REMUNERATION OF MEMBERS

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, l beg to move,

That this House taking due note of the current economic recession and of the sufferings and hardship that have been caused to many of the citizens thereby and conscious of the duty of Members as representatives of the people to identify themselves with the people in any suffering and to set an example for others to follow resolves that every member forgoes one quarter of the total remuneration received by him whether for salary, pension or allowance of whatsoever kind until further resolution of this House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I go on to speak in support of this motion, may I express the hope, I do not suppose this hope will be realized, that the whip has been withdrawn on Government MPs. I was going to ask the Government Whip whether that was so in fact, but I have not. But I do hope that the whip has been withdrawn so that Members may vote according to their own conscience on this question. This is not just a matter of jest. This is a serious matter and I hope the Government realizes this and allow Members to vote according to their own conscience on this motion.

I must clear one or two things about this motion. First of all, l am not suggesting, as was said in a letter in the Straits Times and by the Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, that I was suggesting that this measure would somehow imme- diately bring about a cure for all our ills. No, I do not, for one minute, think that this measure is going to bring about that cure. I would not be so foolish as to think that. It must be those who suggest that it must have been in my mind who are unable to grasp the significance of this motion. They totally fail to understand the significance of the motion, and I am sorry to see that the Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Department falls into that category of persons who are for some reasons unable to comprehend at all.

Having made it clear that this motion is not a cure for the economic crisis, let me move on to the second point, and that is, that this motion is not motivated by any politics of envy, which again the Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Department has suggested might be the motive behind this motion. May I assure the Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Department -

Mr Rajaratnam: Prime Minister's Office.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Office? All right, Office. In the Prime Minister's Office. That gives it an elevated status. Yes, all right. You have got to elevate all this.

Mr Rajaratnam: You must pay due respect.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Where it is due, yes. May I assure the Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Office, and anybody else who thinks likewise, that I am not envious of either the Senior Minister or of anybody else in the Cabinet. May I assure them that I do not think there is anything for me to be envious about. I can tell them quite frankly - I do not like talking about myself very much - but there are times when it must be said. I consider myself far more blessed and that I have got far more joys that I need not be envious of somebody else. I may not have a big bank balance or huge assets or properties, as the Senior Minister or somebody else may have, but that is not what I consider the biggest joy or blessing in life. There are joys far more precious than that, and by God's grace I have got those joys. So may I assure him that it is not envy that prompts me to move this motion. I hope he will understand that and will drop all these allegations of politics of envy. He must know, if anybody else does not, that I have a lot more joy than he has.

An hon. Member: What joys?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I would not go into the details. The value in this motion is this: that it is symbolic, and although it may not directly have a bearing on the economic recovery, nevertheless it does psychologically affect the economic recovery of this country, and that value must not be minimized.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has been preaching to our workers and to our people the value of pay restraint, of tightening their belts. Who are these people that we are asking to tighten their belts? Workers who are paid $600 a month, $750 a month, and workers who are earning less than $1,000, ie, the majority of our workers. It is to them that we are saying, "Look here, chaps, you know, our situation is not as good as it might be. So forgo any increases." Forgo that, forgo this. Tighten your belt, give up that, give up this. Have we no part in this as leaders of the people, elected into this House?

Mr Speaker, I do not want to go all over again the salaries that are being paid, not only to Members of this House but also to the Ministers of this Government. We went through the salaries in March of this year and I pointed out that our Ministers are drawing far in excess of salaries paid to Ministers in other Commonwealth countries, and our Prime Minister was only drawing less than the President of the United States. I have asked a question for wrinen answer, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I was hoping that the answer would have been available when I spoke on this motion. The question that I tabled for a Written Answer was on the pensions and the gratuities that have been paid to the Ministers of this Government and also to the Members who have given up their office at the end of the last Parliament.

