies to become insolvent and then establishing a new company to carry on trading, all the while leaving behind a trail of unpaid creditors. This is not an uncommon occurrence in Singapore. Such conduct does little to enhance Singapore's position as a leading financial and trading centre. It is recognized and accepted by Government that liquidations of companies can be brought about by numerous vicissitudes - some of which may be caused by economic or other factors beyond the control of directors and that the operations of the section will cause inconvenience and cost to certain directors who are unfortunate enough to be connected with -two insolvent companies which failed for reasons that have nothing to do with their unfitness to manage companies. This category of directors will have to satisfy the court that they are fit persons to continue to manage companies by showing that the liquidations were not attri- butable to their conduct as directors. It is nevertheless considered that the policy and principle in this clause is justified and should stand as part of the Bill. The clause is aimed at the unscrupulous and irresponsible director, and in the drafting of penal and restrictive provisions it is not always possible to distinguish between honest and fit persons and unfit and unscrupulous persons.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." The Select Committee on this Bill received 14 written representations and heard seven representors. A number of the representations were valuable and many of the suggestions therein have been accepted by the Select Committee. Some of the more controversial clauses in the Bill have, as a result, been substantively amended and the potential strictness of their operation considerably modified. The Report of the Select Committee was presented to this House on 12th June 1984, as Paper Parl. 3 of 1984. The Bill as set out at Appendix I of the Report incorporates the amendments made by the Select Committee. Hon. Members will observe from the Report that numerous amendments have been made to the Bill and full explanations for all these amendments appear in Appendix V of the Report. I do not, therefore, propose to burden the House by repeating these explanations clause by clause. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will instead refer to certain clauses in the Bill which have aroused considerable public and professional interest and debate. Certain representors considered that these proposals went too far while others felt that they had not gone far enough. In weighing the opposing views and agreeing to modify the impact of these provisions, the Select Committee believes that it has struck the right balance. I refer, in particular, to clauses 30 and 31 which adversely affect directors of companies who continue to act as directors in breach of the provisions without leave of the Court. Clause 30 is designed to restrain directors of companies that have been liquidated from continuing to act as directors unless they can satisfy the court that the liquidations are not attributable to their unfitness to manage companies.”
“I would like to assure the hon. Member that the Ministry of Law will liaise with the Ministries of Home Affairs and Communications to review both the adequacy of penalties as well as the procedures for investigation and prosecution. FIRE SERVICE AMBULANCES (Adequacy) 7. Mr Yeo Toon Chia asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether there is any plan to increase the number of ambulances so that there will be enough ambulances deployed at each fire station.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the term nuisance calls' can cover a wide range of telephone calls. They include calls to threaten, intimidate, annoy or insult the persons receiving the calls. There are certain provisions in the Penal Code which can be invoked in dealing with nuisance calls. For instance, if the call amounts to criminal intimidation, section 506 of the Code provides that the offender may be punished with imprisonment of up to two years or with fine, or both, and for an aggravated form of criminal intimidation the punishment may extend to seven years' imprisonment. If the call is made to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty, the offender can under section 509 of the Code be punished with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine, or both. Further, under section 70 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court has the power to bind the offender over by requiring him to execute a bond to keep the peace. Section 14(f) of the Minor Offences Act provides that any person who "uses any indecent, threatening, abusive or insulting words, or behaves in a threatening or insulting manner, or posts up, or affixes, or exhibits any indecent, threatening, abusive or insulting written paper or drawing with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned" shall be liable to a fine not exceeding $50. There are plans to revise the fine under this section upward. Further, the telephone line of the offending subscriber can also be terminated. The real problem in dealing with nuisance calls is not necessarily the inadequacy of the punishments which may be invoked but rather the difficulty of tracing the calls in time, identifying the offender and of adducing evidence necessary for prosecution in Court.”
“Precisely! Proceedings in the court are over and therefore he ought to have raised these questions before the proceedings in the court were over.”
