Augustine H.H. Tan
Singapore
“There are instances when reserves should be used, but the govern- ment has to make a case to the President and if good arguments are used, the President is expected to concur. I therefore end by asking you, as you have done in your speeches, to support this Bill with a very loud "Aye" when it comes to the vote. [Applause].”
“We must have confidence that in the end, as Singaporeans, we know what is overall best for ourselves. We are a community of free citizens committed to making Singapore a great city to live in and for foreigners to come visit and admire.”
“There is such a thing as initiative. Who initiated the project? What was the objective of the project? And there is such a thing as economies of scale, the benefits of which are passed on to the taxi drivers. Let us not forget those elements. An hon. Member: They do not pay tax on their income.”
“They can still enjoy the seafood regardless of the indigestion. They can do the shopping and do other things in Johor Baru. I believe that what is important for us is that we do not preclude ourselves the option of setting our own national policies.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister stated that it is undesirable to employ foreigners to run child care centres because they affect the values of our children. Is it not also true that by having foreign maids in our homes that they too directly impact upon the values of our children?”
“It was a point which I brought out much earlier when a similar matter was debated here in Parliament. Because the government could borrow on the basis of the reserves even though the President has one key to the reserves because there is such a thing as credit-worthiness of the country.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,269 lines we hold for Augustine H.H. Tan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 26.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, are we considering desalination plants for Singapore as an alternative? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, we rule out no possibilities for the future. For the present, it is not feasible, for a number of reasons. Firstly, desalination has never been done on the massive scale which would be necessary if we were to depend on it as our sole source of water supply. Secondly, it is extremely expensive, expensive in terms of energy because, to distil the water, you must have electricity or some other heat source to boil it, distil it and then condense the clean water. We have no cheap source of energy. If we were an oil state in the middle of the desert with natural gas coming out from the ground which had no other market, we would burn the natural gas and distil water. We are not that. If we had to distil water in order to have a water supply, I would present the options to the Member: between spending perhaps 10 times the present cost of water to get a bucketful of water and forgoing that bucketful of water, for a clean bath, I would go for the second option rather than the first one. This does not preclude future developments. Maybe technology will change. It could become cheaper. Maybe in time cheaper sources of energy will make distillation feasible. For example, nuclear energy could be one source of power, which would make it worthwhile for us to distil water. But where in Singapore would you put a nuclear power plant, with a safety radius of perhaps 20 miles? Where would you evacuate the population of Singapore should something happen to the nuclear power plant? It is out of the question.”
“So why should the legal profession take upon itself a role which is not accorded to it by law? I have pointed out the last time we met, Sir, on this Bill that already we are treating the legal profession very specially compared to other professions in Singapore. They have a legislation all to themselves. They do not have to come under the more restrictive Societies Act to which all other societies in Singapore have to report to and under which they have to work. Sir, I think we should bear in mind all these qualifications which I have brought forward and I think that the Bill, as amended, amply satisfies the needs of all parties concerned and I hope that hence- forth we see better standards of conduct from the members of the legal profession, both outside and inside this House.”
“Can you imagine the Economic Society of Singapore insisting that no economic policies shall be implemented by the Government without prior consultation with the Economic Society of Singapore? There has never been any such suggestion.”
“And then section 61(1)(d) reads: 'to examine and if it thinks fit to report upon current or proposed legislation submitted to it and any other legal matters;' If the words "submitted to it" had been appended after the words "legal matters", that would have been very inclusive. But the words come after the word "legislation". So any other legal matters are then open to purview by the Law Society. To me, Sir, we are giving ample room for the legal profession to make their contributions. The question is not whether we are going backwards or forwards but whether we are doing the proper thing. We do not want a situation where there is an improper usurpation of powers. Now, Sir, both gentlemen - I hope they are gentlemen - from the Opposition Bench have stood up in this Parliament and proclaimed that this Parliament is the supreme body in this land. It is this Parliament that makes the laws in this land. If this is the case, why are they passing this responsibility to the Law Society? We should be jealous of the prerogative, of the privilege of this Chamber and to uphold the privilege of this Chamber. We have ample people here, lawyers and non-lawyers, to debate all legislation that comes before this Parliament. And, Sir, imagine what would happen if every society took upon itself the right to assist the Government in all legislation that comes before this House.”
