水和电是现代生活不可或缺的必需品。在乡村时代，付不起水费可到水井打水，付不起电费买盏煤油灯就可在夜间照明，请问在现代社会的新加坡你还能这么做吗？因此，水电收费率的波动对家庭的开支产生直接的冲击。不久前，因为燃油的市场价格突然上扬，电费上涨了22%，不少家庭就因此而面对电费突然增加而焦虑不堪。

如何确保一般的家庭不会因水电费大幅度波动而捉襟见肘是一个负责任的政府所应思考的问题。政府的应对，如以往一般向人民解释电供的收费率和燃油市场挂勾，是“市场”的问题。工人党认为这不单是“市场”的问题，也应该是政府的问题和责任。政府应该探讨电源供应公司所订立的价格，所赚取的回报率是否合理。如何设立有效的机制以避免“市场”问题造成家庭开支大幅度上涨而引起不安，如何通过电供收费率架构的改变使一般的家庭支付较低的电费并同时鼓励人们节省用电。

电源供应商的利润
目前我国的电源供应通过四间公司。第一是发电厂，其专职是发电。第二是新能源电网，其专职是通过输电的网络把电输送到各用户的门口。第三是新能源服务，其专职是阅读电表、寄发帐单和收取电费。第四是能源市场管理局和能源市场公司，其主要的专职是负责和监控电力系统的运作和能源市场。除了发电厂，其他的都只此一家，别无分店，但每一家都要赚取利润。这是从PUB负责电力供应变成能源市场后的情况，也是政府把电力供应私营化和市场化之后的结果。

以目前每千瓦小时30.45分的电费和各个有关的公司的收费率来计算，你所支付的每10元的电费的分配如下：

每10元电费的付费分配表

虽然最大部份用户所支付的电费落入发电厂的口袋中，但如果其他有关的公司认为投资回报不够或者其盈利太低无法向股东交待，也必须提高服务费，这也同样会影响电供的收费率。此外，在政府把发电厂售卖给私营集团，什至有些是外国的大财团后，我们怎么确保这些唯利是图的大财团不会通过电力供应大事榨取以取得高盈利而剥削用户呢？如果说我国有三几间发电厂，通过自由市场的竞争就可以互相制衡并使得用户获得更有效益的服务和更低的电力价格；哪公共交通和政府医院私营化之后，我们又是否都享受了更好的服务，更低的收费？

因此，我们应该关注这些和电力供应有关的机构如何计算电供收费率，尤其是发电厂的盈利率以及政府如何有效监控这些公司以避免电费成为家庭沉重的负担。

稳定电供收费率的机制
发电厂依赖燃料推动发电机来发电，我国的发电厂多数以燃油和天然气发电，其他的能源科技尚未趋向成熟的阶段，也不符合经济效益，所以，燃料价格的波动会影响电费是可以理解的。要减轻燃料价格大幅度波动造成电费突然上涨，就必须设立稳定燃料价格的机制。但是，设立这种机制少不了钱，如果单靠各别以谋利为目的的私营能源公司来进行稳定燃料价格并期望他们以此来回报消费者是不实际的。政府应该积极介入设立稳定燃料价格的机制。

政府应该考虑和发电厂共同设立一个独立的基金，共同分担发电用的燃料价格波动的风险。从其他设立类似稳定电费机制的国家的经验来看，虽然对应该如何更有效利用基金来运作有不同的看法，但这类基金基本上都达到了稳定电供收费率的目标。我国可研究这类基金的详细运作程序和其他国家操作此类稳定电费机制的实际经验，设立符合我国国情的机制。

分层计算电费同时鼓励节省用电
目前，家庭用电的收费率一律为每单位30.45分。这种统一的收费制未考虑到电供是现代家庭、不论贫富的必需品，只要负担得起，不论用电量多大，其收费率还是一样，这就不利于鼓励用电较大的家庭节省用电。另一方面，收入低而家庭开支捉襟见肘的国人不论如何节省用电，也得支付和高收入家庭、有能力支付更高的收费率一样的电费。况且，一个家庭无论如何节省用电，还是必须电供以维持如电冰箱，电灯的基本需要。