So the public are aware after March, and even before that, of the salaries that are being paid to their leaders out of their own taxed monies. Monies paid by them as tax. What do they see their leaders doing? They see their leaders addressing them and saying, "Tighten your belts. Wage restraint for you. Nothing for you. As for us, we are all right, Jack. Don't you worry." Is that the example we want to set for the people of this country? I ask you quite seriously: is that the example that you expect from a leader?

This motion, let me tell you, will test the sincerity of the leaders of the Government and of the ruling Party. That is the motive behind this motion, nothing else. I want to put to the test once and for all the sincerity of the leaders of the Government and the PAP. Are they prepared to forgo some of their salaries? Not because it is going to bring about a miracle tomorrow. No. But because it is expected of them as leaders of the people to set an example. I am ready to forgo the proportion that I have suggested in this motion. What we want to know now and what the public of Singapore want to know is whether the Government leaders and the Government MPs are prepared to forgo.

[Mr Rajaratnam left the Chamber.]

Mr Jeyaretnam: I see the Senior Minister has walked out. I hope he is coming back. I have suggested that he should second my motion, not that I needed anybody this time. Mr Speaker, Sir, we need not look very far for an example of this. Across the Causeway, when there was a -

[Mr Rajaratnam entered the Chamber].

Mr Rajaratnam: Have you been saying things behind my back?

Mr Jeyaretnam: If the Senior Minister wishes to know, I said, "I am sorry he has walked away. I hope he is coming back." And I am glad to see you back, Mr Senior Minister.

Mr Rajaratnam: I come back to sit down.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Good. As I was saying, when there was the onset of an economic recession in Malaysia, the Prime Minister there, his Deputy Prime Minister, the other Ministers, all gave up part of their salaries. It is not that we should follow their example. It does not matter that others do it or do not do it. It is its own intrinsic value and merit, and I say that this motion does have its own intrinsic value and merit and I hope that the Ministers and the Members of Parliament of the ruling Party will agree that it is time that we not only preach to our people but we set an example to them.

[Mr Raiaratnam left the Chamber]

Mr Jeyaretnam: Obviously, the Senior Minister cannot restrain himself.

May I say that all this preaching is making a mockery. It is mocking at our workers, at our lowly-paid workers, if we do not ourselves set an example. The adage is: an ounce of example is worth a ton of preaching or sermonizing. So I hope that tonight we shall resolve, my dear Members, to set an example to our people of our determination to identify ourselves with them and not see ourselves as somebody set apart and separate, who have no part in this suffering that has been caused, not to everybody, but to some of them and quite a number of them, quite a proportion of our workers. Let us resolve and tell them that we are a part of them and not people set apart, just to lord it over them and to tell them, "You do this, you do that, we would not do this. It is for you to do it." 5.50 pm

The Minister of State for Community Development and Communications and Information (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have an amendment to make to the motion standing in the names of the Member for Anson and the Member for Potong Pasir who, unfortunately, after having supported him in the motion, is not in this House to explain.

Mr Jeyaretnam: He has gone to a rally, if you want to know.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I now beg to move an amendment to the motion standing in their names:

Insert a semi-colon after the word "recession" in line 2. Delete all the words after "recession" and substitute instead the following:

'Conscious of the duty of Members as responsible representatives;

Declaring that if it should become necessary for earnings to be reduced as a national measure to overcome the recession, Members of Parliament including Ministers and other office holders shall be the first to suffer such reduction;

Noting that there is nothing to prevent a Member from donating to charity a significant part of his total earnings in order to set an example for others to follow;

Urges all Singaporeans to address the current economic problems in a serious and comprehensive manner without resort to hasty measures to cut wages which can only harm the interest of workers and further impair the economy at this stage.'

Mr Speaker,Sir, l also note that there is a notice of an amendment to the motion in the name of the Member for Potong Pasir.

Mr Jeyaretnam: On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Member is not here to move the amendment. Unless he has got permission to move the amendment, the Minister of State should not refer to it.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Community Development (Mr S. Dhanabalan): Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. The speaker has not given way and the Member is still making his point of clarification.