“The other point in regard to the Disciplinary Committee and the Inquiry Panel is this, Sir. There are no qualifications in respect of the advocates and lawyers who are put on the Inquiry Panel and Disciplinary Committee. In other words, even those with previous adverse records can sit on these committees. I know that it is the Chief Justice who has the discretion in these matters. And as long as we have a good Chief Justice, we can be sure that these people would be people of good character. But we cannot always be sure that this will be the case. So why do we not put in the relevant provisions to ensure that only people of impeccable behaviour sit on these committees? Sir, reference was made by both Members of the Opposition to clauses 3 and 6 which sought to amend sections 39(1)(c) and 61(1)(d). If there is any complaint to be made in respect of the amendment, it is this - that the words which are added after the word "legislation", namely, "submitted to it" really should have been put right after each sentence. If I may read the relevant sentences. Section 39(1)(c) says: 'to assist the Government and the courts in all matters affecting legislation, and the administration and practice of the law in Singapore;' And now we are putting in the words "submitted to it" after "legislation". This means that lawyers are still free to assist the Government in the administration and practice of the law in Singapore. And that would mean the ability to comment on laws which have been passed by this Chamber and after some years of practice should they be found wanting or deficient, the legal profession can then suggest amendments accordingly. To me, Sir, there is ample latitude in this provision even after amendment.”
“Mr Speaker, may I continue? I have already given the name. I do not have to answer that question. The Member for Potong Pasir said that there is no need to do anything about the legal profession because the number of complaints against lawyers has gone down. Sir, we know very well that it is virtually useless to complain to the Law Society. First of all, they take ages to consider cases and (b) for every lawyer that is brought to book, many have probably been let off the hook. And for every small complaint that has been brought to book, many have gone unanswered. It is not a question that the standards of the profession are already high. There is provision under clause 11(c)(6), Sir, for a Disciplinary Committee. I think this is a good thing, especially in shortening the time to within six months for complaints to be dealt with. We certainly support this amendment. But I was surprised to see that the provision of a lay person, which was included in the original Bill, has now been amended in such a way that this lay person cannot vote on the Disciplinary Committee and he need not be present at all times. I would have thought at least his presence would be required and I certainly would give him a vote. I do not see why a lay person should not vote. I can see a crook when I see one.”
“Thank you. I was talking about clause 4 (section 51(2B)).”
“There is a Mr Ng Geok Meng of Block 74, #11-332, Whampoa Drive. He is a taxi driver. Did you or did you not write a letter to the Minister for Communications and Information seeking to restore his taxi licence, knowing full well that I had already taken up the case and failed, and then charged him $200 for it? Mr Speaker, Sir, if he had done it for free, I would have thanked him for doing a service to my voter but he charged him $200.”
“All right. May I refer to clause 4 (section 51(2B)). Sir, as originally proposed, lawyers are disqualified from standing for election to the Law Society Council if they have been convicted of fraud or suspended for more than six months or struck off the roll. Now, Sir, as a concession to the Law Society, this permanent ban is now changed to a five-year ban with leave from three Judges of the Supreme Court. Sir, this raises a question to my mind and to the general public. There are 1,335 lawyers. Do not tell me that we cannot find sufficient people among them without some past adverse record? Why are we so lenient on these lawyers? I can understand if they are re-admitted to practise after some time, but to sit on a Council that sets standards for the legal profession would surely require people with unblemished record. To me, Sir, it is a sad commentary on the standards that lawyers have set themselves when they are willing not only to advocate this in this House but also to actually elect people with such past adverse records. I have here in my pocket, Sir, a case of one of my voters who went to see the Member for Potong Pasir. He was charged $200 for writing a useless letter to a Minister - a case which I had taken up with the Minister, got a negative reply - and here he was charging my voter $200. What is this standard of ethics?”
“Yes. May I just finish what I was saying?”
