ALL-PARTY COMMITTEE OF PARLIAMENT

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Speaker: The motion is subject to signification of support by at least one Member. Does the motion have the support of any other Member?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: I support the motion.

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

That an All-Party Committee of Parliament with power to summon witnesses be set up to examine the justification for the recent increases in:-

(i) University fees;

(ii) public transport fares;

(iii) waste disposal charges; and

(iv) the price for water and to examine all future proposals for increases in:-

(i) fees charged in all institutions of learning funded wholly or partly from public monies;

(ii) charges for patients in Class C wards and those seeking outpatient treatment;

(iii) public transport fares;

(iv) charges for water and power supply and waste disposal;

(v) fees charged by government departments and statutory boards for administrative services; and

(vi) rents and selling prices of HDB apartments.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when my Party contested the last elections, I promised the electorate that if we were in Parliament, I would table a motion for such a committee to be set up. Parliament, however, did not sit until 26th May this year, almost five months after Parliament was elected by the electorate. And in the meantime, during that period of five months, the opportunity was taken to increase the university fees, transport fares, fees for buses, MRT, taxis, and to increase the fee for the collection of waste disposal from homes and finally to increase the prices for water.

There was no indication at all during the election campaign from the ruling Party that all these increases were in the pipeline. No indication whatsoever. Nevertheless, they immediately took steps to bring about these increases without so much as consultation or consent of the electorate. And it is in fulfilment of that promise that I had made to the electorate that I have now moved this motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I first of all propose to deal with the philosophical basis for this motion and the question there is, why am I saying that an All-Party Committee of this House be set up to examine all the increases that were imposed between the election and the convening of Parliament, and all future increases. Why this House? Because it has been suggested by, I think, a Minister that it is not for Parliament, it is for the Executive, and the Executive must take the decisions. It shows a complete ignorance of the accountability of the Executive to Parliament.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1954 when the political parties that were then in existence went to London for the All-Party conference to write a new Constitution for this country of ours, they were all unanimous in one thing, and that is, that our system of government should be a parliamentary democracy. And what that means is that Parliament is supreme, that Government should be made accountable to the people through Parliament. And it is Parliament that should be asked to vote on all matters that concern the people at large.

In my first speech in this Parliament, Mr Speaker, Sir, I spoke about this being the House of the people. That was not rhetoric, Mr Speaker, Sir. It is the House of the people. It is to this House that the people will look to, as I said then, for the airing of their views, for their views to be heard and given adequate consideration. We pay lip service to the fact that Singapore is a democracy. But it is forgotten that if we are a democracy, then it is the people who are the masters, and the House of the people (Parliament), as the agents of the people, should exercise the power of the people. They should, on behalf of the people, question all decisions of the Government, particularly decisions that affect and concern them very deeply. They may not be interested, Mr Speaker, Sir, on the dissolution of the Port of Singapore Authority. They will say good. But what they are concerned with is their lives, their day-to-day lives, and how they are affected by decisions taken by the Government. I have brought this motion to ask that the people, our citizens, be allowed to have a say in all decisions that affect their pockets and that is what really matters and that can only be done if the Government brings all proposals for increases in services and supplies to the people, to this House, for discussion and ratification. If that is not done, Mr Speaker, Sir, it will be to treat Parliament as a body that does not matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the efficacy of Parliament is not to be measured in terms of how many Bills it passes and how quickly it gets through its work. Today, we have seen no less than five Bills taken through their Third Reading. I doubt whether any other Parliament in any part of the world can equal this record. But are we proud that Parliament can pass five Bills all in one afternoon sitting? The efficacy of this House, the usefulness of this House, is to be measured in how it serves the people's interests, how it reflects the people's views, how it discusses their grievances. And so I say, Sir, that it is a sad reflection on our state in Singapore that these increases were brought about without so much as a "Aye" or "Nay" from our people.

If I may move from the philosophical basis on why I brought this motion in this House to the need for this House to control increases, such as we have had, and to monitor and check all future increases.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said, and I say it again, these increases strike at the pockets of our people and therefore why is it necessary for Parliament, the representatives of the people, to be consulted. It is simply because our citizens today find life very difficult, very hard, and it will be made harder by these increases. One of the words that is overworked in our society is affordable. Everything is affordable. And then we have the media reporting every now and then of an affluent society as though all our citizens are affluent. They have got money to spare.

If I may refer you, Mr Speaker, Sir, to some figures I have to show how affluent we are in this society of ours. I realise that I have only got an hour and time is running and Members have been here for well over five hours. But I have to, if I am to do my work, acquaint the House with some hard facts and that is this. Mr Speaker, Sir, 47.05% of the total employees earned below $1,500 per month. I have not taken it out of my head. It comes from the Labour Force Survey for 1996. And then if you go a bit further up, what you will find is 62.5% earned below $2,000. These are earnings. 62.5% of our workers earned below $2,000 a month. And I do not need to remind the Members that $2,000 does not go a long way in Singapore.

Singapore has now become one of the most expensive places to live in in this world. I have people coming from Australia, the United States, England and Europe, telling me how expensive Singapore is now. They are, Mr Speaker, Sir, appalled that there are still 47.05% of the workers earning below $1,500. And the question is how do they manage. Well, they may ask, "How do our people manage?" And they do that by holding down two or three jobs, moonlighting, working from 6.00 am perhaps to 11.00 pm, running from one job to another. It is also reflected in the average monthly income and I am again quoting the table provided in the Household Expenditure Survey for 1992/1993. The lowest quantile, that is 20% of our people get less than $1,093 by way of household income, ie, earnings from all the members of the family. That 20% of our population's average household income is only $1,093. When it comes to the next 20%, their average household income is $1,891. If we take the mean, it comes to about $1,492. So you have 40% of our population whose household income is well below $2,000 per month. The third 20% average monthly income is $2,778.

Some time ago, I think it was in the Select Committee proceedings of the last Parliament, figures were given that the average household income was something like $3,500. I checked this with the Statistics Department. I said, "How do you come to that?" And they said, "Well, perhaps, that is not quite correct because we were taking the top earners as well." And they said, "Well, we agree with you, Mr Jeyaretnam, that for 50% of the people, the household income would be well below $2,000 a month." So that is the position.

So we are not an affluent society, Mr Speaker, Sir. Of course, we have got in our society people who earn a lot, our Ministers and there are others in Singapore who earn a great deal. But it is for our workers and our lower wage people that I am speaking, not for the million dollar earners and their like. It is my proposition in this House that about 40% at least, or even more, are going to find it very, very difficult to meet these increased charges. Already, life is difficult and, instead of making it easier, we are making it more difficult for them.