“Mr Speaker, as I have said, the Member for Anson has obviously discovered that he ought to have made certain points in the court regardless of whether he would have succeeded. He failed to do so. He has now come to this House with two purposes, either to convert this into an appellate court or to convert it into a law tutorial classroom to receive free legal tuition. And I think either of these purposes would be contrary to our Standing Orders. Mr Jeyaretnam rose -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Member for Anson sincerely believes that this is a case which involves corruption, can I ask him whether he has lodged a complaint with the police so that it can be investigated, and when did he lodge the complaint?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, although I believe that these are points which he ought to have raised but failed to raise in the Court hearing, let me answer his point. It might have been possible for some other Receiver to have been appointed. I do not know why the litigant here had applied for the Official Receiver. My Ministry was not involved in this. But let me say that the Member for Anson, far from complaining, in fact, should express his gratitude because I am informed that the costs which he had to pay for the Official Receiver's functions were far cheaper than would have been the case if any other accountant or other official in the private sector had been appointed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson is raising questions of detail here which properly ought to have been raised in the Court hearing at the appropriate time. He should let us know whether he had raised legal objections when these Court hearings came out. Did he object to the appointment of the Official Receiver as Receiver? If not, why is he now trying to convert this Chamber into an Appellate Court for having failed to raise these questions in the Court?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have here a copy of the Court Order. It is clear that the Court ordered it, and I quote: 'it is ordered that the Official Receiver, Mr Lim Ewe Huat, be and is hereby appointed Receiver in this action subject to the usual terms to be settled by the Assistant Registrar of the High Court...'. and so on.”
“Based on a survey done by the Ministry in October last year, about 21,300 (or 71%) of 30,000 firms with at least one bargainable employee in continuous employment between 1 July 1982 and 30 June 1983 implemented the 1983 NWC recommendation. This benefitted some 297,000 (or 89%) out of 333,000 (or 89%) of such workers. Of the 8,700 firms which did not implement the recommendation the majority (54%) gave poor business as the reason. Another 44% did not give NWC wage adjustments because they provided free food/transport or lodgings. The number of workers so affected was 35,900. pulled down - List of mosques built by MUIS since 1975 and old mosques demolished since 1968 by Postal District (Cols. 1465 - 1468) Annexes - BANKING HOURS, LOCATION OF ATMs, PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF NTUC's SURVEY ON CASHLESS PAYDAYS - 15 MARCH 1984 (Cols. 1469 - 1476)”
“The Member has just said that he has assured the trade union that they should take a secret ballot. Whether his advice is correct or not, I am not going to pronounce upon it, for I have said that it is going to be determined by the provisions of the law and of the constitution.”
“Sir, I think I can be very brief. I was listening to the Member and I lost track of the number of times he prefaced each sentence with "I am told, I understand, I am given to understand". This sums up the basis on which his whole case rests, about 15 or 20 of "I am told", "i understand", plus one anonymous letter. Sir, he says that the NTUC and their advisers have been busy persuading and giving advice and he has been told by the Member for Boon Lay what is the basis for that. I commend the NTUC for promoting the concept of house unions. No one can force branch unions into forming house unions. But, at the same time, let me make it clear, no one should be allowed to prevent, either because of established individual position or entrenched privileges, the formation of a house union if the members wish to do so. No branch union as far as I know has been forced into forming a house union. Those who have done so have done so willingly. Members such as the UTES themselves voted to form a house union. I have already given my position concerning the decision-making procedure. I will not intervene in the decisionmaking procedure which is laid down under the provisions of the law, supplemented by the provisions of the constitution. If the constitution and the law provide for a decision on any matter, whether it be house union or other is to be taken by an open ballot, so be it. If it is to be taken by secret ballot, so be it. The Member for Anson as a lawyer must know that the law must prevail.”