“At that time, that was a big sum of money. I am also told there are some lawyers in town who will get money from their clients for criminal offences and then advise ---”
“Thank you, Sir. But the question of ethics of lawyers was raised in this House and I was told that in the 1950s there was an Indian lawyer who absconded to India with $200,000 of his client's money.”
“Yes, Sir. I have a very short preamble to my speech, unlike the Member for Anson. Reference was made to democracy by the Member for Potong Pasir and other matters were raised by the Member for Anson. So I do not see why I should not introduce by way of ---”
“Sir, in reply I would only say that only those who are proud and exalt themselves will feel humiliated if they are not consulted.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Some people interpret immunity as impunity. Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may refer to clauses 2 and 3 of this Bill. What surprises me, Sir, is that, first of all, members of the legal profession are still allowed to practise in spite of convictions and suspension in the past. I think there should be a list drawn up of all lawyers who have had previous convictions and suspension so that the public knows who to avoid in future. They should not be allowed to make money at all. Secondly, why do we only exclude those who have been suspended in practice for more than six months? To me, if any member has been suspended for any length of time, even one day, it speaks of standards which are not befitting the profession. I would not allow them to practise at all, let alone stand for election as a member of the Council of the Law Society. I would like to add another category to the list for the hon. Minister. I would like to add that people who are expelled from Parliament, suspended from Parliament, or thrown into jail by the Speaker, should also be prohibited from practising law and from standing for election to the Council of the Law Society.”
“Well, I am asking you to speak up, without cowardly hiding behind immunity of the House.”
“I have nothing to be ashamed of. You talk about insinuation. Will you please say what is in my past, and off the record or without privilege or immunity? Come on. I challenge you to say anything against me.”
“So I assume he is guilty. I have some other questions, Sir.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I will allow him to clarify if he feels guilty.”
“I am glad that this Bill will screen potential candidates for the Law Society Council in future. The Member for Anson brought out some statistics on the percentage of crooks in the legal profession. I wonder how comprehensive his statistics are and I wonder whether any Members in this House are included therein. What would be of interest to this House and to members of the public is this, Sir. What is the percentage of crooks in the legal profession compared with the accountancy profession, compared with doctors and other professions? That will be an interesting statistic to get, and I think somebody should produce these statistics. I think it will be of interest to us because if it is shown up that the legal profession has the highest percentage of crooks, then we are all in trouble in Singapore. I think we ought to do something. Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---”
“Praise the Lord, again, yes, for his grace. The humiliation, if any, is self-inflicted. And if they choose to expose themselves in public positions, then all their past must be exposed to public scrutiny.”
“Yes, that is a correct word. He has an epidermis which is thicker than normal. Humiliation. There should be humility on the part of these people.”
“That it is because the contributions of the legal profession are acknowledged, recognized, by the Government, that the Legal Profession Act was brought into force to give this special body of professionals a special recognized standing in society, a position of honour that must not be abused. Sir, my PAP colleagues who spoke earlier have mentioned that Singapore is a society that is based upon the rule of law. That is something that we should always bear in mind. Law governs the society. The way the society is run, the way contracts are drawn up, the way rights and responsibilities are balanced in this society, and one would expect that the members of the legal profession, particularly the practitioners of law, should themselves be law abiding. And, Sir, I am somewhat surprised when the Member for Anson made the allegation that this particular amendment seeks to humiliate members of the legal profession. I would have thought, Sir, that people who have been convicted of fraud or criminal offences or else been suspended from their professional activity for some time would already have felt the humiliation. If I were a lawyer and if I were convicted of fraud or dishonesty, CBT or whatever, or some criminal act, I would not know where to hide my face. I would not want to stand for election in the Law Society as a President of the Law Society and make pretentious pronouncements on policies in Singapore and hoping that people would look to him as a potential leader. An hon. Member: Thick skin.”