Mr Speaker: Have you finished moving the amendment?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I beg to move the amendment, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: The Minister of State for Community Development and Communications and Information has proposed, as an amendment, "To leave out all the words from "recession" in line 2 to the end, and there to insert the words set out in the notice of amendment."

The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I also speak on the amendment?

Mr Speaker: Yes, do that.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Any rational being will approach today's economic problems rationally. As responsible representatives of the people, we must also approach such problems responsibly. We want to take a logical step by step approach to solving the problems. First, by finding out what are the causes of the problems. For those problems which are not within our control, there is really little that we can do about them except to take palliative measures to ease the pain. It is like sitting out in a typhoon in a secured place and taking all the necessary precautions.

The PAP Government has built this tiny little island into one of the shining examples of economic success over the last 25 years together with the people. Our country is not about to collapse or to go bankrupt.

For those problems which are within our control, we need to separate them according to their order of priority. The more immediate problems which are amenable to immediate solutions will indeed be resolved first. Others which take time or more resources to resolve would take a bit longer. After all, we did not achieve today's success in one day. Neither can we make one wave of the magic wand and wish the problems away.

The Government has made a thorough analysis of our economy. The Prime Minister, the First Deputy Prime Minister, other Ministers and the PAP Members of Parliament have given this analysis thorough airing. The hon. Member for Leng Kee and my other colleagues have also eloquently recounted them in this House. I shall not repeat them.

We cannot control a slowdown of the world economy, just as we cannot control the weather. For the internal problems and the solutions to resolve them, the First Deputy Prime Minister's statement and the Minister for Finance's statement have shown a firm commitment and seriousness of this Government in trying to address the current economic problems. If it is necessary to introduce further measures, the Government will certainly do so at the appropriate time. We should not resort to any hasty measures to cut wages. To do so will only harm the workers and further impair the economy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the foundation of our economy is still very strong. We are one of the few near debt-free countries in the world. I think many debt-ridden countries in the world would like to be in our position. Industries affected by structural problems need time to consolidate, rationalize, shed excess capacity or even be replaced by those which have better market demand.

The learned Members for Anson and Potong Pasir's motion is either misguided or ill-motivated. If it is due to misguidance because of a lack of knowledge on how the economy operates or because of the lack of elementary knowledge of economics, as they have so frequently displayed in this House, they would be better off to take counsel with qualified economists. The Member for Leng Kee may not be prepared to give them a lesson or two.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You will, will you?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I am not as qualified as the Member for Leng Kee but I have a recommendation for you. So just be patient, I will recommend it to you.

They should not offer bogus ideas because of their shallow grasp of economics. Indeed, as Alexander Pope, the 18th century poet once wrote in "An Essay on Criticism": "A little learning is a dangerous thing. Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring."

The Members for Anson and Potong Pasir have said: put 5% more money into workers' pockets. That will stimulate demand. Economics is not an exact science. Nobody can predict consumer behaviour. The talk about customs union was not explained. Even if the two Members are prepared to be misguided themselves, they should not misguide the ordinary man. Even an 'A' level student who studies economics will know that all national issues require an understanding of economics before they can be intelligently resolved. He can get an understanding of this by reading up an economics textbook which is what I would like to recommend to the Member for Anson. You can find this [indicating] in the library. This is the tenth edition. I was told that this is not the latest. They can probably get the latest edition.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Who is it by? You wrote it?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Paul Samuelson. Page 5 of Samuelson may be of interest to our Member. Let me quote:

'Every national issue . . . requires economic understanding to make progress in dealing with it. A person who has never made a systematic study of economics is handicapped in even thinking about national issues; he is like a deaf man trying to appreciate a symphony: give him a hearing aid, and he may still lack talent, but at least he has a fighting chance of sensing what music really is.' Samuelson went on further to say:

'As an example, Winston Churchill [don't misunderstand, l am not comparing you with Winston Churchill] was a great man - a leader without peer, an orator, a gifted writer, and a shrewd judge of the Hitlerian threat while most around him slept. Yet all his life, Churchill was a babe in the woods when it came to economics. In 1925, as Chancellor of the Exchequer he put England back on the gold standard at the pre-1914 parity of $4.87 for the British pound. Experts at the time warned against such folly, and history has recorded that England never quite recovered from her stagnation of the 1920s.'