“Does he really believe that a union, whether it is SATU or otherwise, can be forced to form a house union? Does he believe that our workers or union officials are so naive? A house Union will be formed when they are receptive, when they want it. I have read from the newspapers that the NTUC has offered its advice, has offered its assistance, and I believe that the union has, in fact, asked the assistance of the NTUC. I cannot see any way in which the NTUC or anybody can force any union to form a house union. If the Member for Anson has other evidence, in addition and apart from this anonymous letter which he has received, then let him come forward now and tell us where exactly is his evidence for these serious allegations. And who is forcing? These vague allegations, nebulous statements, are statements which one does not find befitting or worthy of a reply, unless he gives us specific details. Then we can reply. He has asked for my assurance about a secret ballot. I have given the answer on 17th January that the decision whether to form a house union, or any other decision which any union takes, must be in accordance with the constitution. If the constitution provides that there is no necessity for a secret ballot, then of course, we must abide by the constitution. It is as simple as that.”
“He has made a series of allegations that they are being forced to form house unions and a host of other allegations, including relations between the management and union officials. For example, he has said that the management has required some of the union officials who are doing full-time union work now to revert back to doing work for which they were employed in the respective company. I am also told now by the Member for Anson that the General Secretary of the Union was given an option for three years - so I understand from him - an option either to stay in the union or to join management. If I understand the Member for Anson correctly, lately he has been told that the General Secretary must exercise the option now. I find it incredible that a management has given a person an option to join the management for three years, and I am not at all surprised that any management would want a person to exercise the option after three years. In fact, I find it surprising that the option has been given for such a long time. But really, Sir, what is the basis for the Member for Anson to come to this House to raise all these allegations, which come down to one word: that they are being "forced" to form a house union. Where is the basis and evidence for his allegations? The only evidence that he has mentioned for all the things that he has said in his 10 minutes is an anonymous letter that he has received. If I were to act on anonymous letters of all shades and kind that are on my desk every morning, including anonymous letters about the Member for Anson, I will not be able to do any other work. Really, I think we must advise the Member for Anson to grow up, to take things seriously.”
“If he could give us some examples, I can assure him that I will take this up with my officials and also with the Ministry of Health. I have also taken note of the point raised by the Member for Radin Mas and will give it due consideration. As to the point he made about relative benefits between members of the union and non-members this was also adequately covered, if I remember, by the Minister without Portfolio, in an interview that he gave to the press, the points of which I am in agreement. Sir, may I now turn to the points raised by the Member for Anson? He spoke about house unions. Members will recall that in my answer to a Question raised by the Member for Kampong Kembangan on 17th January, I did say, amongst other things, that: 'The Government will continue to strongly promote the formation of house unions in view of the positive contribution they can make to the enhancement of productivity. I must, however, stress that the actuai establishment of house unions must be left to the workers themselves and to some extent the management of the company. They must be convinced that the house union will serve their interest and objective of fostering a closer relationship within the company and thus contribute to its continued growth.' Now, what has the Member for Anson really said in his 10 minutes? He has, for 10 minutes, spoken about one union, SATU. Am I right? SATU? Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes.”
“This point has also been officially conveyed to us by the NTUC and I am glad to inform him that my Ministry is now reviewing this to see whether the intervals can be spaced out at longer durations and generally to look into the whole procedure for the authorization. I hope to be able to arrive at a definitive decision later. But I am glad to say that this is being reviewed. With regard to the points made by the Member for Boon Lay concerning sick leave benefits, he knows that the fringe benefits, including medical benefits, have to be negotiated between the employer and employees. For the Government to intervene would be eroding the employer-employee nexus. 4.30 pm He mentioned the qualifying period. The Ministry has taken note of his point and will consider it but he should note that most collective agreements already provide for sick leave upon confirmation. I agree with him that the attitudes of employers are important. They may be right within the letter of the agreement, but if they take a very cold, literalist and antiseptic attitude in the interpretation of the terms then, of course, this is not going to endear the workers to the company. This will make it more difficult for the company to retain the workers, more difficult for them to bring about feelings of company loyalty on the part of the workers. While the Government will not intervene in these matters and leave it to the employers and employees to negotiate, I would urge employers to take note of the points he has made relating to the healthy attitudes taken by the employers. As to the non-recognition of medical certificates issued by Government departments, this may be a matter which we should look into.”
