COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (Disposal of Amendments)

Announcement by Mr Speaker

The Chairman: The total time requested by hon. Members for discussion of the amendments to the Estimates has exceeded the time available on the allotted days. In the fixing of the guillotine times, therefore, the times requested have had to be considerably reduced. I would therefore urge hon. Members to be short and sweet when they raise their matters so that we can meet the guillotine times.

Hon. Members will recall my ruling on 20th March, 1985, that any Member who has not filed notice in respect of an amendment under consideration may be allowed to speak for up to five minutes on the amendment (that is, if he can catch my eye). Because of the time constraint, I am afraid my eyesight may not be as good as it should be.

Now, to Business. Main and Development Estimates of Singapore for the financial year 1st April, 1986 to 31st March, 1987, contained in Paper Cmd. 6 of 1986. For convenience, I shall take the totals for each head of expenditure in the Main Estimates and the Development Estimates as they appear in the last columns of the schedules of Estimated Expenditure under the Main Estimates and under the Development Estimates on pages 25 and 26 respectively of Paper Cmd. 6 of 1986.

I shall deal first with the heads of expenditure in respect of which amendments stand on the Order Paper Supplement.

Head E -

Mr Goh Chee Wee (Boon Lay): Sir, I beg to move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head E be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead EA-04 Object Group 1000 of the Main Estimates.

Sir, the Small Claims Tribunals Act was introduced in 1984 to provide for a speedy and inexpensive machinery to handle small claims arising from disputes between consumer and the supplier. The setting up of the Small Claims Tribunals is to provide consumers with a simple, informal and inexpensive way of seeking redress for the shoddy services or defective goods supplied by the sellers.

Sir, when the Bill was introduced in this House I spoke in support of this Bill but I did caution against the possible abuse by traders who might take advantage of the services of the Small Claims Tribunals to recover money from their debtors, thus turning the Small Claims Tribunals into their debt collecting agency. It has been more than a year since the Small Claims Tribunals were established, and the statistics on the number of cases handled by the Tribunals show that my initial reservations and fears were not unfounded. In fact, between February and December 1985, the Tribunal received 3,788 claims. However, the majority of these proceedings were brought by traders rather than consumers. In fact, 3,049 claims, or over 80%, were lodged by businesses or companies, either against other traders or against individuals. 11.45 am

Sir, we must prevent the overwhelming domination of the Small Claims process by businessmen and traders at the expense of the consumers. We must also at least prevent abuse by some traders who repeatedly utilize the service of the Small Claims Tribunals for the purpose of collecting outstanding debts. I would, therefore, like to pose the following questions to the Hon. Minister for Law:

(1) Has the Small Claims Tribunals been able to settle all cases and claims expeditiously and provide adequate consumer protection?

(2) Is there an increasing trend of more traders utilizing the services of the Small Claims Tribunals? If so, is there any indication of abuses, and how does the Ministry propose to check such abuses?

(3) Are the consumers in Singapore sufficiently aware of the avenues that are open to them to seek redress through the Small Claims Tribunals, and whether further public education is necessary?

The Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, in reply to the Member for Boon Lay. During the Second Reading of the Small Claims Tribunals Bill, he indeed, together with other Members, raised certain concerns about provisions of the Bill. One of the concerns he expressed was the provision which allowed both traders as well as consumers to utilize the court. I believe he was of the opinion that the Small Claims Tribunals Court should be exclusively reserved for claims brought by consumers. But, as I had explained during the Second Reading of the Bill, there were good reasons why both consumers as well as traders should be allowed to utilize the court. I might add that this feature that both traders and consumers utilize the court was emphatically proposed by the Judiciary itself. I do not think it could probably be otherwise, for then it may attract constitutional argument of violation of the equal protection provisions in the Constitution.

The main question that arises from the figures mentioned by the hon. Member is whether that gives an overwhelming majority or a large majority of the cases attributable to claims by traders and, if so, is this an abuse at the expense of the consumers? To the first question, I think he is right about the figure. Indeed for the period that he has mentioned, about 80% of the claims were brought by traders and about 20% by consumers. Is this a cause for concern? I think he would be right about there being a cause for concern if indeed this represents an abuse, or if this is in some way at the expense of the consumers. I would like to assure him that I have looked into his question and I have also discussed this with the Registrar of the Tribunals. The answer is that, although there is a large number of cases brought by traders, it has not been at the expense of consumers or factually causing delay in cases brought by consumers. I have been assured that claims brought by consumers have heen fixed speedily. The point, therefore, is that it may be necessary to have more publicity and more awareness brought about so that consumers may exercise their right to a greater extent. How can this be done?