If I may move on to the economic basis for this motion and that is this. We heard the Minister for Finance not very long ago, last month, say how the workers have contributed to the progress of Singapore and the need to keep prices down so that we are competitive and we can continue to make progress. It is all well and good, we agree with that. But if we are going to keep wages down so that our prices are competitive, then is there not a duty on us to see that our workers do not suffer as a result of that policy, that they are compensated by the Government doing everything it can to keep prices of goods and services supplied to them as low as possible? You cannot have it both ways. You cannot increase charges to the public and then tell them, "Oh no, you must keep your wages down." I think I read sometime ago the Secretary-General of the NTUC,who is also a Cabinet Minister,saying it would be wrong to ask the companies to increase wages just because of these increases.

So my third point on this is that it is economically sound. It makes good economic sense for us to try and keep prices of essential services to the people and, of course, when I am talking I am thinking of the workers, as low as possible. It makes good economic sense.

If I may now move to the various items for which I have asked for a committee to be appointed. First, of course, is university fees. We again pay lip service often enough to the idea that education is the key factor to our progress, that unless our citizens are sufficiently educated, we will not be able to face the challenges that lie ahead in the 21st century. But we stop with that. And what do we do? We increase the fees for those who wish to improve themselves.

These university fees which were announced on 19th March put an extra $600 for non-laboratory-based studies - Arts and Social Sciences, Business, Law, Accountancy. And that is only for this year. For next year, there is another increase of $600, so that it goes up by $1,200 from the present fee of $4,300 to $5,500. And then when we come to students doing Medicine or Dentistry, we put an increase of $800 for this year, 1997-1998, and then another $800 for the following year, an increase of $1,600.

One of the reasons, it would appear from this report, is that the universities wish to attract foreign students. They want to increase their present intake of 10% foreign students to 20%. And what do they do for that? They lower the fees that foreign students have to pay. Foreign students, who now pay 50% more than Singaporeans if they are from ASEAN countries and 100% if they are from other countries, will now only pay 25% more than Singaporeans. That is for this year. For the following year, they will pay just 10% more.

I do not quarrel with this. It will be good to have foreign students so that our students can compete with them and learn ideas that they bring into Singapore. But should it be at the cost of our students, our citizens? Are we looking to our students to subsidise the foreign students who are being taken into the university? It looks like that. I cannot, reading this report, see that there are many other reasons given. Of course, we know that the cost has gone up, but costs go up everywhere. And all universities do not immediately increase their fees. I know that in Britain recently, the new government has decided to revise university fees. But they have said people below a certain income will not be required to pay these new fees. The Prime Minister has made no bones about this. He says education is their top priority and they shall see that enough money is provided for the education of our citizens. So what are we doing in spite of our lip service that education is the key to our progress? In a number of countries, education is free in the universities.

If I may move on to public transport fares. Because of the enormous cost of owning a car in Singapore, our citizens, especially those earning below $2,000 a month, are forced to rely on public transport, and our workers are forced to rely on public transport. And so it becomes absolutely necessary that these public transport fares should be kept to the minimum.

We do not know why it was found necessary to increase the bus and MRT fares. There was a strange thing that happened. They used to say a strange thing happened on the way to the baths during the Roman times. We had CASE at first condemning the increases and then within a week doing a somersault and said they had examined and they found the increases justified. But the people have not been told why these increases are justified. Why is it that the companies are unable to keep the fares low and at the fares at which they were charging? Why is it necessary for them to increase the fares? Is it because they are perhaps spending too much on directors' fees? Or is it because their overheads are too high? Or is it because they have to pay dividends?

Public transport is a public undertaking, and it is the last thing that should be run for profit. Profit should not be the only motive in running public transport companies. My party, as far back as 1976, has advocated that public transport be nationalised and given over to a Government statutory board with strict control over the fares to be charged. Are there no other ways of keeping prices down and allowing the companies to break even? Have all the other methods been examined? We do not know. Is the public not entitled to know whether all other avenues have been looked at and that the increase is the last resort and it must be taken if the bus and MRT services are to be maintained? Let us be open. We talk all the time about transparency and how open we are. But I cannot see anything open about these increases in public transport fares.

Take taxis, for example. Taxi fares were increased because the companies proposed these increases. This is something which I have been speaking on for a long time. Why is it that individuals cannot be allowed to operate their own taxis? If possible and if they were allowed, the fares may not have to go up so much. But tied to companies, they find lots of reasons for proposing an increase in fares.

Then there is the diesel tax the taxis have to pay which is about five or six times, I am told, the ordinary tax that private cars pay. Why is that necessary? Could we not put them on the same footing or even cheaper than private cars and private vehicles, and ask them to pass on the savings to the public? Have we looked at all these alternatives to try and keep prices down? Or are we only interested in collecting as much money as we can? Is that the whole purpose of government, to make as much money as is possible, so that we can boast of our surpluses, so that we can boast of our huge foreign reserves?

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

6.45 pm

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I move on to the waste disposal charges? Again, there is no explanation given as to why the fees have to go up for waste disposal. If I may give you my own example. I stay alone and because there is very little cooking that is done in my apartment, there is hardly any waste that is thrown out every day. Very little is put out by a maid who comes in about three times a week to do a little bit of ironing and cleaning the apartment for me. Yet, I see on my bill that my waste disposal charges are $21.60. I do not know why. I am not complaining about my own bill, but what I want to know is how this is arrived at.

Next, the price of water. This, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we were told, was introduced to teach Singaporeans a lesson, and the lesson that Singaporeans had to be taught was that water is a precious commodity and it should not be wasted. We all agree with that. But who is being taught a lesson? Have we tried to think about this? Is it not obvious that the people who are being taught a lesson are the poorly paid, those who earn below $1,000 a month, those who earn, as I said in the Budget speech, $600 a month? They are being taught a lesson. How are our millionaires being taught a lesson? Will it lead them to use less water? Will it lead them to economise on the use of water? No. So it is our lower income citizens who have to be taught and punished. They have to be told, "You should not have too many baths perhaps, you should not be doing so much of washing, you have to cut down on all that now", whereas the rich people can go on using it and pay.

My Party, in making a public statement on this, suggested that if that was the real reason, ie, to teach Singaporeans that they have to conserve water, the Ministers should set an example and they should have the supply of water to their homes cut off for four or five hours a day. I see there was no response at all to my call. That would have taught our Singaporeans to do something saying, "There, we have our Ministers setting us an example. They realise the need to save water and they are prepared to do without water for four or five hours a day. So we also must play our part." But that was not responded. No other reasons were given because we have not been told that we have been asked to pay more for our water from where we are getting the water. Again, there is no explanation given apart from teaching people a lesson.