“Sir, may I first respond to the points raised by the Member for Boon Lay. He has raised two broad issues. First is the issue of check-off procedure, a point which was also touched on by the Member for Radin Mas. Let me explain, Sir, that although the Member drew an analogy between the relationship of husband and wife, I think the analogy is farfetched because the reason for the check-off annual authorization is really not intended to have an annual renewal of the union membership. The rationale is that the trade union funds are at stake. Members' contributions are at stake and we do not want a situation where once he has given the authorization that this authorization can then operate for an indefinite number of years. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the union has continuing authority to deduct and explicit permission is obtained at a regular interval. By and large, many unions have been following the rules. Some have not and we have had to take action. But I take the point mentioned by the Member for Boon Lay and the Member for Radin Mas that this may lead to onerous burden on the part of the union officials in getting a large number of members to sign the forms annually. Of course, another reason is that this annual authorization also ensures that the union officials regularly maintain a close contact with their members. Indeed, in one case, I myself received expressions of gratitude where we had to enforce this annual authorization because the members said that once the authorization had been obtained they had been ignored for some period of time. Be that as it may, the point raised as to the burden of time and effort it imposes on the union officials, is one that I appreciate.”
“Sir, very briefly let me say that I have taken note of the point just expressed and certainly I will ask my officials to give this matter serious consideration.”
“Many are engaged in tuition, music classes, child-care, who for fear of tax or other disclosures might not have given appropriate returns to our service. 4.00 pm As I said, it depends on the scheme worked out by the company. Some companies are successful. For instance, one company had, in fact, a housewife shift from 6.00 pm to 11.00 pm. This will enable the woman to go to the company or factory after the husband has returned. She would therefore not be inhibited or be preoccupied with the question as to who is looking after the home and so on. So it really depends not just on the Ministry of Labour encouraging employers but it also depends on the kind of schemes which employers themselves devise. I will assure him that this is a matter that we will continue to look into. In closing let me say that the National Productivity Council also has a task force with representatives from the NTUC, employers and employer groups looking into this question, and we hope that early next year they would be able to present a report on this topic.”
“7%; in 1983, it was 44.7%. So there are hopeful and positive signs to show that the number of women who come back to work after a period of time may be on the increase. But in the ultimate analysis, getting more women to work, of course, is not the answer. Here again, I agree with him that our long-term solution must be to reduce reliance on manpower and to upgrade, mechanize and to emphasize that economic growth is tied up with productivity. I am grateful to him for the encouraging words he has mentioned about the productivity efforts undertaken by the NPB. But I wish to stress, of course, that while NPB is a catalyst, a(l sectors of our society would have to be involved. Turning to the points raised by the Member for Telok Blangah concerning the Ministry of Labour's part-time employment scheme, we do have, as he has mentioned, the part-time employment assistance scheme whereby wives seeking pan-time jobs are matched with vacancies. We have actively encouraged companies to provide part-time job opportunities with suitable working hours and attractive pay. Some companies have been successful. Whether they succeed in attracting a significant number of women to work part-time really depends on the scheme, the flexibility and the attractiveness. Some firms are more successful, are more imaginative than others. Obviously, in a tight labour market situation, we would expect the women also to be quite choosy which explains the figures that he mentioned. But let me just mention that, here again, the signs are encouraging. In 1982, there were 12,100 females in part-time jobs. In 1983, there were 16,000 females in part-time jobs. Probably the figure is higher.”
