Chiam See Tong
Singapore
“Sir, Singapore's sovereign wealth fund companies, Temasek Holdings and GIC, returned 17% and 9.5% yearly respectively, using largely Singaporeans' CPF money. Why is CPF returning 2.5% on the Ordinary Account and 4% on the Special Account only?”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to take part in this debate. Under Singapore law, single parents are treated as singles who are not eligible to purchase a Housing Board flat unless they are 35 years old and they are also given reduced children benefits like lesser maternity leave and no Baby Bonus.”
“Sir, the collection of revenue from ERP gantries is way above the total amount of revenue lost by the Government from the exemption of household TV and radio licences. I would urge the Government to review and reduce the charges at ERP gantries for vehicles entering the ERP zones.”
“Although the Government is pumping $120 million a year to support needy students in all levels through a slew of enhanced financial aid schemes, schools funds and bursaries, we should not forget to look into the plight of students who have been cheated by unscrupulous education centres by helping affected students to pay or re-finance the…”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman, for allowing me to join in the debate. I would like to touch on fairer distribution of treating scholars amongst schools. MOE should ensure fairer distribution of teaching scholarship holders after graduation from NIE to the various schools.”
“Children and adults with special needs deserve better protection. It will reduce the anxiety of both caregivers and patients with special needs, like the mentally-ill and autistic children. I urge the Government to issue special I-cards to these patients.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,205 lines we hold for Chiam See Tong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 49 of 85.
“Sir, on what basis does the Member for Braddell Heights think that the balance of races should be 75% Chinese, 15% Malays and 8% Indians? He says we must always keep to that kind of ratio, and since the Chinese birth rate is not replacing itself, we must push it up. On what basis? Who in Singapore decreed that the Chinese must be 75% and Malays must be 15%?”
“Sir, may I have the opportunity to say something in reply?”
“Sir, I believe you have been very tolerant with him. What is his question? Making a long speech! Mr Speaker: He is trying to clarify something he has said. Carry on, Mr Goh. Mr Goh Choon Kang( In Mandarin):Even if our minorities' birth rates increase higher, it would not be possible to turn round the deficiency of our total birth rate. What I mean to stress on is that if this trend were to continue, then the problem of an ageing population would become very serious and it will certainly affect our total economic viability and dynamism. That was the crux of my speech yesterday. So if you want to depend on the minorities to turn round the deciciency and the imbalance of birth rate, it is not possible on figures. Therefore, it is necessary to depend on the majority, the Chinese, to raise their procreation rate, at least to reach the replacement level in order to turn round the trend. I had not at all---”
“Assume for one moment that all the MNCs and all the expatriates left our shores, what would happen? Can we manage things ourselves? Probably with the passage of time, we could but I would think not at the present state. Our economic growth will probably again take a nose-dive and return to minus zero growth. But this time it will be worse because there will be a downward spiral. Sir, I hope the Government will get its teeth on to the matter and set policies which will really put us on solid foundations and that is the only way to ensure our survival. Mr Goh Choon Kang( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to clarify. Yesterday, when I spoke on the subject, it was entirely based on the figures on births and deaths given in a report by the Statistics Department. The Member for Potong Pasir clearly just now has been taking the matter out of context, and twisting the meaning of my talk. We can see very clearly from the statistics that the Chinese procreation rate is far below the replacement level. And the Malays have been over the replacement level. For the Indians, the rate is just above the replacement level. As Chinese make up 75% of the total population and they cannot increase the procreation rate up to at least the level of replacement, then even if the minority races are increasing their birth rates, they will not be able to turn round ---”
“(ii) to continue investing in the future; and (iii) to foster growth of the private sector. Sir, there is nothing wrong with having surpluses. But I think the surpluses could be made use or perhaps ploughed back or given back to the private sector which in Singapore today is still trying to get on its feet. To me, these objectives do not have the thrust required for nation building, to lay the solid foundation of our own indigenous economy. These three objectives seem to take into account the premise that we shall continue to enjoy the continuous unabated inflow of sufficient foreign investments. We have seen for ourselves how unreliable it is to be completely dependent on the MNCs. In 1985, when they pulled out in great numbers, our economy went into a nose-dive to a minus 1.8% growth. That must surely be a lesson to all of us. Singapore is vulnerable and it is vulnerable not due to political threats from within but from the vulnerability of our economy. We are just too dependent on the MNCs. Sir, I am not an economist and I can see that it is high time the Government thought less of procreation and moved on how to set the right environment to produce indigenous entrepreneurs in large numbers who not only will be able to set up large-scale businesses in Singapore but also elsewhere. Sir, we have seen that in the Second World War, Germany and Japan were devastated. No single building stood intact in Berlin or Tokyo. And in the case of Japan, it suffered the destruction of two major industrial cities by atomic bombs. Yet, out of the ashes rose two industrial giants. How did they do it? Because they have the indigenous entrepreneurs, industrialists and scientists. They could get things done from scratch. Can we in Singapore?”