May I move on to the hospital charges that we are charging? I have got that in the second half of my motion. Sir, I have got the schedule for hospital charges from the Singapore General Hospital, and for our C class patients, we charge the standard ward a daily fee of $25, and we add to that a daily treatment fee of $11. So that is $36, and it does not include any other examination or treatment that has to be done, such as X-ray examination, laboratory tests, specialised tests and service, and whatnot. That is for our C class patients, standard ward. Tan Tock Seng Hospital is a restructured hospital. I am not talking about private hospitals. The C class patients have to pay $30 $20 for the bed that they sleep on and a daily treatment fee of $10.

Sir, again, if I may go back to the amount of time and labour that was lost last year in the Select Committee hearings into whether there was a subsidy or not in the health service provided. Of course, there has to be a subsidy. No one doubts that. But the question is: is it something to be flaunted about by the Government saying, "We are subsidising."? Or should it not be looked upon as an investment of our monies in our people. That is what it is. It is not a subsidy. It is an investment of our public money in, what we have always said, our only resource available to us, our people. So the question is not whether it is a subsidy but whether we are making enough investment in our people who are our only resource available to us in this country.

I have talked about the bed charges. May I talk a little bit about the outpatient charges? I have with me the bills that were rendered by the hospital to one of our senior citizens, 68 years of age, unemployed, no income at all, and I think he lives with his son and he had a sprain in the neck. He has to go regularly to the hospital because he suffers from other complaints. I think diabetes is one. But he has to go regularly to the hospital for check-ups. In June he had some sprain in his neck and he went to Tan Tock Seng Hospital where he was registered. For the three visits, he had to pay a total of $129.50. This is for outpatient charges. Of course, he had to find the money to pay. But he could ill-afford it because, as I said, he does not work. He has no income. I see the SGH consultation charge is $17 for subsidised patients. C class comes under subsidised patients. For every consultation he has to pay $17.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have also got the figures for a private hospital just across the causeway, not a Government hospital, not a Government restructured hospital. This is a specialist hospital in Johor Baru. I have got the charges because my sister is there at the moment and she is in a 6-bed ward and her daily fee comes to $55 ringgit. It is not a C class, but they call it according to the number of beds in the room, and a 6-bed room is the lowest. She has to pay $55 ringgit. If you take it at the exchange, that is lower than what our C class patients have to pay. But, as I said, it is a 6-bed room and I think in our hospitals we also have 6-bed rooms in B2, and what do we charge? $50. I have been to this ward and I must say that I thought they were running it very professionally in the treatment and the nursing care that is given to her.

Why is it that we are unable to keep our costs down? Has there been an examination into this? But more, has there been an examination as to whether instead of passing the increased cost to our people why it cannot be absorbed by savings from other expenditure? All these need to be thoroughly looked at and we have not looked at them at all.

Then we have got, in my list, fees charged by Government departments and statutory boards for administrative services. We pay taxes, income taxes, and yet the citizen is called upon to pay a fee under the Fees Act for all kinds of services supplied by Government departments and statutory boards. Take the police, for example, Mr Deputy Speaker. If you want a report, on behalf of an accused person, made against him, you have got to pay what they call a search fee first, $14. It does not matter whether the report was only made yesterday and you write today. So I do not know what search they have to make. But you have to pay $14 search fee first. And then you have to pay the copying charges and they come to $30, $25, or something. You write to the hospitals for reports, treatment, diagnosis of people who were admitted because they wish to pursue a claim, they might have been involved in traffic accidents, and what do you find? For the doctor to give his report, it will cost the patient - I stand corrected - I think, more than $100, just for an ordinary report to be given by the doctor of what he diagnosed and what the prognosis was. And if you want a specialist to report, then you have got to pay a lot more.

I could go on, Mr Deputy Speaker, giving examples of the fees charged by Government departments. That is not only Government departments, but also statutory boards. You go to HDB, ask them for something - administrative fee, my boy, down. "You pay administrative fee first before we give you the answer." Are all these necessary, making our citizens' life more difficult? They find life very, very hard. I know this because I talk to them and they tell me. They do not hesitate to speak to me. They tell me how they are finding life in Singapore.

Finally, there are the rent and selling prices of HDB apartments. Again, there has been really no examination as to the costing of these apartments for sale and about the rentals that are charged. Should there not be a costing done and this House acquainted and apprised of all these? So it is my proposal, and I urge this House, to say this afternoon that the Government should afford this House an opportunity to examine all increases in essential services supplied to our people, that we, this House, as the representatives of the people, should be given a chance to look at the increases and to pronounce on them, and not to be left to boards and the Government to increase charges. I have proposed that this should be an All-Party Committee. It would not serve its purpose unless it is a Committee that comprises all the parties represented in this Parliament. It is for the Opposition MPs also to be consulted so that they can put forward their views as they know it from the voters and the Committee can then report to the House. And I have proposed in this motion that the Committee should have power to summon witnesses. That is essential if you do really mean to do something about this. The Committee should have power to summon the directors, managers of these bus companies to bring their accounts, examine them, and to answer questions as to why they need the increase, equally with the university. We do not know the university accounts. But, above all, I keep saying this House should examine whether --

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr Jeyaretnam, your one hour is up.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Is an hour up, Sir?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am sorry.

Question proposed. 7.05 pm

Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak against the motion raised by the NCMP, Mr Jeyaretnam.

Sir, over the last few years the issue of cost of living in Singapore has become a cause of concern for many Singaporeans. In moving this motion, Mr Jeyaretnam has struck a sensitive chord among Singaporeans, especially those in the lower income group. In speaking against the motion, I do not intend to trivialise or be insensitive to the public's concerns over the cost of living. These concerns are real and have to be addressed in a dispassionate and objective manner. Sitting as I have done in the last hour or so and listening to the speech made by the NCMP, I am certainly glad that he is not representing the Government for I think what he suggests is a surefire way of bankrupting this nation and all that we have built in the last 30-over years.

Sir, the issue of cost increases is a serious matter certainly. The Government has on its own accord given this matter much consideration. If indeed life is not going to get any better but worse for Singapore, I think this matter is something which we all should take seriously. In 1992, the Prime Minister announced at the National Day rally that he would form a committee to review the concern that many had felt about the rising cost. The committee included representatives from all relevant segments of society, unionists, employers, academics, journalists, and MPs, including the Opposition ones. Mr Jeyaretnam's colleague, Mr Low Thia Khiang, was a member of that committee.

In August 1993, the committee published its report. It found that prices had risen in Singapore but it was not price increases which had contributed to the perception that the cost of living had gone up faster than income grew. It was in fact spending patterns that had changed. It does not take much to know that a double scoop of ice cream must surely cost more than a single scoop, and more people want double scoop ice cream today.