“I might add here that this question of increasing the retirement age will also be one of the matters to be addressed in the report of the Committee on the Problems of the Aged which will be presented shortly to this House. So I thank the Member for his comments. They are pertinent and timely. And the Government will be looking into this very seriously. As regards his point on increasing the female labour participation rate, he is quite correct in that this is another way to solve the problem of labour shortage. As he has pointed out, the female labour force participation rate, compared to other countries, is quite high. There may be some scope to increase it even further. But he has put a finger on the correct question, i.e. will there be a social cost? And I think the answer, as he has indicated, is that there must be a social cost. When it comes to married women with young children working full-time, it will inevitably affect their ability to give that much care and attention to inculcate the right values amongst the children. There are some who may be able to cope both with a full-time job and with raising of young children, but not all can. For those who cannot, perhaps they should stop working while the children are young and rejoin the labour force when the children are older or to do part-time work. I am glad to inform the Member that the statistics do show that the labour force participation rate among women between the ages of 30 and 44, and therefore the category which is likely to be those who are returning to work after a period of marriage and child rearing, is increasing each year. For example, in 1979, this age group between 30-34, the rate was 40.8%; in 1983, the rate was 48.5%. For the age group, 35-39, in 1979, the participation rate was 37.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first, may I take up the point raised by the Member for Leng Kee concerning retirement age. I am in complete agreement with him that it makes good sense for us to think in the direction of increasing the retirement age. He has given certain reasons such as increasing life span and of population. Of course, there are also reasons of medical science which show that people who are gainfully employed will lead healthier lives and if indeed people are gainfully employed till an older age, they will be of course more financially secure and less dependent on the State. But above all, as he has pointed out, in a tight labour shortage, getting more people to work later would be eminently sensible. So he has brought up a very valid point. The question, of course, is how is this to be done. Should it be compulsory? My response to that would be that it would not be wise to legislate a compulsory retirement age of 60 or 65 for not all jobs may be suitable for persons of such older age, either due to physical or mental conditions. Some jobs may require keen eyesight or physical dexterity and so on. So the key criterion must be whether the worker and his increased age would be suitable for the kind of job he is doing. Productivity and skills must be the overriding consideration. So it may not be a wise idea to compel employers to retain all their workers, even though they may not be able to effectively deploy them as it will lower productivity. So it would be best for us to leave this to be negotiated between employers and employees. This would be more flexible. It would bring about an increase in retirement age selectively for jobs which are suitable for absorbing older workers.”
“Sir, I have already spelt out the over-riding considerations which must govern the introduction of any new schemes for the use of CPF funds. So I will not repeat that. Suffice it for me to say that if the Member for Ang Mo Kio is aware of students who have been admitted or granted a place in any institution of higher learning, but are not able to use the opportunity because of lack of funds, I together with my colleague in the Ministry of Education, the Minister of State for Education, would be happy to look into the matter. But I have looked at the figures and looked at the different types of schemes, and I am satisfied that for those who make the grade and are admitted to institutions of higher learning, there are ample opportunities, scholarships, bursaries; for them and, therefore, the situation does not warrant the introduction, at this point of time, of the scheme I mentioned. I have noted his points and his reasoning. They are not without substance, but before we make such a major scheme we must be satisfied that existing other means which are available have not been exhausted. Mr Yeo Toon Chia( In Mandarin): Sir, I thank the Minister for giving us the assurance that the students would be able to complete their university education. Since he does not want to consider my point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“With this additional point that there are ample bursaries, scholarships and financial assistance, I hope that, though the reply may be disappointing, he will understand the reason for the CPF to be prudent and conservative. Mr Yeo Toon Chia( In Mandarin): Sir, what I mean is this. Our Acting Minister for Labour is a Professor in the National University of Singapore. Perhaps he would be able to provide me with statistics to show how many per cent of the undergraduates could not complete their tertiary education. In his reply the Minister has said that we should not abuse this money in unnecessary investment. But for the parents to send their children to the university, is it not the best investment? If the parents do not think so, then such parents would be looked down upon by others. I was saying that even if we take the worst case, they should at least be able to complete one or two years in the university. For most of them who are qualified for enrolment into the university, they should be able to complete the university education. I do understand that there are quite a lot of scholarships and bursaries available even in our many constituencies, but if the standard of the students is not exceptionally good, they would not be able to qualify for the scholarships. What about those who are accepted for enrolment into the NUS, the Nanyang Technological Institute or the Ngee Ann Polytechnic but could not afford the fees? Maybe for the rich, $1,000 or $2,000 is nothing. But to the poor people $1,000 or $2,000 would take one or two months to earn this money. They would need the money for their household expenses. They would not have excess money to send their children to the university. I hope the Minister would consider this.”
