WIDENING INEQUALITIES IN SOCIETY

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

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

Mr Low Thia Khiang: I support.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I support the motion.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, I beg to move,

That this House expresses its deep concern at the widening inequalities in our society and, recognising that the inequalities may lead to unrest, calls upon the Government immediately to put together a programme to lessen the inequalities.

Mr Speaker, Sir, through the media, completely subservient to the ruling party - the Government - a press and TV which see their role simply as the voice of the Government, the Government has, over the years, put out an impression that Singapore was an affluent society, that everything was affordable, and people really had nothing to worry about. Because of the media serving purely the Government, this impression gained acceptance not only amongst some people in Singapore but also outside Singapore. But that only gave a picture of a part of the society, not of the whole society.

Occasionally, because it could not be suppressed, there were peeks at the level of poverty in Singapore. Sometimes it surfaced that there were people who were living at extreme poverty level, homeless, thrown out of HDB apartments, but they were soon forgotten, dismissed as isolated cases.

This claim of being an affluent society, of a society where everyone was able to afford not only the basic needs but even the better things in life, defied the statistics on wage levels and other statistics that indicated the level of income in Singapore. But, nevertheless, the claim continued to be made. We even had an officer from the Statistics Department appearing before a Select Committee - I think it was in 1995 or 1996 - claiming that the average household income in Singapore was $3,500. I drew attention to this when I spoke in this House on 25th August 1997 on the appointment of a parliamentary committee to review prices. I said then that I had found it difficult to understand the statement that the average household income was $3,500, and that I had checked it with the officers of the Statistics Department and they had admitted to me that that was not quite accurate, that for 50% of our population, the average household income was well below $2,000. In fact, if one looks at the figures, for 60%, it is well below $2,000. And yet there was that claim made before the parliamentary committee. The Opposition, and particularly when I had tried to bring up this question of poverty in Singapore, was ridiculed and laughed at. I remember that when I was in the House in the years 1981 to 1984, I was berated for an interview that I had given to a foreign journalist that in an affluent society, there were still some people who were starving. But, as I said, I was not speaking out of turn. And if one really looked at the statistics put out by the Department of Statistics, one can see the extent of poverty that exists in Singapore.

May I illustrate, Mr Speaker, Sir? In 1989 - 10 years ago - there were still 20,100 workers whose wages were below $200 a month, and there were 74,300 workers whose wages were well below $400 a month, making a total of 94,000 workers who were earning below $400 a month. In 1999, last year in question, there were still 14,700 workers earning below $200 per month, and 33,700 earning below $400, making a total of over 48,000.

It is important to note that between 1998 and 1999, the figures in these two categories of wage earners had increased. There were more people in 1999 earning below $400, as against 1998. So their incomes were going down. There were more people earning below $400.

The income gap after 1999 began to widen because the salaries in the top sector were going up, whilst the workers remained down at the bottom. So, we are in the position today of having a society where Ministers earn over a million dollars a year. I see in the last sitting of this Parliament, the Deputy Prime Minister made a statement about the revisions. I was not here then. The salary of the Prime Minister was given, after the revision, as nearly $2 million annually. No figures were given for the salaries that were to be paid to the Senior Minister and the Deputy Prime Ministers after the revision was made. The other Ministers would be paid, after the revision over $1 million annually.

It is not politics of envy, Mr Speaker, Sir. No doubt, it will be labelled as one. But, seriously, we have to consider and ask ourselves a question: how is it that in a society the lowest employee gets below $200 a month and the Ministers earn over $1 million a year? That is nearly $100,000 a month. Are we to be proud of that fact? What does that say for ourselves as a society? Does it say that we are concerned with the under-privileged, the people who do not have enough? Or does it say that we are a society that shows a callous disregard for those down below and allows those who are able to go on earning more and more and more without any ceiling? We should ask ourselves that question. What does it say about Asian values of which this Government makes a lot. Is it Asian values that a society with this yawning gap is acceptable? I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it is an affront. But if it is argued that it is not contrary to Asian values, then let me say I do not think very much of Asian values if the Asian values can tolerate this great disparity in income.

What is the present poverty line in Singapore? I would commend to the Government that one of the immediate things they should do is to set up a Commission to inquire into poverty in Singapore, to admit truly and honestly that we do have poverty in this society and that the Government is prepared to take it seriously.

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Jeyaretnam, can you allow the Government Whip to move a procedural motion? Could you please return to your seat?

Mr Jeyaretnam resumed his seat.