Sir, in 1996, arising from the misleading reports published by the SDP which tried to distort and confuse the price issue for political advantage, the Cost Review Committee was reconvened. The Workers Party was invited to join but it declined. I find it ironic that Mr Jeyaretnam, a WP member, would now seek to move this motion when it was his own party, together with the SDP, which declined to join the reconvened CRC in 1996 even though it was invited to do so. They had deliberately passed up an opportunity to contribute to the efforts to tackle the very problems and concerns of our citizens which he now claims to champion. With or without the presence of the Workers Party, the reconvened Cost Review Committee duly met and came to the same conclusions, and that is, prices had not risen faster than incomes.

It is only natural that we all should want a higher standard of living. We all work hard and we feel we deserve it. But a higher standard of living comes only from creating more value-added jobs. When our salaries go up, the cost of goods and services, especially those that contain high labour content, will also rise. The things we buy will cost more. If we work smart, our salaries will rise faster than the cost, and our standard of living will at the same time go up.

Sir, the way forward is for us to focus on productivity and innovation. For nine days, at the recent Budget debates, we had made proposals, raised suggestions, pointed out problems to the Ministers. I noticed that Mr Jeyaretnam had not submitted any question for oral or written answer by the relevant Minister on the subject of cost increases that he says he is concerned with. I find this extremely odd. It only leads me to question his real motive for pressing for an All-Party Committee to look into cost increases. But it is not too late. The window to ask questions is always open. Mr Jeyaretnam knows this better than I since I am a rookie in this House. Each time Parliament sits, there is opportunity for Mr Jeyaretnam to question Ministers and have his concerns raised and heard. He has raised this as a philosophical basis for his concern, and that is, Parliament, and not the Executive, must be accountable to the people. The fact that he is present in this House today shows that he has every opportunity to raise questions of his concern with the relevant Ministries and the relevant Ministers as to these cost increases. What is he here for today if he is not given the opportunity to raise such concerns that he has now raised today?

The Government is accountable to the people, I agree, and has never shied away from a reasoned justification of its policies. And I am sure that if Mr Jeyaretnam has good ideas on how increases in productivity can lead to higher wages for the people, the Government will be more than pleased to hear them. The Government has taken the recommendations of the Cost Review Committee very seriously and has taken up, in fact, the recommendations made by the CRC in its reports made in 1992 and 1993.

Sir, the openness with which the Cost Review Committee has dealt with the rising costs of living, the cooperation given by the Government Ministers and the Ministries, the fact that the CRC has been given full access to all relevant data and the Government's implementation of the recommendations of the CRC show that the Government takes the cost of living issues very seriously, contrary to what Mr Jeyaretnam has suggested.

Sir, I agree that we should take the issue of costs seriously in this House. We do not want to be caught in the rat race. But we cannot develop a handout mentality or take the easy approach of complete subsidy or handouts to the people. I think, if you want to be able to provide more for the people, the way forward is to ensure that our people continue to be productive and that the salaries of our people will continue to be commensurate with the productivity output of the employees and workers. And we can do this by being more competitive and by working smarter. The formation of an All-Party Committee for the purpose which Mr Jeyaretnam has outlined will only waste time and resources. I think we are better off focusing our time and energy on suggesting new initiatives in education, in building our transportation system, health care and infrastructure.

Sir, for these reasons, I do not support the motion.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, before anyone else talks, I wonder whether we have a quorum in this House. I think the quorum is 22. It shows the interest. I am told by the Clerk that the quorum is 22.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, there is a quorum.

Mr Jeyaretnam: We have.

Mr Deputy Speaker: There is a quorum. Resume your seat, please.

Mr Jeyaretnam resumed his seat.

Dr Toh See Kiat: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to answer one particular point by Mr Jeyaretnam, and that is, actually it is a very unfair sideswipe at the Consumers Association before he launched onto this tirade.

As far as the statement he made about CASE is concerned, he said something to the effect that CASE somersaulted on the public transport price increases. I believe this was a mis-report in the papers which a couple of days later the Straits Times, in its page 3, corrected and clarified, and the New Paper, on page 2, also ran a story explaining my point of view and describing my views at that time that there was certainly no somersault as far as CASE was concerned on the position on public transport increases.

In our first press release, what we had done was that we highlighted the fact that transport prices were watched by a watchdog called the Public Transport Council. They had seen all the figures. They had seen all the prices. They had seen all the justifications. And we were not going to second-guess them. Without the benefit of looking at those same figures and reasons, we felt, however, that it probably was justified but we were unhappy about certain issues which we then proceeded to raise. This had to do with the quality of service and the need for greater improvement before the commuter is convinced that there is justification. This was indeed why the Straits Times and the New Paper had to run corrections immediately.

As far as CASE is concerned, however, we have got a role which, I think, has been very badly misunderstood and I beg your indulgence, Sir, to explain for the benefit of Mr Jeyaretnam what CASE should do and has been formed to do.

CASE is essentially a members' organisation. It is not a Government body. It is not a statutory body. It is run by volunteers, like myself. We feel that certain things have to be done for this cause of consumers. And we have members who think likewise and they pay $25 a year to support us. We have got unions with thousands of members, 600,000 to be exact, and they support us by giving subscriptions to run the consumer services that we run.

Where CASE is concerned, we are therefore a private body, just like any consumers association around the world. We have no legislative power nor function to control prices, in other words, unlike in a command economy where you have a bureaucracy that fixes prices and controls price increases, Singapore is a market economy. In a market economy, the forces of supply and demand determine whether prices go up or down.

The function of a consumers association is to monitor the prices and to inform the consumer public what these prices are so that they can choose places where they can buy cheap things and avoid the places that are charging excessively. There is also the function of educating consumers that there is no need to buy from a certain shop because you can stretch your dollar by doing certain other things like, for example, buying house brands, and we do that too. We monitor prices and when we see sharp or unjustified increases, we call for a reason why this is done. When the reason is unjustifiable, we ask the price increaser to step down. And we have done this successfully too. There was once when pork prices were suddenly increased overnight allegedly because there was a shortage of pigs. We found out from the Primary Production Department figures which are publicly available that there was no shortage of pigs and therefore when we exposed that fact, the merchants had to back off.

Our job after highlighting unreasonable increases is to activate the consumer either to boycott those particular products or services, or to push for legislation to ensure that the consumer is protected, or to give adverse publicity, such as we have done with the pork prices, so that in the end people will back off by themselves. So this is the role of CASE, not to control prices, but to review what prices are so that the public together with us can move for changes. If we do not get the support of the public, then invariably we will fail in our pushes because we would be one voice against all the combined voices of the cartels and businesses that speak against us.