“It is due to the continued and large inflow of foreign capital into Singapore that Singapore was able to achieve its "economic miracle" (within inverted commas). Our people are now more educated and we have more capital, in particular our Government. In this light, I agree with Dr Hong Hai. I think he has put it in another way but the message is the same. It is time for us to think seriously to lay down the foundations and establish our own indigenous large-scale industries and set up Singaporean multi-national companies. It is only by making manufactured goods ourselves that we can earn the real money, the large profits, due to the value added factor. Sir, the budget does not specifically state this in its objectives. The budget objectives are: (i) the need to maintain an overall balanced budget over the long-term, but we always end up with a surplus.”
“So I can tell the Member for Braddell Heights to stop once and for all this racialist talk of increasing the Chinese birth rate. I say that in any event, the attempt to increase the birth rate of a modern society is a very complex problem. A single call from the hon. Member for Braddell Heights to the Chinese to have more babies to allegedly balance up the races in Singapore will have no effect on the rate of birth of Chinese Singaporeans. But when it is picked up by others and repeated, it can do a lot of damage to our multi-racial society. Because the Malays and the Indians in Singapore too will say that their respective populations will have to be increased. This kind of talk will lead to Chinese, Malay and Indian chauvinism and make our people more divisive. Now may I touch on the Budget policy objectives. The pattern of our economy is no different from that laid down by the Government in accordance with the advice given by Dr Albert Winsemius, the Dutch economist, sent to help us out by the World Bank in the 1960s. He advised the Singapore Government then to do the following: (i) Get rid of the Communists; (ii) Control the labour movement; and (iii) Set up the right business infrastructure and give generous tax incentives to attract foreign investments. Up till today, the basic pattern for economic growth has not changed in Singapore. The Government has got rid of the Communists and the labour movement is well under control. Our economy has not only relied on foreign investments for growth but is now completely dependent on it. I must make myself clear at this point. I am not against multi-national companies. They have given us all a good living. I want them all to stay.”
“I have not finished. I've had so many interruptions in between. When you ask a Malay or an Indian what is meant by a balance of the various races, the Malays will tell you that the Malay population need to be increased to at least 33 1/3%. The Indians will also tell you the same. And both of them probably want the Chinese population to be cut down to 33 1/3%. So from their point of view, that is the real balance of races. Is that not correct, Malay and Indian Members of this House? Mr Chandra Das: Speak for yourself.”
“This policy, of course, is a complete reversal of the Government policy of Stop at Two. I was surprised yesterday to hear and read in today's Straits Times, the hon. Member for Braddell Heights, speaking in Mandarin, calling the Chinese Singaporeans to have more babies. This is needed, according to him, to balance the population growth amongst the various races. The hon. Member, I am sure, knows that this kind of racialist talk is very bad for racial harmony in Singapore. What makes the hon. Member for Braddell Heights think that the ratio of Chinese 75%, Malay 15%, and Indian 8% contribute a balance of races in Singapore? I can tell you now that none of the PAP Malay MPs or Indian MPs in this House thinks so. No answer? I can ask Malay Members, Dr Ahmad Mattar, or Mr Chandra Das for that matter, whether the Chinese need to have more babies to maintain the balance. And they will tell you the answer is no. Isn't that right?”
