EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion)

With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the debate continues for another half an hour. - [Mr S. Dhanabalan].

Head U (cont.) -

The Chairman: Mr Jeyaretnam, do you want to say something more?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I have asked the Prime Minister these questions and he has not answered them. He keeps repeating the same thing, Would he try and answer my questions?

The Prime Minister: I have answered why I joined politics. I answered about the declarations.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What is the objection to the declarations?

The Prime Minister: The Member has this vague smear - they are all dishonest men who are going to leave office with millions of dollars in bank accounts in Switzerland.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You keep saying they cannot live on their salaries.

The Prime Minister: Do we want to play his game so that nobody wants to come in here? And we have knaves, rogues and fools? That is what it comes to. I am trying, as I have pointed out, to raise the quality of this House so that it reflects our new position. Not degrade it. You have seen their educational qualifications. That is only one facet - the sacrifice that Members make, as Members. The Member for Bukit Merah gave up a job, secure in the Civil Service. I am sorry he did not quite make it for reasons of personality and so on. The Member for Clementi. They are honourable men of quality. But our standards are high, and I do not intend to load more stresses.

Let us put it bluntly in another way. The Member for Kuo Chuan was in the Civil Service. He went out into the private sector. I asked him this one question, I do not think it is offensive and people should know. I asked him, "If you had stayed on in the service instead of leaving before we made our revision, would you be better off or worse off?" He thought, he did his calculations and said, "i would still be worse off." He would be better off and he is better off because he left. He gains precious liftle from taking on this job. Do you want me to reward him the way Hewlett Packard does? It is not possible. Hewlett Packard gives him stock option. I do not know if the Member for Anson knows what it means. It means you are entitled to buy Hewlen Packard shares at this price in two, three, four, five years' time if the shares go up. If they do not go up, you do not have to pick them up, and that is how American companies reward themselves.

For amusement, one of my colleagues worked out what I would get if I ran an American corporation with a turnover or GNP like Singapore's. There are about at least six. It comes to about US$120,000 a month plus stock options. And it is not the financial rewards at that stage. Mr Reagan does not need his US$200,000. He has Air Force 1. Just to keep the fleet of Air Force I's and Air Force Ii's and all his aides runs into millions of dollars. Camp David, White House, a whole entourage moves. But why not? It is an economy of over $2 trillion. We have an economy of S$34 billion. So let us be modest, but let us be honest. If my successors get on the defensive and begin to pad, it is a bad day for Singapore. But that is what they would do if you start working it up. And they do not know how to defuse it. I know how to defuse it.

I threw away thousands of dollars, millions of dollars that I could have made. I am stupider than my brothers? I am less competent than my wife? My share in the partnership was twice the Minister for Law's. I am in the position to exploit that political capital and defend what I am doing because I believe it to be right. The money is irrelevant to me. But it is not irrelevant to those who are going to follow me. You debase this and you will end up with crooks, and you would not survive. Other countries can go that way. Singapore cannot. Your raison d'etre is that everything works.

Why are we sitting down here in shirt sleeves, open collar, casual? Because it is a way of life, a style of governing. People come and see me and they are all better dressed than 1. They are better off than I. My satisfaction is the knowledge that, without doing that, the goal could not have been kept. To be the goal keeper, you need a certain spartan quality. As Dr Goh once said, "When you join the PAP, it is like joining holy orders." That first generation fervour is not sustainable, but a certain dedication can be kept up.

The early Christians were zealots. But 2,000 years after the Church was established, the Jesuits and their priests are still with that drive. It is the system. And they live well. They have their wine cellars. They have proper seminaries. But they are prepared to go out into the world and sacrifice themselves.

But we live in a secular world, and I suggest we keep our feet on the ground. We make-believe, we are in trouble. When I give a nod, others down the line take note. I give the wrong nod, millions of dollars are frittered away. I want the man who takes my place to have that same detachment. He may not be as fortunate as I am in my family circumstances, and he should not be asked to be as fortunate. He should be placed in a position where he can afford to be beyond reproach.

Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Speaker,Sir, it is a well-known fact in diplomatic circles - and I think the Minister for Home Affairs, being a former diplomat, will bear me out - that the poorer the country is, the more ostentatious the lifestyles of their leaders, whether in terms of travel, grand palaces, anniversary bashes, costing hundreds of millions of dollars. We all know the story of the Shah of Iran that after he died, the Government of Iran was trying to recover billions of dollars in secret bank accounts in Switzerland. We have even heard of the Marxist Government of Ethiopia having a bash costing hundreds of millions of dollars, while the people of Ethiopia are starving and are needing relief for famines.

Sir, even the wives of Presidents and Prime Ministers of developing countries have been known to commandeer entire airplanes for their private trips. When an airline in one of the Asian countries sent the bill to the President for his wife's junket, the airline found itself promptly nationalized.

Sir, if I may relate something from my trip to London in December 1972 with the Prime Minister, I hope he will forgive me. On this trip, there were six people.

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): On a point of order. I would like to know what the Member for Whampoa is trying to make out.

Dr Augustine Tan: It will soon be evident, Mr Speaker. There were six of us. Three of us, the Prime Minister, his Security Officer, and myself were in First class. His physician, his private secretary and one other were in the Economy. The only courtesy extended by SIA to him was an extra seat for him, and I saw him curled up asleep in two very short seats, less than half his height. My respect for him grew ten-fold on that occasion. And after the trip, I was billed for $90 for phone calls that I made from London. I was asked whether the phone calls were personal or official, and since I made personal calls, I was billed for $90. Words like "skinflint" went through my head. But later I understood the reason for it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, people have been using figures in this House. But I was looking at the GNP of Singapore. In 1960, we had $2.2 billion; in 1984, $38.5 billion. Almost 18 times increase. And in the process we have created many millionaires and even billionaires in Singapore. It is the system of government that has created this. And I feel that what the Prime Minister said is entirely justifiable.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Community Development (Mr S. Dhanabalan): If the two Opposition Members, Sir, do not want to participate -

An hon. Member: Wait for them.

Mr Dhanabalan: Yes, we would like them to participate. If not, we can adjourn. But if they want to, we can continue.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Well, I never refuse an invitation. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a question of vital importance and it is a question of principle. It is not a question of money that we are arguing or debating in this House.

The Prime Minister more than once said, "Let's be honest with ourselves." Well, let us be honest. What is the Prime Minister saying? Is he saying that his present Cabinet Ministers or the new recruits into his Party would not have come in unless they were promised huge sums of money by way of salaries, high salaries?

The Prime Minister: May I answer that straightaway? I am saying, quite simply, that if we had kept to the old rates of pay and had not moved to more realistic rates, more akin to the market, the sacrifices expected of them would have made it an extremely fine toss-up whether they would have thought it worthwhile. It is as simple as that. They are not men greedy after power, fame, honour. They face a serious challenge of how to keep this place going in a different set of circumstances - a more demanding electorate, easier high growth years running out, a complex set of international, both economic and political, problems. The easiest, in fact, the natural thing to do is to mind their own business. You have seen the quality of men who take part in our elections. If they get in, this country is ruined. And they know that. So they do not say, "Vote us in to be the government." They say, "No, vote us in to keep a check on the PAP. Vote us in so that we can stop them from changing the Constitution." There is enough sense of reality for them to acknowledge that if you ask people to vote them in to be the government, it will be the end. If this system is to survive, you must have men of comparable integrity and ability, then you can toss the ball from one side to the other.

Mr Jeyaretnam: But if they are only interested in the money, there is no integrity.

The Prime Minister: Come, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is pathetic, the hypocrisy.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Is it not that?

The Prime Minister: I have pointed out. Is he saying that all the members of the Bar, there are over a thousand now, are a pathetic lot, including the dozen or so who are qualified to be judges and who want a few more years at those rates of pay? That is what he is saying?

Mr Jeyaretnam: What?