As far as Government increases are concerned, the Prime Minister has openly and publicly declared that CASE will be given full cooperation if CASE wishes to examine any Government increases and we are certainly ready to take on that challenge. However, price increases, whether it is the Government or private, come about because of several reasons, not all of which CASE should be speaking on. First of all, an increase could be because of higher costs. So if the higher costs are justified and the increase in price is commensurate with that higher costs, then in a market economy, we have to let it go. Secondly, price increases could go up because of a better quality of service or product. As Mr Sin has mentioned, somebody wants a double scoop of ice-cream or perhaps he wants a Haagen-Dazs rather than Magnolia. Then he pays a different price for it.

A third reason why prices go up is that it is very often as a policy tool by the Government. CASE reserves the right every time this is done to speak up if we feel that there is a need to. But invariably, in most of these instances, where the Government has decided, as a policy, to impose a fee or a price, it is for me, as a Member of Parliament and a politician to raise it in Parliament. The political aspect of the price increases is not for CASE to raise because CASE is bound by its constitution not to speak on political matters. All the consumers associations around the world are bound by a similar charter which has been laid down in the constitution of the Consumer International.

As far as political prices are concerned, Mr Jeyaretnam says that there must be an All-Party Committee, and I fully agree with him that there should be an All-Party Committee to review costs. Typical of Mr Jeyaretnam, however, being a Rip van Winkle, having slept for the last few years, he does not realise that this all-party committee already exists. Mr Sin has pointed out one very key committee and that is this very House because Mr Jeyaretnam can stand up at any time and question any Minister for figures. He says he could not get any figures on the university. He can ask for Written or Oral Answers and all the figures will be given to him. Mr Jeyaretnam, together with his other colleagues in the Opposition, is able to raise a motion to review any particular price increase. In fact, this House is an All-Party Committee to review any Government policy, prices, anything that Mr Jeyaretnam or his colleagues wish to raise. So we do not need to waste time debating the setting up of an All-Party Committee that already exists.

There are also other all-party committees that Mr Jeyaretnam may not realise. Mr Sin mentioned the Cost Review Committee. The Cost Review Committee invited both the Workers' Party and the Singapore Democratic Party to participate. If they declined, they could not cry wolf. They were summoned before the Cost Review Committee to give their part of the story and to give evidence to counter what the Cost Review Committee had said. They did, but they could not convince anybody. It is again not the fault of this House that that has happened.

The Cost Review Committee also had all kinds of participation from the labour unions, Government, academics, and, as I have mentioned earlier on, witnesses came from the civil service and the political parties. In a small way, I might also say that, in its review function, CASE has got an all-party element too. Of course, in this case, they are not political parties but they are parties from all round Singapore because CASE is an organisation that is available for membership to any person above 18 years old who lives in Singapore. So if Mr Jeyaretnam wishes to join CASE, I will extend him my welcome.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, I actually did not plan to speak. But since Members refer to me, particularly the Cost Review Committee, I wish to clarify certain things.

I do not know whether Mr Sin Boon Ann has read the 1992 Cost Review Committee. Have you? You have. Have you also read about my Minority Report inside? If you had, because you were quoting some conclusions from the Cost Review Committee, you will realise that in my Minority Report, I also stated that "I regretted that in particular in the case of housing prices, the HDB has failed to provide materials or data I requested to enable me to make a full review as to why there was a sudden increase in HDB prices."

As regards the 1996 Cost Review Committee and why I had decided not to sit in the Committee, I had made it quite clear publicly that I did not think it was correct to reconvene the Committee in the first place. I think there was a political purpose in convening such a Committee. It was not just purely to review the costs concerned. However, by not going into the Committee does not mean that you will lose the right to question any cost increases. As what Mr Sin Boon Ann and Dr Toh had mentioned, you can ask questions in Parliament and Mr Jeyaretnam has not raised about the cost increases during the Budget debate. That is the usual PAP rhetoric. If you do not ask you lose your right.

Let me put it here clearly. We will choose the time and the place to raise any question we like. So let us not take it that if we do not raise a particular question, we will lose our right and we cannot raise it again.

You cannot equate the Cost Review Committee with an All-Party Committee which is being proposed by my Party. The Cost Review Committee is basically an ad hoc committee. It was convened on a specific agenda in 1992 by the Prime Minister and, again, reconvened with a specific agenda. It is not a standing committee. Therefore, you cannot equate the Cost Review Committee with an All-Party Committee. For instance, I was a member of the Cost Review Committee, but I was not notified beforehand of any increases. And similarly, I share the same sentiments that Mr Jeyaretnam has, ie, why such increases of the various fares, as listed out in the motion, and what is the rationale. Some were reported in the press, yes, but there were some other questions.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not want to go on as many points have already been covered by Mr Jeyaretnam. Mr Sin is also worried that the committee, if it is formed, will somehow become a committee involved in giving handouts. Why must it be so? We are proposing a Committee to review prices. The decision of the Committee may not necessarily be that everything is free. It may not be the case, because we have to face the hard facts and figures and data. So we should not have a fixed mindset that when the opposition proposes such a Committee, it must be like that. That is what Members perceive it to be so.

Mr Lim Swee Say (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I did not intend to speak but since Mr Jeyaretnam mentioned that our Secretary-General, Mr Lim Boon Heng (Minister without portfolio), has said some things relating to workers, I feel compelled to respond.

Sir, as a new MP, I come to this House to try to do my best to serve the people and, at the same time, to learn from the other MPs on how we can do even better. So whenever any MP speaks, I will listen very intensely to see what I can learn from him. When Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam spoke just now, I paid a lot of attention because I wanted to know exactly what is his concern and whether there is any valid ground for his concern. The picture that Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam painted is one whereby the lives of the people have not gotten better, salary is low and the Secretary-General of NTUC has called on everybody to keep wages low. He said that we take in more foreign students at the expense of our local students, our public transport companies operate on the basis of profitability, we do not care about the people, the Government accumulates all the surpluses so that we can boast to the world that we have the highest budget surplus, and so on. When I listened to the way he described Singapore it really puzzles me. If Singaporeans today were to live in such a sad state of development, how come every four or five years when there is a general election, the people still return the PAP into power. And that reminded me of a story -

Mr Jeyaretnam: I will give you an answer.

Mr Lim Swee Say: Please let me finish.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Allow him to finish, Mr Jeyaretnam.

Mr Lim Swee Say: That reminded me of a story. One day, my son asked me, "Daddy, there are three ants lining up in a straight line, all facing the same direction. The first ant said, "There is one ant behind me." The second ant said, "Yes, there is an ant behind me." The third ant said, "There is also an ant behind me.""

My son said, "Daddy, how do you explain?" I tried to give all kinds of theories like the world is round, therefore, the first ant is behind the last ant. My son said, "No, daddy, the answer is very simple. Because the third ant didn't tell the truth."

Sir, having listened to Mr J B Jeyaretnam, I came to the same conclusion. Mr Jeyaretnam, basically, painted that kind of scenario which is, in my mind, highly illogical. And the only possible explanation is that he was not telling the truth.