“Sure, everybody welcomes the increase in tax relief for disabled dependants, aged parents, wife and children and also the enhanced of child relief for the second, third and fourth child below 12 years of age. Any increase in income tax relief is always welcome. But these increases in tax relief are merely cosmetic, to make the Government look good. The Minister knows. I know. I think everyone in this House knows that the increased relief of $2,500 per year for a disabled dependant is really low. It takes at least three or four times that amount to look after a handicapped child or person. In the absence of an effective welfare programme for disabled persons in Singapore, the Government should be more generous and give a higher tax relief for the dependent disabled. It is important to build a culture of caring for the disabled who are completely helpless and need the rest of society who are normal to look after them. It is important that we build up such caring values and concerned attitudes towards the less fortunate, many of whom were born handicapped. As soon as we stop to care for our disabled and handicapped citizens, then we will begin to die as a nation. As for the wife relief, the increase to $1,500 per year is definitely not enough. Almost every married person I meet says that it is not sufficent. I think it would be fairer if it were increased to $2,500 to bring it into line with that given for the dependent handicapped and the aged. As for the $20,000 tax rebate for the fourth child over a period of five years, people are asking now whether this is an incentive or a message to the Chinese to have more babies. To me, it would appear to be an incentive in line with Government policy, namely, to have a third child and more if you can afford it.”
“A recent survey by the Union Bank of Switzerland calculated the average price of a four-door saloon in Singapore is around US$33,000 [figures that I quoted], US$5,000 above its nearest rival, and nearly four times as much as in Los Angeles, where the same car costs just US$8,500.' Just to bring home the point further, I quote: 'An average Los Angeles engineer's salary of US$48,720 would buy 5.7 cars a year. The US$19,700 earned by his Singaporean counterpart would buy 60% of a car [not even one car, only 60%]. A bus driver in Los Angeles (surely a rare animal) could, with his US$34,000 salary, buy four cars a year to get him back home from the bus depot. His Singaporean counterpart, on US$5,280, needs his country's excellent public transport system - he earns enough in a year to buy just 16% of a car.' I think that drives home the point. It would be very difficult, I believe, for the Government to increase the price of a car any further. I think they have to look elsewhere to curb the car population. My only regret is that Government Backbenchers did not examine the Budget Statement more critically nor did they examine the question whether for the long term the Budget would really meet the needs of laying the foundation for a strong, solid economy and for nation building. Government Backbenchers seemed to follow what the man-in-the-street has to say, or to reflect what was in the headlines of the newspapers - a painless budget, a good budget, or a pro-family budget.”
“I am much obliged to you, Sir. Sir, we had a full day of debate on the Budget Statement yesterday and we heard nothing but only a litany of praises for it. I am not sure whether the lack of any in-depth criticism from Government Backbenchers was due to the sharp reprimand they received from the former Senior Minister, Mr S. Rajaratnam, recently or was it due to the fact that the Budget this year did not introduce any significant tax increases, except for the slight increases of tax on imported tobacco and cigarettes and the introduction of 5% consumption tax on utilities and Telecoms services for a bill above $40. I suspect it is a combination of both. On hindsight, we can see why there is no increase in motor vehicle tax. Sir, may I refer the House to an article written in the Asian Business (Vol. 25 No. 2, February 1989) which says that the price of a motor vehicle in Singapore is the highest in the world. Sir, I have here a published set of car prices in US$ (average) for a four-door saloon - Most Expensive Least Expensive (US $) (US $) ------------------- --------------------- Singapore $33,000 Montreal $10,000 Oslo 28,000 Luxembourg 9,500 Helsinki 27,500 Toronto 9,500 Nairobi 27,000 Jeddah 9,000 Jakarta 25,000 Los Angeles 8,500 'Certainly, owning a car in Singapore requires long, hard work simply to earn enough to pay the breathtaking purchase price (not to mention road tax, extra payment to enter the centre of town, and so on). When it comes to car prices, Singapore is in a league of its own.”
“No, I still have not got an answer. "The usual preparations" - what kind of answer is that? That is not an answer.”