因此，工人党建议能源市场管理局考虑要电源供应公司制订分层计算电费的收费制。最低层的基本收费率可只收取电供的成本，其他层次的收费率则逐步提高。电供公司可从用电量大的家庭所缴交的较高的电费率中获得更大的利润以弥补向用电量少的家庭只收取发电成本的电费率而无盈利的情况，总的来说，电供公司最终还是有利可图。

香港电费的收费率就是以分层式来计算的。香港的电费有6个累进的收费率，类似目前我国水供的收费方式。例如，首150个单位的电费为最低层的基本收费，接下来的150个单位，每单位以最低层的基本收费+2分计算。再接下来的200个单位，每单位以最低层的基本收费+4分计算。以此类推，其最高一层、即1001单位以上，每单位的收费则是最低层的基本收费+12分。香港和新加坡的电供结构和发电厂的状况并不完全相似，我国也不一定要根据其收费率，但其以分层的方式来计算电费却是我们可以借鉴的一个模式。

基本上，分层计算电费的建议主要在修改目前电供公司的收费率结构，用电量相对较少的较低收入的家庭可以不必负担如高收入家庭一样高的电费收费率，从而减轻生活的负担。这或许会使电供公司无法获得其所要求的高利润的目标，但是电供公司整体上还是有利润，也不必因此而要求政府提供津贴。市场经济的特性是私人企业可在市场的供求原则下追寻最高的盈利目标。不过，我们应该考量的是电力供应可不是一般的消费，是所有家庭都必需的生活消费，政府在把电供私营化、企业化的同时，有责任通过调控市场的收费机制，缓解其对低收入家庭和一般收入的家庭所带来的冲击。

分层计算电费的收费渐进制如果制订得合理，一般收入的家庭如果节省用电，也可减轻电费的负担。同时，由于电用量越高，收费率也越高，最终所需支付的电费也高，这会刺激消费者节省用电，避免用电量超过某个收费的层次而得支付更高的收费率，从而达到鼓励人们节省用电的目标。

小结：
虽然政府在一年一度发布财政预算时会把不同数目的财政盈余依住屋的类型储入个别家庭的水电储值户头，协助低收入的家庭应付水电费的负担，但重要的还是如何减轻每个月的水电费负担。工人党认为修订分层计算电费的收费渐进制，通过平衡商业利益和消费者的利益，以免电供公司在电供私营化后以自由市场为名获得过高的盈利，长远来说，可缓和国人所面对支付高电费的生活冲击。

As a law student in the 1980’s, I was imbued with idealism and a pretty strong sense of justice and how governments should behave in a liberal democracy. I lapped up what my lecturers taught. But before I could even complete my law degree, I discovered that Singapore was not made in the image and likeness of Western democracies.

In 1986, the government decided that it was not happy with the way the Law Society had conducted itself i.e. having Francis Seow as its President, and actively campaigning against restrictions on the foreign press. So it decided to amend the Legal Profession Act to place conditions on who could run for office in the Society. Select Committee proceedings were held and televised. One by one, the lawyers in the Law Society Council were grilled on national television about how they were not fit to hold office. One was even quizzed about her connections with the Workers’ Party. Detentions under the Internal Security Act of alleged Marxist conspirators followed soon after. Exactly what did the rule of law mean in Singapore? As a young law student, I was perplexed, and in need of answers.