But if the motion is ill-motivated, then we must take every opportunity to expose it. We must be able to distinguish the wheat from the chaff and separate factious ideas from the facts. We are elected representatives of the people to look after their interests and their children's welfare and long-term interests. How well we do this will depend on the policies, the programmes and actions that we take to raise their standard of living. We do not indulge in fantasies, illusions, lip-service, empty words, promises, platitudes, which are appealing in tone but disastrous in consequence.

The two Opposition Members make it sound as if we were back to the Great Depression of the 1930s. Cutting 15% or 25% of an MP's remuneration does not automatically mean that its equivalent amount will be injected into the economy. Incidentally, I do not know why the Member for Potong Pasir has made an amendment to his own motion, something that he signed when he supported the Member for Anson.

Mr Jeyaretnam: He is not here.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Do you know why? Do you know why he has changed his mind?

Mr Jeyaretnam: He has gone to a rally.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Perhaps you can tell us.

Mr Jeyaretnam: He is not here.

Mr Rajaratnam: On a point of clarification. Does it mean that his sense of sacrifice has diminished by 50%?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Yes, the Member for Potong Pasir has made an amendment to his own motion but, unfortunately, he is not here to speak on it. Even if it were so, the sum is too paltry to have any effect. Let me read out the amendment made by the Member for Potong Pasir to his original motion when he supported the Member for Anson. He says:

'I propose to move an amendment to the motion to be moved by the Members for Anson and Potong Pasir as foUows -

To delete the words "one quarter" appearing in the 6th line from the top and substituting therefor the following words, "fifteen per cent". (Signed: Member for Potong Pasir [copied I think, to the Member for Anson) dated 31 August 1985).'

Well, both the original motion in the names of the two Members as well as the proposed amendment to the original motion by the Member for Potong Pasir are frivolous propositions, not to be taken seriously. And I smell a rat there, if not two.

Maj Fong Sip Chee (Kampong Chai Chee): Call me, I am still available.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: The Member for Kampong Chai Chee is offering his service.

It is just a gimmick really designed to gain political capital and pull wool over our people's eyes. There is no doubt -

Mr Jeyaretnam: Show your sincerity.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I will come to that.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Let's have your sincerity.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Yes, yes, very soon. Be patient, Mr Jeyaretnam, the Member for Anson. There is no doubt at all that the Government is fully aware of the economic problems we are facing. There is also no doubt that the Government is able to feel for the people. That is why in addition to the Economic Committee with members from the private sector, there is also a Ministerial Committee to look and find solutions.

The Government has urged wage restraint. This is different from a wage freeze or a wage cut. The First Deputy Prime Minister and the Member for Kebun Baru have already explained the differences between the three, and I shall not go into them. Wage cuts, as proposed by the Members for Potong Pasir and Anson, are drastic. This method need not be resorted to now. This is because when this measure is resorted to, it will cause a panic and send the wrong signal to the people, as the Member for Leng Kee has said. But should it really become necessary for earnings to be reduced as a national measure to overcome the recession, Members of Parliament, including Ministers, and other officeholders, shall be the first to suffer such reduction,

But let me also caution that what the Government does is always closely watched by the people. They look to the Government for direction, leadership, guidance in their action. What signal does the Government want to give to the people about this difficult phase of our economy? Is there massive unemployment, as the Opposition Members would have us believe? Or do you believe in the Labour Minister? It is not as if there are crowds of people outside in the streets begging for jobs. We heard the Labour Minister yesterday. Of the 2,991 retrenched workers who were offered jobs by the Employment Services Department, only 733 or 25% responded to the offer, and of these, 265 or 36% subsequently told the Employment Services Department that they have found jobs on their own.