The Consumers Association of Singapore, I think, has done a good job in publicising the workings of the Tribunals and we will get in touch with CASE to see if more can be done. Perhaps the Member for Boon Lay could also assist in publicising the advantages of the Tribunals and the systems for consumers at large. But I would like to assure him that although, at first glance, the number seems surprising, it has not impeded or delayed the settlement of cases brought by consumers. Furthermore, whether or not it has been abused, the answer is no because there are provisions in the Act which enable those in the court to reject cases which are frivolous.

Mr Goh Chee Wee: The Minister's answer is that the claims brought about by the consumers are settled quite expeditiously. Can I ask, on the average, how long does a person have to wait before a case is heard and settled?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have that information with me here, but I shall be very happy to supply it to him subsequently.

Mr Goh Chee Wee: I thank the Minister for the reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $12,849,300 for Head E ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $2,275,400 for Head E ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head U -

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam (Anson): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two amendments as you may notice. Is it your pleasure that I take them together, one after the other?

The Chairman: How many minutes will you take?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I see that we have got until 12.20 pm, Sir.

The Chairman: That includes the reply.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I know, Sir. Well, I was very upset that you have curtailed the times. I can understand your difficulties. But I think something must be done, such as amending Standing Orders, to enable a very full discussion of the Supply Estimates.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, may I move,

That the sum to be allocated for Head U be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead UA-01 Object Group 1100 of the Main Estimates.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Object Group deals with political appointments in the particular Office of the Prime Minister. But the Prime Minister's Office is also responsible for the overall policy direction for all Ministries and for the Government, of course. So I wish to dwell on the number of political appointments in the Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, quite recently the public were told that there was a need to restrict posts in the private sector and the public sector and a need for restraint. Nothwithstanding those calls to the private sector and to the public sector, the people of Singapore were informed that two Minister of State would be promoted to the rank of Acting Minister to the Cabinet. This would appear to run counter to the Government's call that at this time there should be some restraint in the number of new posts that are created or filled.

Mr Speaker, Sir, one cannot help the feeling that in Singapore perhaps we have too much of over-ruling of us. One wonders whether it is really necessary that a country like Singapore with a population of 2.5 million should have the number of Ministers, the number of Ministers of State, the number of Parliamentary Secretaries, the number of Political Secretaries that Singapore has. It seems to me, Sir, that it is top heavy, and perhaps an attempt should be made to prune this and to pass the savings on to the people.

Now, if I may move on to the Prime Minister's Office, particularly the political appointments. What do we find besides the Prime Minister there? We have two other Ministers - Senior Minister, Second Deputy Prime Minister. Then we have a Senior Minister of State, a Minister of State, a Senior Parliamentary Secretary, a Parliamentary Secretary, and a Political Secretary. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the people of Singapore would like to know exactly what responsibilities are discharged by the various holders of these posts. I am particularly referring to the post of the Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Office and to the Second Deputy Prime Minister. (I notice that the Second Deputy Prime Minister is here but not the Senior Minister).

Sir, quite seriously, I was asked by a member of the public whether I would propose that the case of these two appointments be referred to the National Productivity Board to determine and to report to the people on their productivity. It is not a meagre sum that they are paid. What is it? $23,000-$24,000 a month. I assure the Prime Minister that it is not just me, but the public would like to know exactly what responsibilities are discharged by the Senior Minister in his Office and by the Second Deputy Prime Minister. We know the Second Deputy Prime Minister is also the Secretary-General of the NTUC. Is he being paid to discharge his office as Secretary-General of the NTUC? Or is he being paid for his work in the Prime Minister's Office? The public are anxious to know this.

I have not the time to dwell on every other appointment but there is the appointment of the Political Secretary. I asked this last year and the Prime Minister was not here to answer it. But I am glad to see that he is here and perhaps he can enlighten us. Last year, I said that the appointment of Political Secretary was ultra vires the Constitution. The First Deputy Prime Minister, aided by the Minister for Home Affairs, tried to argue that it was within the Constitution. May I say that nobody is convinced by those arguments. All they could rely on was a definition section. Perhaps the Prime Minister could tell us where in the Constitution does it provide for the appointment of a Political Secretary. That is one.