“The two Members of the Opposition as usual put the worst possible construction on the motives behind the Bill as on other Bills. And as usual, they try to confuse the public. In this case, they are trying to confuse the public as between two issues. One is the political role of professional bodies and the other is the standards that should govern the legal profession. Sir, I have written to the press on the matter of political role of professional bodies, particularly the legal profession. And my view is very simply that professional bodies have a responsibility, a duty, to maintain high professional standards. Their job is to defend the interests of their bodies in order to function properly as professionals. But if they want to use these bodies which are constituted for profes- sional reasons, use them or misuse them for political reasons, then they should register as political parties. Or else they can speak out as private individuals. So far as the Law Society is concerned, I think hon. Members who are non-lawyers, like myself, may be wondering why should these people called lawyers be given a special privilege. Why should they be entitled to special legislation on their behalf? Why can they not be registered like other professional bodies under the Societies Act which, I understand, is much more stringent? If one wants to talk of control, this Societies Act has very stringent controls on who may hold office in various societies which are so registered. So I want to make this point very clear, Sir.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to give my support to this Bill and to offer some comments as a layman who might be hurt by unscrupulous lawyers. Sir, from the representatives of the legal profession in this House, one can evidently see a wide spectrum, from people of very base quality to people who are brilliant and have great integrity. I do not need to mention names. I think Members know well who I am referring to.”
“Point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. Would the hon. Member tell us which countries in Southeast Asia are enjoying positive growth?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe the Hansard is available and he can look at it.”
“So we take whatever steps that we can to defend ourselves. And what is wrong with the Government attempting to defend the integrity of Singapore and to protect the well-being of Singapore? Sir, I support the Bill.”
“' And then on page 9 at the end, it says: 'A burst in new foreign investment won't solve all of Singapore's economic problems, Mr Watson says. The country still lacks "a fully conducive environment where entrepreneurship can flourish," he says. But that too "is going to take time."' That is one article. On June the 25th, the same Journal had a headline: "Property Slump Hurts Singapore Banks - Despite Real Estate Glut, Loans Flowed to Sustain Building Spree." It is based upon the property market report which was presented to Parliament sometime in March or April. In other words, a few months later. And on page 8, headline, "Singapore Banks Face More Bad Debts". Mind you, these articles were written at a time when the economy was showing signs of recovery and the stock market was buoyant. Thursday, June the 26th, page 1, "Surge of Stocks In Singapore Puzzles Analysts" by Helen E. White. And on page 6,""The real question is whether it's possible for Singapore's economy to take off in a vacuum, and the answer is probably no," the analyst says." Tuesday, July the 1st, 1986: "Singapore Sees End of High-Growth Era." And on page 11 on the same article: "Singaporeans Brace for Extended Slump." This was by June Kronholz who came to Singapore, I believe, a couple of months earlier than that, interviewed a number of people, including myself, and somehow put this delayed article on July 1st, 1986. Sir, I stated at the outset that I do not jump to the conclusion that these are indications of a sustained effort at economic sabotage. But the timing, with the stock market boom, suggests to me that there could be some correlation, some attempt at mischief to undermine confidence in this economy. Now, what defence do we have against such attacks? Singapore is a small country.”
“And if that confidence were to be damaged, the economy would suffer and, of course, there would be political, social and other repercussions. Of course, Sir, it is not easy to identify when somebody is engaging in economic sabotage. But I want to refer to some recent reports from the Asian Wall Street Journal. I am not saying that they point conclusively to economic sabotage. All I say is that they raise certain questions in my mind, and if I were as suspicious as the Members for Anson and Potong Pasir, I would of course jump to the conclusion that there is economic sabotage but I am not about to. So let me refer to some of these articles. It is interesting, Sir, that the local stock market has made a strong recovery in the last two months, in June and July. It is also interesting that towards the end of June, there appeared a spate of articles in the Asian Wall Street Journal. I shall go over a few of the contents so that you may judge for yourself what is happening. On the 24th of June 1986 on page 1, there was an article by Stephen Duthie and the headline was "Investors wary of Singapore's New Look" and it begins: 'Has Singapore got a deal for you! Or so it hopes. Humbled by recession and shaken by regional competition, Singapore is bouncing back like a hungry barker at a county fair. The government has touched up a few old sales pitches and added some new ones. Now government officials are taking the new, improved act on the road in an attempt to attract investments from foreign concerns.' I quote again: 'Foreign investors are showing interest in the new look, but many of them are biding their time.' "We heard some of this a decade ago and a few of us got burned," says a European manufacturing executive, who requests anonymity.”