I like to quote a few examples because from these few examples, we can see whether he actually told the truth. He quoted Secretary-General Lim Boon Heng, who is absent, and said that Secretary-General Lim mentioned that our Government policy is to keep wages down, and that the Secretary-General said that we should not increase wages, and to keep wages down. That obviously cannot be the case. I know what the Secretary-General said. Secretary-General Lim Boon Heng said that during times when the economic growth is slower, we have to keep our wage increase down. There is a big difference between keeping wages down and keeping wage increase down. For example, if a worker is earning $1,000 today and last year the wage increase was 7%. This year, we tell the worker that the economy is not doing as well as last year, competition is stronger and so on, therefore, accept maybe 5%-6% wage increase. What it means is that this year, with a $1,000 salary, go for $1,050. $1,050 is still higher than $1,000. But Mr J B Jeyaretnam twisted the words of the Secretary-General and said that the Secretary-General said that we should keep the wages down. When the man-in-the-street hears this he will say, "Wow, how can the Secretary-General of NTUC tell the workers this year you earn $1,000, next year keep it at $1,000, better still at $950." That obviously is not the case. We are talking about managing our wage increase. This is number one.

Number two is what Mr J B Jeyaretnam did not mention. He said that in Singapore 40% of our population have an average household income of $1,492. But what he did not say is that the real income of the Singaporean workers has been going up 5-6% every year for the last 10 years. What he did not say is that if you look at the world today, at all the OECD countries with high income today, in Europe, US and Japan, have their real wage increase gone up 5%-6% a year for the last 10 years? I dare to challenge Mr J B Jeyaretnam. Take a look at the number and I can assure him that the wage level in Singapore is going up by at least twice the rate in all these countries.

Sir, the bottom line is this. I would submit that, yes, many residents in Singapore obviously are concerned with cost of living. The reason is not so much because they feel that they are not able to sustain the present standard of living. They are talking about wanting to have a better standard of living and they want to have more of the better and faster. And I think there is nothing wrong with that. After all, what is the role of the Government? The role of the Government is to make sure that every Singaporean can live better tomorrow than today. And it is very good that Singaporeans aspire to have a better life because that aspiration is a driving force behind the progress of Singapore. And as responsible Members of Parliament, I feel that it is our responsibility here to understand the aspirations of the people and to work with the people of Singapore and see how Singapore can move forward faster and better, so that we can realise this vision of having a better life, rather than to turn this into something negative.

Sir, let me conclude. I learnt a lesson today that there are three types of people in this world. The first type are people who make things happen. The second type are people who let other people make things happen. And the third type ask, "What happened?" As Members of Parliament from the ruling party, our mission in life is very straightforward. We want to make things happen and we are charging forward all the time. As Members of the opposition party, I can understand that they choose not to do their best to make things happen because of their political interest. But I hope, at least in this House, they would behave as responsible Singapore citizens, at least let other people make things happen, rather than to keep on asking what happened and propose forming an All-Party Committee to try to slow us down. Because at the end of the day, if we cannot work together as one united country to move forward at a pace that we want to move forward, eventually, all Singaporeans will end up worse off.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, may I seek clarification from the Member?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: The Member says that an opposition Member in this House would not want things to happen and he urged that we should move forward as one united nation. Would he explain how this proposal of an All-Party Committee would not make things happen, and would not move the nation forward? On the contrary, I believe that an All-Party Committee is to make things happen.

Mr Lim Swee Say: I am more than happy to respond to that, Sir. Take, for example, in this House, opposition Member Mr J B Jeyaretnam just now mentioned again about the workers and appears to be very concerned for the workers of Singapore. When I first came into this House, I gave the benefit of the doubt to the opposition Members when Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr J B Jeyaretnam commented about the importance of training workers. I said very good. At least, we have opposition Members of Parliament who are equally concerned for the workers of Singapore. [Interruption].

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, do not interject.

Mr Lim Swee Say: Let me highlight this point. In this House, many Members of Parliament proposed cuts to the budget of the Ministry of Trade and Industry. Why did we propose cuts? Because we wanted the Minister for Trade and Industry to give a very specific response on what the Government is doing to retrain and upgrade the workers. Sir, it is sad to say that on those days when we were discussing workers' upgrading and training, I did not see Mr Jeyaretnam in this House. Firstly, I do not think he is very sincere about his interest in the upgrading of workers. Secondly, if he showed interest about that, why did he not propose a cut on the budget of the MTI? From that, when Mr J B Jeyaretnam proposed the setting up of an All-Party Committee to review costs and so on, it is very clear in my mind that the real interest in his mind is not the interest of Singapore citizens but his political interest.

On that note, Sir, I cannot but submit to this House that we must reject this motion soundly.

The Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Lee Yock Suan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is no need to set up an All-Party Committee of Parliament to examine fee increases by Government or Government-related organisations. Such fee adjustments are the responsibility of Government and have to be fully justified to the public. If necessary, they can be brought to the attention of Parliament and thoroughly debated. Members of Parliament, including elected and non-elected Members, are free to ask questions and to probe, query and criticise the Ministries concerned for their action. Ultimately, the Government is answerable to the voters who can give their verdict of the Government's performance at the ballot box.

The Government must have the political courage and conviction to govern well and decisively for the benefit of all Singaporeans. Many countries are in a log jam and are unable to extricate themselves from their structural difficulties, because their political leaders are unable or unwilling to act decisively in the interest of the country. For example, more and more cities are getting snarled up with traffic, not because their government officials do not know what to do, but because their political leaders are afraid to upset voters by taking unpopular but crucial action to remedy the situation before it is too late.

Singapore would have been faced with a similar situation years ago if the Government had not taken drastic action to control the vehicle population besides investing heavily to expand the road network, build the MRT and improve public transportation. Unpopular measures had to be implemented despite their political cost to the PAP. The end result is that the traffic has continued to flow smoothly, the economy has grown strongly and the voters have reaffirmed the confidence in the PAP Government.

All the recent fee and rate adjustments have been fully justified and explained to the public. Bus and MRT fares were raised by 10 cents per trip for cash payment. For payment by farecards, the fare for non-air-conditioned buses was raised by 5 cents per trip, but there was no increase for air-conditioned buses and the MRT. These adjustments are necessary to ensure that the bus companies and MRT remain viable as fares have not risen in tandem with the rise in operating costs over the last few years.

University fees have been increased slightly every year to reflect the cost increases and to move towards recovering 25% of running costs. University students constitute only about 6% of our student body but they use up about 20% of the education budget. With the target of recovering 25% of running costs, it means that taxpayers will continue to subsidise university undergraduates heavily to the extent of 100% of fixed costs and at least 75% of running costs.