At about the same time, Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, or JBJ as we know him, was fighting huge personal battles. He was the incumbent MP in Anson constituency, having won the by-election in 1981 and been re-elected in 1984. News broke about him being convicted of an offence involving a donor’s cheque to him; he was seen clutching his Bible as he entered Queenstown Remand Prison to serve a prison sentence. Consequently, JBJ was also disqualified from law practice. He appealed against his disqualification to the Privy Council in London, our highest appeal court then.  In the course of their judgment, the Law Lords in London observed that JBJ’s conviction was wrong and that he had suffered a “grievous injustice”. This was basically brushed aside by the authorities. JBJ’s disqualification from law practice and from standing for elections for 5 years remained. Within a few months, the government abolished legal appeals to London in disciplinary cases involving lawyers, specifically citing JBJ’s appeal!

Nearly 10 years later, campaigning began for the General Elections held in Jan 1997. Tang Liang Hong had teamed up with JBJ to contest Cheng San GRC. The atmosphere was meteoric, with the ruling party marshalling its full arsenal to label Tang a Chinese chauvinist. As I think back now, Tang’s shouts of “Merdeka” at a lunch time rally at UOB Plaza still ring in my ears to this day. So high, it seems, were the stakes at GE 1997. On New Year’s Day 1997, on the eve of Polling Day, JBJ stood at the WP rally stage at Yio Chu Kang stadium and said that he had with him Tang’s police reports against “Goh Chok Tong and his people”.  For that statement, 8 legal suits were commenced in the High Court against JBJ. Deeply troubled and upset, I wrote to JBJ enclosing a donation. Thus we became friends.

Occasionally, I visited him in his law office. As he was representing Tang in legal suits as well, JBJ’s office was full of piles and piles of legal documents and affidavits filed. It is not an exaggeration to say that one had to tip toe through the piles in order to move around. JBJ would be busy drafting replies with the help of his lone secretary, Mrs Chiu. It gave the David and Goliath story new meaning.

As the months passed, JBJ had to pay all sorts of damages, or face bankruptcy. In early 1999, I remember receiving a work bonus. With all my heart, I gave it to him, hoping it would somehow forestall what was to befall him. I know of many others who made contributions. Indeed, JBJ seemed to be regularly saddled with big amounts to pay, at one point about half a million. What were our contributions in the deep pit of defamation damages?

Around that time, 3 polytechnic lecturers decided to make a short film on JBJ, to be aired at a local film festival.  JBJ invited me to lunch with him and then to go to the launch of the film. When we arrived at the launch venue, we discovered to our surprise that the film had been delisted from the programme, because it had not been passed by the Board of Film Censors. The lecturers were not at the launch, and JBJ told me he could not contact them for many days. Later, there were reports that they were being investigated for an offence under an obscure section of the Films Act. That section continues to haunt Singaporeans today, but probably not for much longer, as the People’s Action Party has indicated that they have already made political films videos about themselves which they will be showing once the law is amended!

Around the year 2000, I invited JBJ to a small birthday party at my family home. Several friends and my family were there. As with most of my family occasions, alcohol was always available for merry-making. Though JBJ was a whiskey man, he whispered to me that as it was Holy Week (in the Christian calendar, the days preceding Good Friday), he did not “mean to be sanctimonious” but would not want to drink. As I recall, a clergyman among my friends assured him that his salvation would not hinge on that evening alone…and thus was he persuaded.

After he became a bankrupt in 2001, he resigned from the Workers’ Party. I joined the Party in Nov 2001 when Mr Low Thia Khiang was Secretary-General. Because of this, I believe JBJ was not happy with me and we thus became somewhat estranged. In the last few years, our dealings were minimal and formal. But when he started the Reform Party, the Workers’ Party leadership turned up in force at the Reform Party’s inaugural dinner in July 2008. Despite whatever differences, we could not forget his contributions to the continuity of the Party and his leadership through various crises.

I could not say that I knew JBJ well. But from what I knew, he was a God-fearing man who stuck to his guns and moved many by the deep sacrifices he made for the sake of his beliefs. Did he pay too high a price? If he were alive, I believe his answer would have been an emphatic: “No!”