Are our businesses closing like autumn leaves yielding to the winter? Or are they like trees in the storm, and those which are less well-grounded and weak will be uprooted? I do not want to sound unsympathetic to such failing businesses. Indeed, I feel sad reading such news. The Government is taking appropriate action to help small businesses, and more will be done if necessary. I know the experience of losing a job, of failing in a business. It is a very traumatic one. It is an affront to a person's dignity or ability. The pain is equally felt by his family, and I fully empathize with them. But then life is not a bed full of roses. There are ups and downs in our life. What is important, however, is that when life is on the way up, do not forget the time when we were down. We must continue to show compassion to those less fortunate than we are.

Mr Jeyaretnam: In words, yes.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: And you shall see in deeds as well. We should also make provision for the rainy day. When life is down, it is also important that we should steel our determination and pick ourselves up instead of lying down and be paralysed by the temporary setback and disappointment.

If a Member genuinely and sincerely wants to feel for the people, there is nothing to prevent him from donating to charity a significant part of his total earnings in order to set an example for others to follow. I am sure many PAP MPs contribute financially to charity as well. But they do not feel a need to tell the world about it.

I am puzzled by the two Members, especially the Member for Potong Pasir. He put his name down to support a motion. Now he amends the motion. What does he want us to believe? Was he thinking at that time? Was he honest to himself? Was he truthful to the Member for Anson? I have no illusions at all about his sincerity and credibility. Now he exposes himself. Why did he shrink from his original motion? Why? Why so niggardly?

Some hon. Members: Too much.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Too much. Well, if the two Members genuinely and sincerely want to identify themselves with, I quote, "the suffering and hardship" of the people, they should have done it earlier without bringing the motion up in this House. We are not that gullible. I would not be beguiled into joining them in this frivolity. Cutting pay does not boost the economy, but if you are really earnest, sincere and genuine in wanting to help the less fortunate, then join me in contributing to the Community Chest. I will contribute half of my MP's allowance and my -

Mr Jeyaretnam: Half of your Minister's salary.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Yes, and also half of my Minister of State's salary to the Community Chest. Will you join me to do likewise, as well as the Member for Potong Pasir, and contribute half of your MP's allowance and your total fees that you earn in your professional services?

Some hon. Members: Half.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Half, sorry. Half will do. Will you contribute half of your total professional fees you receive in your practice to the Chest to show your sincerity, your earnestness, your credibility? So let us not waste time by indulging in shadow-boxing. Let all Singaporeans, the Government, the legislators, the people, the businessmen, put our minds together to resolve our current economic problems that we are now facing. What we are undergoing now is like an aeroplane going through a storm. The plane is a bit shaky, yes, but because it was well-maintained, well-serviced, well-checked, and it has an experienced pilot and crew and navigator, it will go through this storm and come out safe and sound.

What we need to do is to fasten our seat belts, and for those who feel uncomfortable, take some air sick pills. Of course, among our midst will be those who ask us to take a quick exit through the door, and you know the consequence of that action. Should we listen to seasoned pilots and crew who have flown thousands of hours, or should we listen to hobbyists who have tinkered only with aeromodel planes and now enticing us to jump off the aircraft?

Mr Rajaratnam: Ask him for an answer.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Yes, I will ask him when I have finished this. If you ask a discerning and seasoned traveller, you will know the answer.

So let me now ask the Member for Anson: will you join me in contributing half of your MP's allowance and half of your professional fees that you receive to the Community Chest? I will do it. [interruption] No?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sit down.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Are you taking this?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sit down.