“Sir, if the Minister had said that they have been combing the schools for talent or to prepare certain sportsmen in some areas of sports, I would be happier. But at the moment, they get nothing.”
“As a sportsman, I am very unhappy with this kind of answer - "the usual preparations". Our sportsmen go to every Olympics and they are knocked out in the first round. So what sort of preparations are being made? "Usual preparations" is not good enough for me.”
“What sort of preparations are being made?”
“Why does the Minister not just answer yes or no? We know the legal position.”
“Sir, the standard answer usually the Minister gives to such a situation is that he can always move a motion in Parliament and we can have a full debate on whether or not Willie Lim was morally right in altering the cheque. But the question at hand before you is whether or not the Government thinks that it is morally and ethically right. The answer is yes or no. That is all. If the Government says that it is perfectly right in going on, ie, taking the stand as it has taken, then just say so. We want an answer from you. You go round the bush. As the Prime Minister says, round the mulberry bush two, three times, you have not answered the question. Just say so, and I will be happy.”
“No, no. We are not concerned with the conviction. We want you to answer the question. That is all.”
“Sir, I think the Minister has not really answered the question. I think the thrust of the question is whether or not the stand taken by the Government is morally and ethically right. I think that is what the question is all about. It is not a legal answer.”
“But this suggestion was not taken up. You will remember that the reason given was that all PAP MPs in this House declare their assets to the Prime Minister himself and he knows exactly how much each MP is worth. But as we have seen in Teh Cheang Wan's case, somehow something went wrong somewhere. And he did commit an act of corruption up to the tune of $800,000. In fact, $1 million was given, you will remember, but $200,000 was given to the go-between. Sir, we have also heard the NCMP say that monetary payment is not a deterrent to people who want to be corrupt in any event. High salaries may attract good men but certainly will not prevent corruption. I think we should follow the American style and get all politicians to declare their assets and members of their families' assets before they take office. And from time to time, they can be monitored. I think that is a very good suggestion. I hope the Minister for Law will comment on that.”
“Clause 21 (2), paragraph (b)(i) says: 'the person dies before proceedings in respect of the offence were instituted, or if such proceedings were instituted, the person dies before he is convicted;' I think Teh Cheang Wan or his estate at least is caught there. Paragraph (b)(ii) says: 'at the end of the period of 6 months from the date on which investigations referred to in paragraph (a) were commenced against him, the person cannot be found or he is not amenable to extradition proceedings. I do not know but I am just saying that if his son, Teh Kwan Seck, is also guilty of corruption, he will be caught there. Why was this law not introduced in 1980 when Phey Yew Kok absconded, purportedly with at least $100,000? It would appear that the estate of the late Teh Cheang Wan will not escape the arms of the law but Phey Yew Kok's will, in view of the fact that a period of six years has now passed since the act of corruption committed by Phey Yew Kok. Sir, you will remember that during the last debate on corruption, the Prime Minister said that the strongest deterrent is in public opinion which censures and condemns corrupt persons. In other words, in attitudes which make corruption so unacceptable, that the stigma of corruption cannot be washed away by serving a prison sentence. In that respect, it has the effect if only the corrupt person really cares about public opinion. But if that person really does not care, then he will be corrupt in any event. Sir, as far as politicians are concerned, I believe the Opposition has already suggested that all politicians before they take office should declare their assets, both of themselves and members of their families. I think this will be a good practice to prevent corruption amongst politicians.”