“Sir, first, to reply to the outstanding point of the Member for Toa Payoh. If I am not mistaken, he was speaking on the assumption that the sums in excess of the limit that has to be maintained in the Medisave Account cannot be withdrawn until death and passed on to the next-of-kin. This has to be corrected. This is not the case. From the information that I have from the Ministry of Health officials, the intention is really that he must keep a limit which is now $5,000. It will be raised progressively by $500 to $10,000. Any sums in excess of that limit upon reaching the withdrawal age can be withdrawn like other sums in the account which can be withdrawn. As regards the point raised by the Member for Ang Mo Kio, I should add that, in addition to the point that I have mentioned, we have looked at the affordability of eligible students going to tertiary institutions, and we are satisfied that for any student who is deserving, who has got a place in the university, there are ample scholarships and bursaries for him to go to the university. I believe he made a variation of his point that some students may be able to go to the university but they are not of such a standard and are likely to drop out after one or two years. I would really have very strong reservations about using our CPF funds for persons who clearly are not going to make it. Although he advocates the utility and benefits which may be derived by persons being in the university for one -or two years, I do not think that we should even begin to think of the CPF scheme as a scheme for matrimonial purposes or as a scheme for dropouts in the university.”
“Although they may buy the resale flat at the resale price, what is important is that these purchases are subject to the HDB rules in the sense that if they were to sell the flat back to the HDB within the period of five years, or for other reasons it is acquired by the HDB, then it will be at the posted price which means there is a serious question as to whether the amounts withdrawn from the CPF could be returned to the CPF account in the name of the contributor. In fact, it could be said that the CPF has taken a risk in increasing it from 100% to 140% in view of these circumstances. Let me assure the Member for Toa Payoh that we have also done a survey which shows that the 140% figure is not significantly lower than the HDB prevailing resale price. Furthermore, a comparison with the private residential property scheme is not really inequitable when we take into account that for the approved residential property scheme the contributor can only use 90% of the Ordinary Account or 80% of the assessed value.”
“As to the second point concerning the Special Account vis-a-vis Medisave, first, it is important for me to clarify that the Special Account will not be discontinued although on 1st April, 1984, the sums which are in the Special Account will be transferred to the Medisave Account and thereafter contributions which would otherwise have gone into the Special Account will be credited to the Medisave Account. The Special Account will continue to exist but will be dormant. It could be activated in the future if members' contributions and employers' contributions are increased. So it is not discontinued. As to the other point that he made, the monies will be credited to the Medisave Account and will continue to be credited. There will be no maximum but upon reaching the age of 55, the sum of $5,000 will be retained in the Medisave Account. This sum, as has been announced in the press briefings and press statements, will be increased by $500 progressively up to the limit of $10,000. So when a person reaches 55 years of age, any excess beyond $5,000 or whatever limit up to $10,000 then prevailing can be withdrawn like the other sums in the CPF account which he can withdraw. With that clarification, I hope the Member's questions are answered. With regard to the inequity that he sees in the rules concerning the use of CPF funds for HDB flats and approved private residential properties, perhaps I should explain to him, first, that the 100% figure was only recently revised to 140%. The answer to the question, "Why 140% and not any other figure?" is really to preserve the old-age savings which are invested in the HDB flat.”