The Prime Minister: I have explained to him, very simply I thought, that the Chief Justiceship is open, so is the Attorney-General, so are two Judges. They are both members of the Bar. I know exactly and they know exactly what lawyers earn. I have to consult the Chief Justice and I consult all the other Judges too, and a few members of the Bar, to get replacements. There are no takers by those whom the Chief Justice believes are worthy of elevation. It is simple. Why not? Because the sacrifice is too great. That is why. Let me toss this figure for the Member. The total sum involved in paying all my Ministers and myself is $4,600,000 a year to run a country with a GDP of $35 billion. 4.45 pm

SIA with a turnover of just $2.8 billion, one-tenth of Singapore's GDP, pays its top men, equivalent to the Cabinet, $3.8 million. Sorry, I beg your pardon. I got the figures turned around. The Government Ministers and myself included comes to $4.66 million. SIA, for less than one-tenth of GDP, pays its top men $3.8 million. You want to run this Government cheaper? What are we quarrelling about? A vast sum of money? No. Pittance. If the MRT were not run honestly, by the Minister for National Development and the Minister for Finance, if it were run like some other countries in Africa, the salary is not enough pocket money for the children. Let us have a sense of proportion. We are quarrelling about $4.66 million. You want it cut down, from $4.66 million. By how much? Half? What would you say is fair? One-quarter? One-half? Two-thirds? What would be fair?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Ministers' pay?

The Prime Minister: No. It is the sum total of the pay. What is fair?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Ministers' salaries?

The Prime Minister: What is fair? How much would you cut it by?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I have said, and I say it again, that the present salaries are more than adequate. And, as I said, what makes it a mockery is that there are people in this country, in this land of ours, who are earning, as the worthy Member on this side of the House said, less than $600 a month. There are people who are drawing public assistance from this Government of less than $120.

The Prime Minister: The cost is $4.66 million, how much would he cut it by?

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Ministers' salaries?

The Prime Minister: Yes. How much?

Mr Jeyaretnam: If you ask me, I think it should at least go down by a third.

The Prime Minister: He would cut it down by $1.5 million. So it will go down to $3.1 million.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes.

The Prime Minister: And then we all become honourable men who have suddenly sacrificed ourselves for duty and public service. Let us have a sense of proportion.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am asking you to have a sense of proportion.

The Prime Minister: I am saying to the people of Singapore, and I can say this better than my colleagues can: you want honest men, make it possible for them to stay honest. Do not pressure their wives, their children.

The Minister for Law is an old friend of mine, from Raffles College days, and therefore he was honest with me. When he wanted to leave in 1970, he said, "Look, I just can't afford it." His children were coming of age, they were going to university. His mortgage was not being paid off. He said, "Let me go." I think I should have the Enlistment Act. I should have let him go back for a year, establish what he would earn in the private sector, then call him up as a reservist Minister and pay him make-up pay. The market decides. That is what he is worth.

Let us just remember that more is at stake than just a debating point. If you challenge the premise on which Singapore is run, you are in fact telling people in authority, "Yes, pad up, camouflage, mask it. Give it to yourself, in perks." And, finally, 'Why not in other ways too?" The core of any government is the leadership. It must be beyond reproach. It must be prepared to act and discipline itself. It will not be able to do this if it is deceitful.

There is corruption in Russia on a vast scale. The country cannot move. There is corruption in China, unprecedented as they open up. They are worried. I have often wondered how in Japan, despite finagling at the top by some Prime Ministers who get themselves involved in aircraft purchases, they are able to maintain such good clean standards in the public service. That is one of the wonders that they have, these aberrations at the top but, by and large, it has kept itself intact. Few other places could do that.

We know that the Indian Prime Minister has a herculean task. He is cleaning up the Augean stables. It is no secret. It is a fact of life. To be an Indian MP, you will have to spend a few million Rupees. Having got in, you must get back those few million Rupees. And amongst the perks, which is one of the sad things I discovered when we had to withdraw recognition of Indian medical degrees, amongst the perks of an MP is his right to nominate at least six candidates to all the medical schools in his constituency. It is a right of patronage, not whether the boy qualifies or not. "I nominate the following." Why? "I am the MP."

Just think of it, if we are running that system. Can we survive? You get a house in HDB because you are related to the Minister's servant. And you can transfer from a 3-room to a 5-room flat quickly, even whilst your application is pending, and you can switch over to HUDC. It is a remarkable system.

Mr Chiam See Tong rose -

The Prime Minister: Yes, please. I have been waiting for the opportunity to give you the chance.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Thank you, Mr Prime Minister. Mr Speaker, Sir, Dr Toh Chin Chye, one of the founders of the PAP, in November 1954, stated:

'That a country big or small shall be great only if the spirit of the people is great.'