“In our schools, I think we should teach our children to attain absolute honesty as a value. Ultimately, it is the education that will wipe out corruption from our society if it is possible. Sir, I see that the Government means business. This piece of legislation really has got teeth. It even ensures that no corrupt person can benefit from his corruption even after death. It just only makes me wonder whether those people who are intent on being corrupt will or will not put their money elsewhere before they are caught. I just wonder why this law is introduced only after the death of the former Minister for National Development in December 1986, and not earlier. Sir, the Non-Constituency Member, I think, he was afraid that the late Mr Teh Cheang Wan will get away with his benefits. But I do not think so. As I said, this piece of legislation has got teeth. And under Part IV, the definition of "absconded persons" is very wide. Clause 21 (1) says: 'For the purposes of this Act, a person shall be taken to be convicted of a corruption offence if the person absconds in connection with the corruption offence and any reference in Part II to the defendant shall include reference to such a person.' Sir, it is a novel piece of legislation as far as I can see. There is definition of what an absconded person means. Clause 21 (2) says: '... a person shall be taken to abscond in connection with a corruption offence if whether before or after the commencement of this Act - (a) investigations for a corruption offence have been commenced against the person;' So once investigation starts, that person can be defined as an absconded person.”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join in the debate. Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. Corruption as a way of life must never be allowed or ever to take root in Singapore. We have seen for ourselves how many third world countries, though endowed with abundant natural resources, their people remain poor and economic development could not get off the ground, all because of corruption which is rife in those countries. Sadly, Sir, the culture of corruption seems more prevalent in Asian countries than in the West. We can learn something from the West in their high standard of honesty, in particular the English-speaking countries. Some hon Members : No”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think I was confusing. If he had only listened carefully, I think he would have got all the points that I was trying to bring out. I was very coherent. I do not think that I need to answer the Member.”
“Sir, I do not know what the Member for Marine Parade GRC wants from me. I think it is tit for tat. His question is completely irrelevant. The points that I have brought up show that we are a sovereign state. Because I have said that I am for an independent final appeal court here. I am for dispensing with appeals to the Privy Council. I do not know what he is ---”
“Sir, the other point which I would just like to mention is that I think the Law Society should not be kept out of the Board of Legal Education. I think they must be allowed to play a greater role in the education of lawyers.”
“Sir, I think the Minister must come out with more convincing reasons. Because he himself, I believe, as quoted by Dr Lee, says that one important positive benefit of the Privy Council is that it makes otherwise costly errors remediable. It is also a litmus test of judicial independence. And the Prime Minister reinforces this opinion. In Singapore, we have an extra supervision on them. When they write their judgment, they know it could go up to the Privy Council. He was referring to the judgment of our judges. So the issue here is judicial independence. Sir, in the other civil cases and criminal cases, even rapists, as has been said, and murderers will get a better hearing than lawyers because they can appeal to the Privy Council. They have the benefit of going to the Privy Council. So really there is no parity. On the one hand, other cases are allowed to appeal to the Privy Council. But in the case of the legal profession, we are not allowed. Sir, I agree that the Senior Counsel concept to be established in Singapore is a good idea and I believe this will encourage specialization and certainly will improve our standard of litigation. I sincerely hope one day we do not have to depend upon the crutch of Queen's Counsel who are invited from England to our Singapore courts.”
“They go by the merits of the case and if they deem that it is necessary in the case of Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam, they will look into it, especially in cases where appeals have been cut off from the litigant. Sir, they say that lawyers should be looked into by their own judges. It is an internal matter. I understand that nearly all the recent cases - I know of at least five lawyers who appealed to the Privy Council in regard to disciplinary proceedings - they have been successful. In actual fact, they have decided against the decisions of our courts here. Sir, I understand that in the case of Malaysia, they have taken away their appeals to the Privy Council in all cases because the majority, I believe 90% or more of the cases that went up for appeal to the Privy Council, in fact, the Privy Council held the same decision as their final court of appeal. So it was justified. There was really no injustice in the sense that going to the Privy Council as the last appellate court is redundant because the result inevitably will be the same. But it cannot be said of Singapore's case in relation to our lawyers. I believe not only the lawyers in going to the Privy Council were successful in their appeals but the Law Society was made to pay heavy costs. Many lawyers were complaining. I think there should be less complaints against lawyers. So I really see no valid reason to take away appeals to the Privy Council. What this House should do is, in fact, to see whether or not it will serve the ends of justice by going to the Privy Council. If it does not, then you can take it away. But if it does, it should remain. So the issue is really whether or not justice is further served by going to the Privy Council. If the answer is yes, then it should be allowed.”