Water rates have to be increased sharply to reflect the much higher cost of producing water by desalination. Water is a vital resource which must be priced correctly to encourage conservation and to enable us to reduce our dependence on external sources.

Coming close together, these fee and rate adjustments may appear to the public to have a large impact on our cost of living. However, it is actually not so. My Ministry has been monitoring these cost increases and their total impact on our consumer price index (CPI) and the impact is actually quite small. For the lowest 20% income group, the fee increases will raise inflation by 0.6 of a percentage point. Including the projected cost increases for non-governmental items, such as food, clothing, etc, the CPI for this group is expected to rise by 2% this year.

For the middle 60% income group, the corresponding figures are 0.4% for Government fee increases and 1.8% total CPI increase for this year. For the highest 20% income group, the corresponding figures are 0.3% for the fee increases and 2.5% overall. If we include other secondary effects, the overall inflation this year is estimated at 2-2.5%. This is close to the average of 2.4% over the past six years and is one of the lowest inflation rates in the world.

The Government is mindful of the impact of the fee and rate increases on lower income Singaporeans and has implemented various schemes to assist them. These include the rebates for utilities, rentals and charges for service and conservancy. The rebates extend even to those living in 4-room HDB flats.

For those who do not live in HDB flats, there is the CCC assistance scheme which has a $3 million fund to help them. Families with less than $1,500 monthly income can apply under this scheme.

As for the university, polytechnic and ITE fees, there are various loans, bursaries and scholarships to assist needy students including those awards funded by Edusave and the CCCs.

The Government reconvened the Cost Review Committee last year to relook at the issue of cost of living in Singapore. Unfortunately, both the Workers' Party and the SDP declined to have their MPs sit on the Committee. During this year's budget debate, the opposition Members had ample opportunities to raise the fee increases for debate but failed to do so. Under these circumstances, we can only conclude that Mr Jeyaretnam's proposal for another committee to examine fee increases is mere politicking.

Sir, I would just like to respond briefly to some of the points that were made a while ago in the debate by Mr Jeyaretnam. I do not want to take up much time because it is getting late and, if need be, we can always have another discussion on another day. And I am quite sure that we will not hear the end of this. We have got quite used to listening to Mr Jeyaretnam and he is always going back on the same old issues.

He quoted a lot of figures on incomes. I cannot dispute them because I do not have the figures here, but I presume that they are accurate. He claims that because about 62% of Singaporeans earn less than $2,000 per month, therefore, our incomes are low. Low compared to what? He said that foreigners find Singapore expensive. Yes, this is because they live in hotels, they drive around in cars, they eat in restaurants.

Mr Jeyaretnam: They live here.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: They live here. It goes to show that they are willing to come here and work on our local wages. Australians and New Zealanders find that our wages are attractive enough and that it is worth their while to come here and work, and not in their own countries.

Let me give him another example. I do not want to go into figures. But it is a fact that teachers in Singapore are paid higher than teachers in UK. He can check this out. Another example. He may have read this sometime back. A foreign maid working in Singapore is paid about $300 a month, some may be more, $350. There are stories of Filipino maids in Singapore who are able to bring back their income and employ maids in the Philippines and still have income left over for their families. That goes to show where our position is. It is no point quoting figures and giving his opinion. What is the factual situation? He goes on to say that Singaporeans work two or three jobs to survive. Where are the figures to show this? This is another example of just exaggerating and basically telling a lie.

Another instance of untruth. He says, "Is it a case that because there is no explanation, because we are going to cut down the fees for foreign students to encourage more to come in, from 50% add-on to local fees for ASEAN students and 100% for non-ASEAN students, down eventually to 25% and 10%, that this means that our students are subsidising them." That is not true. It means that the Government will be paying more for these foreign students. That is a fact.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Why not for our students?

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Also for our students. We are paying. The costs are going up. The Government is bearing its share of capital cost entirely and about 80% now of the running cost. And as costs go up, both Government's share and the parents' share go up. But it is a matter of policy, and I think it is a good policy, that we get our students to pay 25% of the running cost, because they are using up a lot of resources and eventually they will earn high incomes. We are giving them a long time to pay. They can borrow from the universities at zero interest rate until they graduate, and thereafter they repay the loan over 20 years. I think we are generous enough. Many countries, including UK, which Mr Jeyaretnam is always looking towards, are trying to raise fees. Otherwise their universities will go bankrupt.

Another instance of falsehood. He said, "Oh, the poor are affected by the water rate increases." Does he not know that in fact we have increased the rebates for PUB bills, service and conservancy charges, so that they more than cover the fee increases for 1-room, 2-room and 3-room flats? For 4-room flats, they cover about half the increase. So please get the facts right. Do not come here and spread falsehoods. He goes on, but I do not want to go into too much detail.

Basically, what he wants is to have an All-Party Committee. To do what? This is already an All-Party Committee. In fact, the Members of Parliament are being very patient with him. We have stayed back until almost 8.00 pm to listen to him for one hour, and he is not even an elected Member. He is an NCMP. How many opposition Members of Parliament are there in this House? Three Members, including him. How much time have they taken up? We have been very patient listening to him - MPs' time, journalists' time, wasting our resources, always going over the same issues. I think if he were to summarise his points, think them through carefully and not spread falsehoods, he will make a greater impact on this House.

On that note, Sir, I would like to ask the House to resoundly reject the Member's motion.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek some clarification from the Minister?

Mr Deputy Speaker: You may.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, the Minister said just now that eventually the Government is responsible for whatever increase and the voters will decide through the ballot box. Is the Minister implying that since Singaporean voters have supported the PAP in the last election, therefore, Singaporeans will also accept whatever increases that are imposed by the PAP Government? That is the first clarification. My second clarification is this. Mr Jeyaretnam mentioned about people who need to take on two jobs. He said this was a lie. Is it not true that over the years the number of double income families has increased significantly, although they may not need to do two jobs? But the fact is that the number of double income families has increased significantly over the years. Many of these families, from what I know, both husband and wife need to work to sustain their standard of living here.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: On the first point, it is obvious that at every election the public will judge our performance in totality, the pluses, the minuses. These fee increases have not gone down quietly. There have been so many letters in the press. When we meet the people in the meet-the-people sessions, they complain to us. No fee increases are popular. But they are able to see the total picture. Have their lives improved? Has the Government been honest? Have we run away with public funds? Have we improved the overall structure of our economy and moved forward? They must take all that into consideration and cast their votes. If, as the Member says, we have done so badly, at the next election, they can throw us out.