The other thing is that they would also like to know what duties are these Political Secretaries discharging? We know the one in his Office also holds an Office in the NTUC. Is he being paid for work in the NTUC, or is he being paid for his work in the Prime Minister's Office? May we know what they are doing? There is, of course, the other man, another Political Secretary, who I believe is working in a company, the Singapore Press Holdings.

So may we have from the Prime Minister this morning the responsibilities discharged, particularly by the Senior Minister and the Second Deputy Prime Minister? Will he also let us know about the responsibilities discharged by the other Senior Minister of State and Minister of State? They are not paid a pittance and, at this time of the recession with the need to try and cut down on our operating expenditure, I think the public are entitled to an answer.

If I may now move on to the other amendment that I have and which concerns the whole of the Head U. Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head U of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100.

Sir, here I am renewing my call for a reduction in the pay of the Ministers, Cabinet Ministers and Ministers of State. Last year, the Prime Minister wanted a full debate on this and so, notwithstanding the time that was allotted by you, we had, I think, a whole afternoon debating this. I then said that it was my view that the Ministers in Singapore are grossly overpaid when one considers the salaries of Ministers in other Commonwealth countries. I gathered from the arguments put forward by the Prime Minister (and I see it was supported yesterday by the Member for Whampoa) that unless you pay the Ministers what you are paying them now, they will be putting their hands into the till, so to speak. So to keep them free from corruption, we will have to pay them adequately. May I say that I find that answer or that reason most unconvincing. In the first place, it is not flattering to our Ministers that if they were not paid the sums they would resort to corruption. I am sure that cannot be applied to all the Ministers or to any of the Ministers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has only recently imposed a 15% wage cut on our workers. I said this yesterday. The 15% reduction in the employer's contribution amounts to a 15% reduction in the wages of the workers. Well, what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander!

Last year, I said that it would be worthy of Ministers if they set an example. Now, this year, the need becomes far more urgent. The Government has, as I said, forced a reduction on the wages of the workers. May I assure the Prime Minister that the public are waiting to know what is the response from his Ministers and from himself? I think they are entitled to ask this and they demand an answer. It was said last year that the Ministers were making a sacrifice, that they lose by coming into the political arena, into the service.

Mr Speaker, Sir, sometime ago, I tabled a question asking for the pensions and the gratuities that were paid to Ministers who gave up office. I was told, "We won't give you this. You can work it out yourself because they are all matters of public record." Well, we have worked it out and we have now published in the Hammer what gratuities Ministers retired at the end of 1984 were paid and what pensions they are drawing. Two Ministers should have received gratuities of well over $1 million and their pensions are about $15,000-$16,000 a month. It may be argued that, in the private sector, they might have been much better off. That is a hypothetical question. The public must be told why these pensions and gratuities are not adequate enough, and why there is a need to maintain these high salaries for Singapore Ministers and Ministers of State.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, first, let me ask the Member for Anson whether he thinks it was wrong that there should be Ministers in charge of Ministries.

Mr Jeyaretnam: No. But I think there are too many Ministries for a place like ours, with a population like ours. We could cut down on the number of Ministries.

The Prime Minister: Can I ask him which Ministries he would close down?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I can see clearly the need or the possibility of merging Ministries together, so that one Minister could be put in charge of both. The Ministries that come to my mind are Health and Environment. You can put them together. The question is, quite apart from whether the Ministries should not -

The Prime Minister: Answer the question.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Would the Prime Minister reply to the question of the over-supply of Ministers, particularly in his Office, the Prime Minister's Office, where we have three full Cabinet Ministers and two Ministers of State? Why is it necessary that he should have two Ministers in his Office? What are they doing? Would he please answer that and also answer the question about the salaries?

The Prime Minister: Since he cannot answer which Ministries he was going to close, can I ask whether he believes that it cost the Government any more to have an acting Minister as against a substantive Minister?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I can see what the Prime Minister's game is. We have only got 10 more minutes and he does not propose to answer my questions which are directed at him. So may we, Mr Prime Minister, because this is my motion for an amendment, have answers to my questions because we only have got 10 minutes more?

The Prime Minister: Is the Member for Anson aware that an acting Minister does not get the Minister's pay? He gets the pay of his substantive job.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Carry on. Answer my other questions.

The Prime Minister: So, Sir, we get a series of wild, reckless, incoherent, allegations based on the distorted workings of a sick mind.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Is it your mind or my mind?