“But at the same time we should be mindful of what the Minister said - that magazines and newspapers are a very powerful tool for influencing public opinion, and anybody who exercises such power must at the same time be responsible. And if they do not themselves exercise responsibility, then somebody must constrain them into so doing. Sir, even in terms of local newspapers, and commonly in other newspapers as well, you will get a headline on a subject on the front page of the newspaper, some error is made either intentionally or otherwise. And when a complaint is lodged, the next day or a few days later, a small correction appears on the back page. Perhaps, Sir, there should be a law requiring equal space and equal prominence for correction of such mistakes, especially when such mistakes are to the detriment of the reputations of the injured parties. Sir, the Minister when he moved the motion for the Bill mentioned that he was concerned about manipulation and interference with local politics. He mentioned areas such as race, religion, local institutions such as our courts, ideas of press freedom. But I do not recall that he mentioned the right to quote Opposition Members of Parliament, no matter how obnoxious they are, how wrong their views are and so on and so forth. There is one important area which I had hoped he would touch upon and that was referred to by the Member for Potong Pasir, although he presented a different view, and that has to do with attempts at what I call economic sabotage of Singapore. Sir, we all know that Singapore has a very small open economy. We all know that it depends very much on the confidence we can generate on the part of foreign investors who then put their money into factories and other facilities in Singapore.”
“I know what your answers are. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has pointed out that we have over 3,700 foreign publications in Singapore and it is only a very small minority that have caused trouble to us. In fact, Sir, most journalists and most publications have been responsible in their reporting. I personally have great admiration for journalism as a profession. Journalists have to get access to the latest information and many a time they have to write on areas outside their expertise. How they do so, sometimes I do not know. But they do so and most of them do so quite well. But therein lies a problem, especially with foreign journalists who come to Singapore for the first time. They need to have access to people, the right people for the right information. But at the same time one must sympathize with Government Ministers. With so many hundreds or thousands of journalists banging on their doors asking for interviews, it is just impossible for them to see all of them. But then what is the reaction of those journalists who are denied access to the relevant Minister? Do they get slighted and then end up with biased reporting? Or do they merely go on to report inadequately, based upon inadequate information? I believe we find both categories of journalists; both kinds of reactions have been manifested. What then is the solution, if there is any solution? I believe one such solution is to have public relations officers for each Ministry, statutory board (I know some of them already have), who can meet these journalists and provide them with up-to-date information and with explanations of the rationale of Government policies and the changes thereof?”
“I did not ask you to stand up immediately to answer. Some questions are rhetorical, do you not understand?”
“May I be allowed to finish speaking first, then you can have your say?”
“He has had his say. Allow me to have my say. I have a few other questions for the hon. Members of the Opposition. Let me ask them: are there any areas of national interest on which all of us, both PAP and Opposition, can stand together? Name one issue that both of them, or either of them, have in this House expressed support for as a national issue worthy of a common stand. The Member for Potong Pasir referred to a case of contempt of court. He referred to Newsweek, but I believe he was referring to the Asian Wall Street Journal sometime last year.”
“Sir, I do not have much time. I would not give way.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that the Member for Potong Pasir does not understand parliamentary democracy. As it is practised in Britain, and as we have adopted here in Singapore, any Member of the ruling Party may express their opinions freely. But there are times when the whip is not lifted and they are expected to vote together with the Government. There are times when matters of conscience are at stake and the whip is lifted and then the Members can vote in accordance with their conscience.”
“What relevance does that have to the debate, may I ask?”
“Point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. Is the hon. Member referring to actual cases of partial censorship? Or is he referring to hypothetical cases that exist in his imagination?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not understand the agitation of the Member for Potong Pasir. I made no mention of anybody.”
“Is the Minister for National Development aware that some lawyers in this House charge $200 a letter?”