Mr Speaker: Have you finished?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: No, I have not finished.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sit down first. I am going to speak on this amendment.

Mr Speaker: I have got to put the question now.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sit down.

Mr Speaker: You have not finished?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have asked the Member for Anson whether he would join me in contributing to the Community Chest half his Member of Parliament's allowance, as well as half his professional fees that he receives, and he did not want to respond. The Member for Anson has claimed that his motion is serious and not in jest. Let us see about that. He said his gesture is symbolic. I call it a trick. I call it a gimmick. I call it a frivolous idea.

Sir, I beg to move my amendment.

Mr Speaker: It has been proposed as an amendment to leave out from "recession" to the end and there to insert a semi-colon and the words set in the amendment handed in by the Minister of State for Community Development and Communications and Information.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on this amendment to the motion. As I thought, and expected, everything that I said was lost on this Minister of State and I expect it has been lost on the Government Ministers and other Members of the ruling Party.

Sir, this amendment consists of four paragraphs, and the first one is:

'Conscious of the duty of Members as responsible representatives'.

Great. It is a declaration that they are all conscious of the duty as responsible representatives. Great. Let the public of Singapore take note that the PAP Members of Parliament are conscious of their duty as responsible representatives.

The second one is:

'Declaring that if it should become necessary for earnings to be reduced as a national measure to overcome the recession, Members of Parliament including Ministers and other office holders shall be the first to suffer such reduction;'

This is trying to get out. They find that they have been put to the test and so they wriggle - [interruption] I will come to that. Do not worry about it. I will come to it. You leave me alone and I will come to answer your questions.

Mr Dhanabalan: Don't beat around the bush!

Mr Jeyaretnam: I would like to know who beats around the bush.

An hon. Member: You.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You ask the Singapore public, if you would like to know the answer. I go out and they say," Mr Jeya, why don't the Ministers answer your questions? We get half an hour of lecture from them." You ask them. You go to the street hawker and ask him. He knows it. Beating about the bush.

An hon. Member: Answer to the point.

Mr Jeyaretnam: The second part of it, as I said, is:

'Declaring that if it should become necessary for earnings to be reduced as a national measure to overcome the recession, Members of Parliament including Ministers and other office holders shall be the first to suffer such reduction;'

Well, I made it quite clear I thought, abundantly clear. But it was perhaps lost or Members are unable to understand that it is not introduced as a measure to overcome the recession. So please keep these words to yourselves. You know, it is just wasting the time of this House.

Mr Dhanabalan: Exactly!

Mr Jeyaretnam: And playing with words. This is no time for playing with words.

The other thing is, "if it should become necessary for earnings to be reduced . . .". I have never suggested that the earnings be reduced across the country. I have never suggested that. That is the last thing I am suggesting. I am upset, in fact, that our workers are being told that they can- not have any increases. I am not suggesting that. So please get it clear. I am not asking for earnings of all Singaporeans to be reduced and that you should set an example for earnings to be reduced. I am saying that you forgo voluntarily yourself, Members of Parliament, forgo a quarter of your allowances and salaries. Why? Because for one thing, as I said, Ministers particularly are grossly overpaid, and it would be an example for the rest of the country. So I am afraid, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this amendment completely fails to comprehend or to understand the purpose and the reason for the motion that I have proposed in this House.

The final paragraph comes on to -

Mr Rajaratnam: What about the third paragraph?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I will come to that. The final paragraph is:

'Urges all Singaporeans to address the current economic problems in a serious and comprehensive manner without resort to hasty measures to cut wages...'

Again, this is not intended as a measure to cut wages, for the last time, please. How many times have I to repeat before it drops?

Mr Rajaratnam: You repeat nonsense all the time!

Mr Jeyaretnam: It is not intended as a measure to cut wages which can only harm the interests of workers and further impair the economy at this stage.