An hon. Member: Yours.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been holding this office for 26 years. This June, it will be 27 years. It is a matter of public record - how many people are appointed to high office, how many I have removed. I run a trim ship. Both sides, and many outside this House, know that, and I am comforted to believe -

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I?

The Chairman: The Prime Minister is not giving way.

The Prime Minister: I have barely six minutes left.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Will you answer the questions without giving us a history?

An hon. Member: Sit down!

Mr Jeyaretnam: May we know what the Senior Minister is doing in your Office? What is the Second Deputy Prime Minister doing?

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a certain incoherence in the interventions.

Mr Jeyaretnam: There is none.

The Prime Minister: By way of illustration, this was in January when five appointments were removed - two Ministers of State, two Parliamentary Secretaries, and one Political Secretary. In their places, one Minister of State, two Parliamentary Secretaries and one Political Secretary were appointed. So there has been a trimming down of the Government. Two Ministers of State have been made to act. They stay as Ministers of State. Whether they remain as Ministers of State or substantively become Ministers depends upon how they perform.

Mr Jeyaretnam: On you.

The Prime Minister: It depends upon how they perform and I am the judge, yes.

There are also 75 other Members of this House who can test their capacity.

Next, this dreary business of what Ministers do. They do what I expect them to do. And if they do not do so -

Mr Jeyaretnam: Tell us.

The Prime Minister: I remove them.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What does the Senior Minister do?

The Prime Minister: I know he does not like the Senior Minister. He is tormented by him.

Mr Jeyaretnam: No.

The Prime Minister: But I consider him a worthy colleague.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What does he do for the last time?

The Prime Minister: He renders me service.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What service? Goes with you all over -

The Prime Minister: By way of illustration. We had a request for asylum recently.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Request for what?

The Prime Minister: For political asylum recently.

Mr Jeyaretnam: From President Marcos?

The Prime Minister: We had earlier made an offer for temporary stay at the height of the crisis.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May we have an answer to my question?

The Prime Minister: I am giving him the answer.

The Chairman: Will you please stop interrupting, Mr Jeyaretnam?

The Prime Minister: Why does he not desist and listen? Should it be offered? In a crisis, you take counsel, and we said, "Yes, we will offer him." The request came subsequently after the event. Should we now offer him or should we consult the de facto and de jure Government of the Philippines? We decided, and I was reinforced in my view by my Senior Minister, although some other Ministers disagreed with my views. I think that is valuable contribution, as judgment and if judgment -

Mr Jeyaretnam: $26,000 a month for that advice.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is for the public to judge that. I run the trimmest government anywhere in this part of the world and it is an honest, capable, competent one.

Mr Jeyaretnam: That is for the public to judge.

The Prime Minister: Indeed.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Well, we will see.

The Prime Minister: I think there are very few Prime Ministers who have won seven General Elections.

Mr Jeyaretnam: We will see whether you will win the next one.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, let us now settle this question of the pay.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes.

The Prime Minister: We have had a thorough debate. I have got exactly three minutes. Let me say this. When the civil servants take a pay cut, so do the Ministers. When they lose their CPF, so do Ministers. When they lose their half-month incentive pay, so do Ministers. There is a definite hierarchy in the structure of the Government and the civil servicve. He quotes his Hammer. I am not here to correct his figures. His figures are wrong. He cannot even calculate with a pocket calculator.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Tell us. I asked for those figures.

The Prime Minister: Let me say this. That a civil servant who entered the service in 1965, if he had retired at the same time as Dr Goh retired, he would get $ million. There is no magic in figures. We are talking in terms of relativity.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What did Dr Goh get?

The Prime Minister: About a million dollars.

Mr Jeyaretnam: More than a million dollars. That is what has been published.

The Prime Minister: No. You have miscalculated it.

Mr Jeyaretnam: But I asked for the correct figures and you hide them.

The Chairman: You are interrupting all the time, Mr Jeyaretnam.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, such behaviour demeans the House.

Some hon. Members: Hear! hear!

The Prime Minister: I am prepared to answer anywhere any place. I am trying to get across and I get nothing but the heckles of a street hustler. He talks about unconstitutional -

The Chairman: Mr Prime Minister, you are running out of time.

The Prime Minister: Could I not get consent of the House to answer his question on Political Secretary?

The Chairman: No, I am afraid not. Unless the Leader of the House moves a motion.