“But that is another issue altogether. I would say that if we are to take away appeals to the Privy Council in cases of disciplinary proceedings concerning the lawyers, then it should be across the board, for other cases as well. Perhaps we should have some kind of a permanent court of appeal. As I said, this is another issue. Sir, as I was saying, the Minister has not really convinced me why lawyers cannot appeal to the Privy Council in regard to disciplinary proceedings against them. The Minister says that by taking away this appeal to the Privy Council, lawyers are in no lesser position than the other professionals. Sir, I have not been involved in any appeal to a single judge in the High Court in relation to misdeeds of the other professionals. But I understand that in the appeals of the other professions, they are allowed in the appeal to look into their convictions. The Member for Sembawang tried to argue strenuously that some kind of a provision must be made to allow our three judges to look into the convictions in exceptional cases. That is the ruling of the Privy Council and I agree. If you are going to cut off completely and only accept per se the convictions, then justice is not served. Because there is always the possibility that the judgments were wrong in cases where they are not allowed to appeal. So the judges on appeal should be allowed to look into convictions. And this is the position of the Privy Council. Sir, he says that there is a loophole. By going on appealing to the Privy Council, they can go through their convictions all over again, re-litigate so to say. But the Privy Council has made it very clear that it is only in exceptional circumstances, and they refused to set what the special circumstances are.”
“Their Lordships' order restores him to the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore. But because of the course taken by the criminal proceedings, their Lordships have no power to right the other wrongs which the appellant and Wong have suffered. Their only prospect of redress, their Lordships understand, will be by way of petition for pardon to the President of the Republic of Singapore.' So, Sir, after such a judgment, I wonder whether the Government has proceeded to amend the Legal Profession Act out of anger, or not to allow the Privy Council to interfere in disciplinary proceedings in relation to lawyers in Singapore. Sir, again I say the timing is wrong because we know another prominent Opposition member, Mr Francis Seow, is involved in tax cases in our courts. So people will naturally say that these amendments have been hurriedly put together to prevent him from practising law at a future date. Sir, it is regrettable that the amendment should come at the wrong time. Sir, the Minister has not really convinced me with his reasons for the need to amend the Legal Profession Act to take away appeals to the Privy Council. But I would like to go on record that I think it is high time that Singapore, after over 20 years of our judicial system in Singapore, should grow up and not be tied to the apron strings of the Privy Council. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join in the debate. Sir, the legal profession is unique in Singapore. Lawyers are allowed to hold clients' money. All the other professions named by the Minister - the accountants, architects, dentists, doctors, land surveyors, pharmacists, professional engineers - they have no such professional privilege. And in the sale of land, Sir, the lawyers also hold money as stakeholders. I know some legal firms hold vast sums of money. Sir, therefore, if there is any provision which will protect the clients and uphold the honesty and integrity of the profession, I will support the legislation. But in this particular case Dr Lee has pointed out, the issue is really one of justice - whether or not by the amendments, it will serve greater justice to the lawyers. I do not think so. Sir, unfortunately, this legislation comes at the wrong time. I believe timing is important, and if it comes at the wrong time it will give wrong signals to the people of Singapore. Sir, it comes at the most inopportune time because it comes after Jeyaretnam's appeal judgment has been released. If these amendments were to be made before the judgment was revealed, then I think there would be less criticism. Sir, the judgment of the Privy Council is very strong. May I be allowed to read part of it. "Their Lordships have to record their deep disquiet that by a series of misjudgments the appellant [that is Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam] and his co-accused Wong have suffered a grievious injustice. They have been fined, imprisoned and publicly disgraced for offences of which they were not guilty. The appellant, in addition, has been deprived of his seat in Parliament and disqualified for a year from practising his profession.”
“Sir, may I be allowed to clarify my question. I am not talking about reduction of the value of money. You have quoted us certain figures and I want to know what is the percentage of the actual applications. It may be only 2% or even 0.1%. So where is the nuisance? There is hardly any nuisance at all. You cannot give an arbitrary figure of just 22 out of nowhere. You must have a comparison, isn't it?”