On the second point whether there are double income families, as he spoke he realised that it is not quite the same thing, is it not? To say that one person is doing two or three jobs is quite different from saying the husband and wife choose to work or have to work. It is quite a different thing. Each of them is doing one job. And they are doing it because there are a lot of job opportunities. Incomes are good. They want to invest in properties. They want to move from a 3-room flat to a 4-room flat to a 5-room flat and to private properties. They buy a 3-room flat from HDB for maybe $30,000 in the past. Now they sell it for $200,000. That is what people want to have. They want to invest. That is why they feel that their cash flow is rather tight. They also want to have a higher standard of living. They want better things in life. These things cost money.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, would you wind up the debate?

Mr Jeyaretnam: This is my reply, Sir?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes. Please do not repeat what you have said earlier.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes. But may I assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I do not intend to take one hour. The reason is this. Let it be made clear that I have not found anything with respect to all the speakers, including the Minister, on which I should have to spend an hour to reply. By the way, the Minister contested Cheng San and he thinks he won because of the voters choosing to vote them. If he would like to have an inquiry, I would be quite happy to assist, as to why the PAP candidates were elected. Let us have a public inquiry.

May I come back? We have the first speaker and what do we hear from him? Nothing new. It is a repetition of what we hear from the PAP ad nauseam, taken up by the press, taken up by the radio and television, "Productivity must go up". That is all. Nothing about the concerns of the people. Then we have Dr Toh from CASE making a spirited defence of CASE. I have to mention this because despite what he said, I have yet to come across CASE really taking up the Government on any increases.

Dr Toh See Kiat rose -

Mr Jeyaretnam: Do you want to answer that?

Dr Toh See Kiat: Yes. I can ask him to refer to the newspapers for the year 1990 and count how many times CASE brought up the issue of Government fee increases.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I have not seen CASE challenging the Government trying to produce convincing arguments to the Government as to why it should not go up. I know they talk whenever our prices go up in the shops and markets.

Dr Toh See Kiat: They were Government fee increases I am talking about, Sir.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Perhaps you can send them to me and I will look at them.

Dr Toh See Kiat: I would be pleased to do it.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Then we have a Member, I do not know whether he is from the NTUC, who wanted to speak up for Mr Lim Boon Heng. Again, I am sorry, I am afraid I do not think I could follow him through his speech. I was not saying anything false about what Lim Boon Heng said. What I saw reported was that he was telling the workers that it would be wrong to pass on the increases to the employers, that they should not expect wages to go up because of the increases. That is what I was attacking. He missed the point. That is coming from the Chief of the workers.

Finally, to answer the Minister. Again, he talks about falsehoods. It shows, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that the Ministers and the PAP Members are out of touch completely. If Mr Lee Yock Suan is serious, I will ask him to come and see the grass cutters of whom I spoke at Budget day, and ask them whether they work in two jobs at all. Do not be so easy with your accusations of falsehoods. I have heard from a number of people who work two jobs -

Mr Lee Yock Suan: How many grass cutters?

Mr Jeyaretnam: How many? Well, several told me. Have you tried to make a survey?

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Does that mean many Singaporeans are doing double jobs, triple jobs? Two, three, four reasons? Therefore, a lot of Singaporeans are doing many jobs?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Please try and understand. Have you made a survey of how many people hold down two or three jobs? Have you tried to find out the numbers? Have you? I cannot do it. You are the Government.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Please address your views to the Chair.

Mr Jeyaretnam: All right, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sorry. This is the sort of talk that we hear from the PAP. My Party's Member in Parliament asked a simple question of the Member on my left how this motion does not go forward in doing something and he does not answer that. He completely skirts it.

Mr Lim Swee Say rose -

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, would you give way?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes.

Mr Lim Swee Say: I just want to clarify. Sir, if the purpose of setting up this All-Party Committee is to make things happen for Singapore, I will be the first to vote for it. But if the purpose of this All-Party Committee, which I think it is, is to try to make things happen for the political interest of the Workers' Party, I see no reason why the people of Singapore, including the Members of this House, want it to happen.

An hon. Member: So something happened. It still happened, right?

Mr Lim Swee Say: But it happened for the wrong reasons.

Mr Jeyaretnam: With respect, I am sorry. Maybe it is me. I am unable to follow this kind of reasoning. Maybe it is just me. But frankly, I am unable, Mr Deputy Speaker, to follow the kind of reasoning that we are hearing.

But what all the speakers miss, what all the speakers overlook, Mr Deputy Speaker, is this. Why should the increases not be brought to this House? If the increases are justified, there should be no problem of bringing the increases to this House and justifying them. Why should they not? Is this House, is this Parliament, not the supreme authority for Singapore? We get this lip service of accountability. But accountability means that Government is called into question in Parliament and Government answers to Parliament on everything. That is what it means. It does not mean Government makes the decisions and Parliament should not be consulted about it. It is the very antithesis of accountability. Reference was made to the Cost Review Committee. As my Party's member colleague in Parliament explained, that was formed, was it in 1990 first?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: 1992.

Mr Jeyaretnam: 1992. Thank you. That was formed for a specific purpose. And at the end of it, when it submitted its report, it ceased. It was what we lawyers would term functus officio. It had no more life. It was not a standing committee of Parliament. And then last year, an attempt was made to recall that committee, and the Member consulted with me and I told him that the committee was functus officio. "You cannot just revive a committee which is functus officio. You got to appoint a new committee. Parliament should again appoint a new committee if it wanted it. And that is why the Member did not take part in that committee.

But what I am proposing is something quite different. I am proposing, as the Member said, a permanent All-Party Standing Committee of Parliament which will monitor all increases in the services that I have listed - the university fees, the transport fares, and all the other charges. And that All-Party Committee will submit its report to Parliament and Parliament can then ratify the increases. What one forgets is that, under the Constitution, Government may not levy any tax, any charge without the approval of Parliament. Of course, these are not taxes, but they are analogous to taxes, because most of the population will be called upon to pay these taxes. Therefore, should Parliament not be consulted? Should Parliament not have a chance to discuss and say what it has to say on it? And more so, what the opposition has to say on it. Were the opposition parties consulted about the increases?

The trouble about Singapore is that for the last 36 years, this country has been governed by just one party - a party that believes that it can do no wrong, a party that thinks that what it does is best in the interest of Singapore, a party that does not allow any dissenting views, a party that does not call for valid contributions from any other persons in Singapore. It takes all its decisions by itself. And this is an attempt now to correct that. Not just have one party making all the decisions but letting the people of Singapore make the decisions through their representatives in Parliament, and that of course means not only the ruling Party but the opposition Members in Parliament. And that is why I say it is important that opposition Members be on that committee.

Finally, it is said, if the PAP has not done well for Singapore, has not served Singapore well, why is it at every four years or so they are returned to power? That again, Mr Deputy Speaker, is another story. And if we are sincere in wanting to find the answer to that question, I suggest that we have a public inquiry and I will be very, very happy to assist at that inquiry.

Question put, and negatived.

Motion accordingly negatived.