Now, there is a daring challenge that is being made to me. They think they are very clever at making this challenge. May I say that the people of Singapore know the sacrifices that I have made in going into politics, in fighting for their cause. They do not need further examples from me. They know it.

The Minister of State talks about lawyers fees, earnings. Does he have any idea - I am sorry to have to say this in this House, it pains me because I hate to discuss my personal matters - does he know, do the Members know, how much I have suffered as a result of going into politics to serve the cause, I thought, for the people of Singapore who are being ill treated?

An hon. Member: And so are other lawyers.

Another hon. Member: Tell us how much.

Mr Rajaratnam: How much are you paid?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am sure they know that Government agencies tell people who would want to come to me, to instruct me, "Why do you have to go to Jeyaretnam? Why do you want to go to Jeyaretnam?" I have heard this time and time again from people.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order.

Mr Speaker: What is your point of order?

Mr Rajaratnam: The Member says that people have said that Government had given instructions not to go to Jeyaretnam. Could he please give evidence?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I said that I have been told by my clients that they have been asked by Government agencies, not only by the Police, by the CPIB, but other agencies also as to why did they go to see Mr Jeyaretnam.

Maj Fong Sip Chee: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. The Member for Anson is making a serious allegation. As responsible Members of Parliament, it is not for him here in this august Chamber to repeat rumours or to propagate hearsay. It is a serious allegation and I think the Member should substantiate it. Otherwise, it will be a disgrace and a mockery to the seriousness of this House discussing matters of state.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not bringing forward any rumours. I am saying what has been told to me by a number of people. So let us get on with it.

They do not need any further manifestation from me of my spirit of sacrifice for them. And you leave me to show my sacrifice. They know it. The question addressed now to all of us is simply in respect of our MPs' earnings and Ministers' earnings. It is obvious that the Government MPs and Government Minis- ters are not prepared to forgo a quarter of their earnings as to set an example to the people of Singapore. I shall announce my intention after this. But it is quite obvious what the Government Members propose to do and, as I said, this motion was intended simply for one reason, to test the sincerity of the ruling Party and the Government leaders. Now the people of Singapore know it. Their answer is, "It is not necessary for us. If at some future time it should become necessary and we will decide whether it is necessary or not, then we will take a reduction." That is a real laugh.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Mr Speaker, Sir, a point of clarification.

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: The Member for Anson said that he will announce his intention. Is he going to tell the people that he is going to accept what I have just asked him to do, ie, join me in contributing 50% of his professional fees and MP's allowance to the Community Chest? Why not tell us now?

An hon. Member: Why wait?

Another hon. Member: Because he wants to consult Mr Chiam.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out," put and agreed to.

Question, "That the words proposed by the Minister of State to be inserted, be there inserted," put and agreed to.

Mr Speaker: The Question now before the House is the Original Question as amended by the amendment of the Minister of State. Mr Jeyaretnam, your reply.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Are there no other speakers on this motion now?

Mr Speaker: No more, I think.

Mr Rajaratnam: We are waiting for your reply, yes or no.

Mr Jeyaretnam: My reply to this motion is that it makes a mockery. Simply, it does make a mockery of your resolve and sincerity. It exposes the sincerity of the Government leaders and the MPs. I say that this motion is not worth the paper on which it is written.

An hon. Member: This is your motion!

Mr Speaker: The Question now before the House is the Original Question with the amendment of the Minister of State.

Original Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House taking due note of the current economic recession;

Conscious of the duty of Members as responsible representatives;

Declaring that if it should become necessary for earnings to be reduced as a national measure to overcome the recession, Members of Parliament including Ministers and other office holders shall be the first to suffer such reduction;

Noting that there is nothing to prevent a Member from donating to charity a significant pan of his total earnings in order to set an example for others to follow;

Urges all Singaporeans to address the current economic problems in a serious and comprehensive manner without resort to hasty measures to cut wages which can only harm the interest of workers and further impair the economy at this stage.