“I believe, Sir, there is a continuing need to inform and to educate our public, especially our younger generation, about the basic values and institutions that we need for our survival and indeed our prosperity. We should not take it for granted, Sir, that everybody understands and accepts our tried and trusted values and institutions. We need to try and explain patiently why we need section 55? Why we need the Internal Security Act? Why we need to have Work Permit regulations? Why we need meritocracy? What is the role of Parliament and MPs? How does the Judiciary function? How our economy works? And how we work to ensure that our leaders and bureaucrats are clean, honest, people of integrity. If we can do this, Sir, despite people like the two MPs of the Opposition, we shall build a secure and prosperous Singapore. [Applause] Mr Speaker: There are still two minutes left. It is an appropriate moment to take the suspension. I suspend this sitting and will take the Chair again at 2.30 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.58 pm until 2.30 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.30 pm [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Debate resumed.”
“It is one thing to point to possible abuses of authority, it is another thing to have an attitude which is completely contemptuous of all authority, an attitude that seeks to undermine authority.Sir, no country can be run without authority being exercised by a government and by the institutions of government. Yes, MPs should champion the cause of the under- dog. But must we destroy Singapore in the process? Yes, MPs should draw attention to corrupt practices should they exist, but with proper evidence. But should we destroy the reputations of innocent parties in the process? Perhaps Sir, it is time for us to consider the drawing up of a proper code of conduct for hon. Members of this House so that the integrity of this institution can be preserved and upheld, despite the presence of people who behave like snakes. To me, Sir, these problems point to a further need and there is a need to try and enshrine those values that have proven their worth to Singapore, a need to build institutions that will endure in order to ensure a prosperous future for our nation. I recall, Sir, that in the early sixties Government leaders spent much time and effort at nation building, values like ruggedness, hardwork and discipline were propagated. Meritocracy became a household word. Incorruptibility of Government and of bureaucrats made Singapore stand out from other developing countries. Law and order was established. Through laws like section 55 that effectively beat the gangsters. Workers accepted the need for industrial peace and discipline. The result was unprecedented economic development, uninterrupted for 24 years.”
“Sir, what is obvious to us in this House and to the people of Singapore is that the Member for Anson is seeking to tear down our system. By that I refer to those institutions, those values which have been painstakingly built up over the last 26 years. Sir, it is one thing to be anti-PAP. It is quite legitimate to bring down the Government through democratic means. But I believe it is something else to be anti-Singapore. I said sometime ago in this House last year that I hope that in the course of time we can build up a consensus of what Singapore stands for. What are the values? What are the institutions which are good for Singapore? And I would expect hon. Members on both sides of the House, Opposition and Government, to subscribe to at least a set of fundamental values, to at least be able to believe in a set of institutions that work towards the good of Singapore. But we have seen, time after time, the two gentlemen from the Opposition seeking to undermine the credibility of our institutions, questioning the HDB's integrity, questioning the integrity of the Judiciary, questioning the integrity of the Central Provident Fund, and other institutions ad nauseam. What are they trying to do? I agree with my colleague, the Member for Ulu Pandan, that yes, we have privilege in this House, yes, MP's duties are to highlight abuses of authority in this House, but only where evidence is available. In other words, if we dare to make an assertion in this House, we must have at least some form of evidence upon which to base our allegations. But when we are asked or challenged to repeat the allegations in this House outside the House and we claim Parliamentary privilege, then what are the people of Singapore going to think about us?”
“Correction. I said, "he is like a snake." Mr Jeyaretnam: And who is being slippery now?”
“Yes. But as a Christian, I want to see justice done in this House.”
“Sir, when one is innocent, one does not worry about whatever labels others put on you. So we do not need to react unless the label fits.”
“Sir, I believe I have an hour and I will take that hour, if necessary, to go into what is wrong with some of the things said by the Member for Potong Pasir.”
“But, of course, if one continues to behave like a snake, eventually there could be a physical transformation. Sir, we have seen nothing but negative, malicious, destructive, criticisms and behaviour in this House by the Member for Anson, and not far behind, the Member for Potong Pasir.”
“I do not know how to describe people who like snakes or people who behave like snakes. Sir, I did not call the Member for Anson a snake. I said his behaviour reminds me of a snake. Mr Jeyaretnam: That is a Born-again Christian deception.”