“Sir, may I be allowed to ask some questions of the Minister? These statistics have been repeated by the Member for Fengshan. I believe he says that there were seven illegal processions in 1986, in 1987 there were 16, and in 1988 there were 22. I want to know from the Minister how many permits for procession or assembly had been applied during these three years. He has given us arbitrary figures of seven, 16, 22. But we actually want to know the percentage out of the total number of applications.”
“I am convinced that this amendment is a wise move in the right direction.”
“I think Singaporeans should be taught to be aware that there are neighbours, people around them. They must be constantly made aware of that fact. Therefore, I am all for reducing noise. Especially in private estates where one prevalent noise nuisance is from uncontrolled dogs. They bark at every movement. Therefore, if the section on assembly were to be removed from the Bill, I would support all the provisions in respect of anti-touting. But in respect of assembly and in respect of procession, I think we in the Opposition are certainly very apprehensive. Therefore, regrettably, Sir, I am unable to support this Bill. Mr Philip Tan Tee Yong (Paya Lebar): Sir, I rise to support this amendment and I want to speak particularly on one or two points with regard to touting. From feedback and personal observations, touting along the shopping belt has become, first, a public nuisance. Whether you are a tourist or Singaporean, such pesterings by touts are very disturbing to your otherwise pleasant walk. Second, touting has become a danger to personal safety. Touts are usually well organized and as an individual there is no way you can fight them on your own. Shopping should be free from fears of such dangers. The third point is that touting has a negative aspect to the tourist trade. I have always reminded myself and I think I want to remind Singaporeans as well that we do not have exotic beaches and undulating and pleasant countryside that can attract tourists. Shopping is one of the main attractions. Shopping is an artificial yet fragile creation of our economic imagination. We have done well in the tourist trade and it took us years to build up to this lucrative stage. It would only take us a short time to destroy it. Touting is one element which can destroy it.”
“Technically it is an assembly. If the authorities want to be nasty they could arrest us and put us in the police station for questioning, and detain us there for two to three hours, and at the end of the day they will say, "All right, we will let you off." But the damage has already been done.”
“Sir, I would have supported this Bill if it had been two separate Bills. Sir, if the problem is touting, there should be a different Bill. Perhaps if we can call it the Anti-Touting Bill, I would support it all the way. Sir, Singapore has seen beggars on the streets which are not very flattering of Singapore. They have been removed and it is a good thing. At this stage, the problem is touting. I am all for removing the touts from our streets. Sir, of course, we want more tourists to come because tourism is a big foreign exchange earner for Singapore. So not only the authorities should make Singapore a most welcome place for our visitors but I think every citizen has a role to play. In fact, in certain countries private citizens welcome visitors to their homes. I hope the Singapore people will start such a precedent, inviting visitors to their homes to see our Asian way of life. Sir, to increase the penalties for offences of so-called unlawful assemblies and processions, I think we in the Opposition are very apprehensive. How do you define an assembly, and how do you define a procession? Sir, I have personal experience of this. Whenever we have a function in our Constituency, whether it is a variety show or whether it is a dinner or any social function, sometimes we get a spontaneous support from the ground in the form of "kompang" groups. They say, "We will welcome you". They start at 50 metres from the point of assembly to welcome you. Strictly, in law, it can be defined as a procession to welcome an MP towards the place where they are having dinner or whether they are having some kind of a variety show. So do we need to get a licence for this kind of a function? Or even in a big field, in a stadium, sometimes we get welcoming groups at the entrance to lead us in.”
“How do you interpret laws? It is the ordinary and general meaning of the words.”
“Sir, I rise to get further clarifications. Sir, perhaps what the Minister has said is the intention of his Ministry. But unfortunately, in this legislation the words do not preclude the town council, because it is very clear. If you interpret the ordinary meaning of this definition section of "occupier", the town council would be caught. "Occupier" in relation to any building means the person in occupation of the building or having the charge, management or control thereof. We are caught. Sir, I do not know. Maybe it needs an amendment to that effect, or an additional section to say that town councils are precluded from this Act.”