“It was 15 minutes to 8am on 30 September 2008 when I received an SMS from a fellow WP member. “JBJ had just passed away” was the message.
I stood rooted to the ground staring at the SMS. It was like yesterday that I shook his hands at the inauguration dinner of ‘The Reform Party’. After about a minute or so, I composed myself and tried to verify the news. I hurriedly rushed towards the radio and tuned into the news at 8am. True enough, Mr JB Jeyaretnam had passed away because of a heart failure that morning.
He was the first opposition party candidate to be elected a Member of Parliament in Singapore, 16 years after the country gained independence. He was the leader of the Workers’ Party from 1972 to 2000. Being a political party that has been around for 50 years, we have members who joined the party from as early as 1959 and are still in the party today.” – Lilian Lee, CEC Member, age 30

“Growing up in Anson, I owe my political awakening to the Late Mr Jeyaretnam. It still is hard to accept my ex MP’s passing. Many in Anson will remember him as an MP who listened and cared, an MP who got the overhead bridge overlooking the old Zhangde Primary School built. While Anson under him may not have the best facilities, it was a place filled with hope. The affection and support Anson residents had for him is evidenced by the spontaneity of the hundreds of residents, e.g. those from Blocks 136, 137, 138, 141, and 142 who volunteered their services to his reelection campaign in 1984. While Mr JBJ did not live to see his vision of a more caring, progressive, egalitarian, inclusive, tolerant, transparent and accountable Singapore where the rule of good law reigns supreme – he was one who was ahead of his time – being realised, his efforts have not been in vain. We will do our best to realise this vision. While we recognise that this will be a struggle fraught with difficult challenges I know with a politically more aware people and their support, we will one day succeed.” – Shaun Lee, Member, age 36

“I joined the party in 1982 but only became more active in 1989 after I got to know more members from the party. We participated actively in the sale of our newsletter.
In 1993, JBJ approached me to help sell his book titled ‘Make it Right for Singapore’. Without hesitation, I agreed and from then we never failed to make an appearance around town areas such as Raffles Place, Arcade and City Hall. Our sales hours were from 10.30am to 1.00pm and 5.00pm-8.00pm, Monday to Thursday.
My most memorable sale was in Tekka, where we garnered a lot of support from the Indians. It was a common sight to see people paying us $50 or $100 for a book that costs $15.
JBJ will handle the English and Tamil speaking public while I communicated with the Chinese, dialect and Malay speaking supporters.” – Steven Teo, Member, age 50.

“As a little boy, I remember Mr Jeyaretnam as one of the prominent opposition leaders in the 70’s and 80’s, along with Dr Lee Siew Chow, Seow Khee Leng, and even Harbans Singh. Long after all the others had “disappeared” from the scene, however, JBJ was still fighting for his cause. When results for Anson were announced on TV in 1981, I remember hearing shouts and clapping around my neighbourhood. I had wondered why, but I knew it must have been something happy and momentous.” – Hougang Boy

“When Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam passed away, he had dreams he desired and waited to be fulfilled. At 82, he had just been discharged from bankruptcy and had his legal practice reinstated. After being barred from contesting elections for more than ten years, he readied himself for what was possibly his last election only about three years away. But no matter what, he has already accomplished a lot more than what he had set out to do and what he had yet to complete.” – Melvin Tan, Member, age 34

“JBJ赢得Anson时，因为我的眼睛受了伤所以无法到现场感受当时的气氛，是我最大的遗憾。虽然有些时候我不认同他的作风，他的精神可是令我非常的敬佩。尤其是那份，为国为民从来不要求回报的真诚。” – Lim Ee Ping, Member, age 72

“The most memorable experience that I had with him was the celebration after the win in Anson. People from all walks of life came to congratulate him. I will never forget a particular supporter, a journalist from London. Mr JBJ had come across to me as a man who was very hardworking and persistent.” – Marsh Edmund Richard, Member, age 66