“Secondly, it will be difficult to supervise the usages of this money for educational purposes, particularly where the parent wants to send the child abroad for education. Thirdly, if the child does not succeed, then it would also have resulted in premature withdrawal or assignment of CPF funds. So attractive though the scheme may be, we have a responsibility to ensure that whatever schemes, including this proposal, do not lead to an erosion or premature withdrawal of CPF savings. For the time being, we have no intention of bringing about another scheme for using CPF funds for educational purposes. If I may now turn to the points raised by the Member for Toa Payoh. The first point he made was whether we would consider an optional annuity scheme, and he raised the problem of contributors who for various reasons may not be able to manage large sums which they withdraw. This is indeed a real problem which we expect would increase as the years go by. I think the Member is in a sense prophetic because I understand from the Minister for Health, who is Chairman of the Committee on the Problems of the Aged, that the report of the Committee which will be presented to Parliament soon does address itself to this question amongst other things. Perhaps I should not steal the thunder from the Minister for Health and give him the honour of replying in greater detail to the Member for Toa Payoh.”
“Sir, first, may I deal with the points raised by the Member for Ang Mo Kio concerning the use of CPF funds for education. As Members will know, the CPF has over the years been imaginative in working out various schemes, such as the scheme to purchase HDB flats, Approved Residential Properties Scheme, SBS share scheme, the Home Protection Insurance Scheme and so on. But above everything else, the CPF and the Ministry have to bear in mind that the schemes that are devised must basically be safe investments which will preserve the value of savings, and should be hedged against inflation to safeguard the position of the contributor in times of misfortune. With this consideration in mind, therefore, the CPF has to be very careful, even at the risk of being conservative, to ensure that the various usages do not proliferate. Although the CPF will not rule out other possible uses to which the funds can be put, I would state that we must have this over-riding consideration that whatever usages it is put to, it must not lead to an erosion of the savings, it must not be consumptive and must not, above all, lead to a situation where it could result in a premature withdrawal of CPF funds or premature assignment of the savings. Using these yardsticks, I would have to disappoint the Member for Ang Mo Kio by saying that the Ministry is not able to decide that CPF funds can be used for educational purposes in the way that he mentioned. It is not really a question of abuse by the CPF contributor that he will take his money and not use it for the purposes of education but rather, it could lead to a situation where the sums spent on education would result in consumptive use of CPF money.”
“Sir, I have taken note of the points raised by the Member for Whampoa. As to the detailed computation of the table, the Member can rest assured that I would ask the CPF to supply him with the details as to how the tables were computed. In the ultimate analysis, Sir, there may be a point of diminishing returns to comparing the CPF rates completely with the commercial rates because there are so many elements of the CPF scheme which are not comparable. In addition to the tax adjustment, for instance, we must also take into account a third factor, that is, the contribution by the employer in fact goes towards the gross sums available to the employee but yet it is not treated as income for income tax purposes, If you take that into account, it would be even more attractive. There are other factors such as estate duty exemption and also the fact that the sums in the CPF balance are not attachable for debts, and so on. So there are many other factors which have to be taken into account.”
“Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1984 to 31st March, 1985 and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.”
“Encik Saidi Haji Shariff (Kaki Bukit)( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the course of my speech on Friday, 17th March, which was interrupted because of the Moment of Interruption, I mentioned the need for MUIS to upgrade its role by providing leadership and charting the course for the Republic's Muslim community to follow. I suggested that the Jawatankuasa Hajah Dakwah (Missionary Activities Committee) should take over, in toto, the organization of religious functions, and that I was also confident that the JHD was capable of organizing the Quran Reading Competition conducted by MUIS. Mr Rohan bin Kamis (Telok Blangah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have an amendment which touches on MUIS.”