Mr Jeyaretnam: That's right.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Now, after 25 years, I wonder whether the spirit of the people can be as great as the spirit which the PAP first had. I think it is a pity and it is a very sad thing that now we have to get people in -

Mr Jeyaretnam: By money.

Mr Chiam See Tong: - with attractive rewards. I really subscribe to this very great aim of the PAP when it first started and I hope it can still have this aim.

Does the Prime Minister believe that competition will increase efficiency? If he does, I think he should allow a fair competition between the Opposition and the PAP Members. I have been voted into Potong Pasir but I find that my hands are tied, The Sennett Estate Community Centre was suddenly taken away from me, used for some -

The Prime Minister: You are suggesting the Minister is corrupt?

Mr Chiam See Tong: No, no. I am talking about fair competition. Let us have a chance to work with the residents in our constituency.

The Chairman: We are talking about Ministers' salaries.

The Prime Minister: We are talking about Ministers' salaries.

Mr Chiam See Tong: We are talking about salaries and the type of society we want to maintain. If you want to get the Ministers to do well, you should not just pay them, but get them into competition. That is what I am saying. Yes, compete with us, increase their efficiency. I do not think you need just to pump money into them. Let us have competition. I think this will really increase efficiency, rather than just paying them double salaries, or whatever it is that is going to be proposed. Let us have good, friendly, competition. Let us have it. It is good for the nation. Let us work. Give us a chance at Potong Pasir. Appoint us to the RCs and CCs as advisers.

The Prime Minister: Wait till you become a Minister, then you will get to be in charge of everything.

Mr Chiam See Tong: The PAP Members are automatically appointed advisers. Why are we not? What are they afraid of? It is not necessary by pay alone. Let us have competition, increase their efficiency, give them a good cutting edge, as the Prime Minister used to say.

The Chairman: I do not understand what you are talking about.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister keeps talking about, "Let's have a sense of proportion." This is what I am trying to urge upon the Prime Minister, believe me, to have a sense of proportion. And I think you will get that if you compare the responsibilities and the duties of your office with the responsibilities and duties of office in other countries, and then begin to see what they are paid and what the Ministers are paid here.

In my Table that I have presented, the Prime Minister gets nearly four times what the Prime Minister in the United Kingdom gets, and what the Prime Minister in New Zealand gets. And three times more than what the Prime Minister in Malaysia gets. Is the Prime Minister of the view that his salary should be equated to the President of the United States? Because he is the only one who is getting more. He is getting $45,000 while the Prime Minister here is getting $30,976.

The Prime Minister: The simple answer to that, Mr Speaker, is: if I were allowed to retire and then enlisted back into the service, I would be getting more. Simple,

Mr Jeyaretnam: I do not understand that.

The Prime Minister: Let me explain.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Please, do that.

The Prime Minister: My colleagues, with the exception of Mr Rajaratnam, the Minister for the Environment, who was a Lecturer in the University when he first joined us, and the Minister for Home Affairs, they would all walk back into better paid jobs. It is as simple as that. This is the quality of men we are looking for. I do not want to belabour this point. But I am looking for good men who can do the job. You can get any number of people to become Ministers. But can they discharge their obligations honourably, competently? If you want that quality of manpower, and those of us who have attended CPA meetings must know, you can compare and contrast. We know that the quality of the Members of Parliament has visibly risen and with it the quality of the Ministers. The two are related.

The Chairman: Mr Prime Minister, you have only two minutes left.

The Prime Minister: I would not wish to have it said that the Member for Potong Pasir was prevented from making his point about $600 one day for a Minister and $600 one month for a poor worker. I gave him every opportunity. The debate was set aside for two hours and extended for another half hour in order to take on two snide remarks, one from the Member for Potong Pasir and another from the Member for Queenstown.

I think it will not be the last time it is said, but let me assure the House, nor will it be the last time I will belabour this point. You want this gyroscope to spin, even on the edge of the table, you keep the instrument clean, in fine condition, so that it will spin without friction. Any sense of distortion, authority and discretion has been exercised other than honestly, that is the end.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Prime Minister for his patience and words of wisdom in this debate. Sir, I beg to withdraw both amendments under Heads U and F.

Amendments, by leave, withdrawn. 5.00 pm

The Chairman: It is 5.00 pm.

Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Dhanabalan: 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, 1985 to 31st March, 1986 and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

Mr Speaker: So be it.