“I was so happy when Mr JBJ won the seat in Anson. It was all over The Straits Times. I was happy not just for him but for the whole constituency as well as the party. The public, residents from Anson and of course members from the party were helping out during the elections. It was not just JBJ’s win; it was everyone’s win!” – Sakthivel, j, Member, age 59

In an article in The Sunday Times on 2 Nov 2008¹ , the Minister for Health Mr Khaw Boon Wan announced that he planned to amend the Human Organ Transplant Act to allow people who donate their kidneys to get monetary compensation from the recipient or a voluntary organisation. He said that “the World Health Organisation and countries such as the United States believe that it is ethical to compensate donors so they do not suffer for their act of altruism.” He hinted that the sum would be “at least five figures, possibly six”.

However, such an approach and argument is flawed on three counts:

True altruism is priceless
First, altruism is “the act of caring about the needs and happiness of other people more than your own”². Such acts are considered noble and worthy of admiration precisely because there is no material benefit for their self-sacrifice. Such people and such acts are valued because they encourage the suppression of individual need for the good of others and for the good of the greater community. The greater the capacity of a society to do this, the better it is able to survive difficult times.

The act of compensating donors for kidneys removes the altruistic component from the act, and makes it a commercial transaction. By allowing compensation, we are saying that as a society, we do not really value altruistic acts, and that with money and power, all things, including the denial of death, is possible. This will encourage individualism, and a “me first” mentality found in some other countries. This cannot possibly be good for us as a nation.

The poor will be disadvantaged
Second, organ trading will exacerbate the rich-poor divide. In an environment where all prospective organ recipients are in a queue regardless of whether they are rich or poor, the lives of both rich and poor are valued equally. Legalising organ trading creates an environment where those who can afford it “bypass the queue” – meaning there will be preferential treatment of one group over another.

Lower or even middle-class Singaporeans are unlikely to be able to afford sums that are five or six figures. The argument that “the National Kidney Foundation could step in to help” does not work in a situation where there are two prospective recipients with hard-to-match donor requirements competing for a single kidney. Would the wealthy recipient outbid the National Kidney Foundation? And would a poor or middle-class Singaporean die because he wasn’t rich enough to afford a kidney?

In the National Longevity Insurance Committee (NLIC) Report³, Professor Lim Pin noted that there were public concerns that “the scheme benefits those who are wealthier as they will live longer”. However, the NLIC noted that “there is as yet no robust local data to support the use of any other factor (apart from age and gender) to price the premiums”. The NLIC Report is silent on whether such robust data exists in other countries, and did not propose that we try to obtain such robust data before making a key policy decision. Why? Will legalising organ trading allow the rich to live longer? Will it create a situation where the poor and middle class end up subsidising the rich when the National Lifelong Income Scheme kicks in?

No incentive to search for alternatives
Third, legalising organ trading retards the search for alternatives. By making it possible to easily harvest organs from the poor, we reduce the incentive and desire to create fully artificial organs such as the Jarvik 2000 artificial heart⁴, for instance.

Is legalising organ trading the best way to control it?
While it is true that banning organ trading in Singapore may encourage some to go overseas to obtain what they cannot obtain legally in Singapore anyway, it is not sufficient reason to make it legal here. If it were so, then we should not ban sexual relations between men and underaged girls in Singapore, since doing so would encourage some men to go to our neighbouring countries to seek this illicit pleasure.

In addition, compensating organ “donors” may encourage them to undergo significant risks to their health for the sake of money monetary returns and this may not be in their best interests – just as it is not necessarily in someone’s best interests to offer him cheap and easy credit for him to buy a house that he could not ordinarily afford.

Conclusion
In summary, legalising organ trading diminishes the value of altruism and encourages a “me first” mentality, divides the nation into “haves and have-nots”, and retards the search for alternatives to harvesting organs from poor people. Rich or poor, powerful or weak, smart or simple, we come into this world naked, and naked we will leave this world. Death is the great leveller. Let us come to a graceful acceptance of it, and not choose to exploit those less fortunate than us.