“Sir, on a more serious note, you are aware that I am the Chairman of the Potong Pasir Town Council. I would just like to know what are the liabilities of the town council in relation to this new Act. I notice that under the definition of "occupier", the town council is caught by this definition which says: '"occupier", in relation to any building, means the person in occupation of the building or having the charge, management or control thereof, ...' We are in charge. The Potong Pasir Town Council is in charge, it manages and control Potong Pasir Town. Sir, under Miscellaneous, clause 32 says: 'Where an offence under this Act or the building regulations has been committed by a body corporate ... any person who at the time of the commission of the offence was a director, manager, partner, secretary or other similar officer ... purporting to act in any such capacity, shall also be guilty ...' The town council is a body corporate under the Town Councils Act 1988. But as I look at clause 33 which is the next clause, there seems to be a contradiction. It says: 'No liability shall lie against the Government or any public officer by reason of the fact that any building works are carried out in accordance with the provisions of this Act ...' Under the Town Councils Act, officers of the town councils are designated public officers. So are we liable? Perhaps the Minister could clarify.”
“I think that would certainly be a more fair way of treating these people who, as has been pointed out, really do not know what they are coming in for. If they are caned, many of them, I would say, would be innocent victims.”
“Sir, I am really heartened to hear all the Backbenchers arguing so passionately against caning of illegal immigrants or overstayers. Sir, yesterday I argued for Chia Thye Poh to be released. He was imprisoned for 22 years and nobody from the Backbench supported me other than the NCMP. I for a moment thought there was no heart amongst the Backbenchers, but today I see that I was wrong. The arguments so far, I do not know whether it is purely out of humanitarian grounds or that we might look bad in the eyes of other countries or, I suspect, behind our minds, we all are in fact children of immigrants. It would appear that history has completed its full cycle, we are all settled here and immigration is going to be difficult from now on, or at least for those who want to seek work here and are unable to get work permits. Sir, I know that this is a difficult problem but Members have already argued that this is not the root problem. The root problem is really an acute shortage of workers in Singapore. I think the Government has to solve that and the immigration problem would be solved. But in any event this is a problem at the moment and the Government knows that a proven deterrent is caning. It has proven for other crimes and I am sure it will be effective for this particular offence of illegal immigration. But, Sir, I think all the points brought up by Backbenchers are very good and I really support them. We are a civilized nation and if we cane people who come here, not to commit a crime but to earn a living, I think they cannot be put on par with other more serious offences. So, Sir, I would also urge the Government to reconsider mandatory caning and instead substitute perhaps a lighter one, discretion given to our judges or perhaps second timers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to ask a clarification from the Minister in regard to clause 2(2), definition of begging. 'For the purposes of this Act, a person shall be deemed to be begging if his conduct is calculated to induce the giving of alms, whether or not there is any pretence of singing, playing, performing, offering anything for sale or otherwise.' Sir, I have visited England, Europe, Australia. I notice that in public places young people do come out into the open singing, playing and performing, and I think it gives colour and life to those countries, especially to visitors there. I am just wondering that if there are people who would genuinely like to come forward to give some kind of performance in public places and not pretend, and if money should be thrown to them, whether or not they will be hauled up for begging?”
“All right, Sir. I think I have made my point. Thank you. Clauses 1 to 22 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. First to Third Schedules inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment, read a Third time and passed. INCOME TAX (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 12.52 pm”
“Sir, although we derive no economic benefit, we do have a moral duty to make sure that endangered species in other countries are also preserved. I notice in the law that we do not allow the conveyance of endangered species through Singapore. This is a good move. I think we should not be held to be accessories to traders in endangered species. Sir, I saw a wildlife film last night which was filmed in Australia.”
“I am much obliged to you, Sir. I support the Bill and, as I said, I would like to congratulate the Government for enacting this law because we really do not economically benefit from it in any way as Singapore has got no endangered species.”
“I am much obliged, Sir. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Lee Boon Yang]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Clauses 1 to 22 -”
“I thought this is important. I just want to congratulate the Government for enacting this law. Because Singapore does not really benefit by enacting a law to be in line with the international law on this matter, ie, to give effect to the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species.”
“Sir, I rise to support this Bill. I must congratulate the Government ---”