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 70 of 85.
“I would suggest that if the Prime Minister is ready to have this public inquiry, I think there should be more than one commissioner, preferably three.”
“Yes. I have to say that I did not take the opportunity in this lunch break to draft this. In fact, I had this all the time from this morning. The only thing I did was to photostat a copy of the Inquiry Commissions Act. Apparently section 10 therein does not prevent an Inquiry from being convened despite the fact that there are relevant pending cases, because it says here, under the heading "Use of evidence in civil and criminal proceedings." 'No evidence taken under this Act shall be admissible in any civil or criminal proceedings whatsoever against the person who gave such evidence, except when such person is charged with giving or fabricating false evidence.' So if the Prime Minister wants to, he could recommend to the President to issue a Commission to investigate on what we were speaking of. I have here the terms of reference which I had drafted. "1. To investigate: (1) on the circumstances which made it possible for the late Minister for National Development to accept the $800,000 bribes. (2) whether other persons were involved or implicated in giving the $800,000 bribes or other bribes, if any. (3) The system employed by the Ministry of National Development in (a) acquisition/alienation of land; (b) granting of tenders; (c) its operations of its and related companies. 2. If the Commissioner finds on the evidence that there are shortcomings in the system employed by MND and/or any of its related organizations and companies, it shall receive proposals and make recommendations for their improvement and to prevent further corruption." I believe these terms of reference are enough to have an inquiry.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe the Prime Minister wants the terms of reference for this public inquiry. May I be allowed to speak?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, what I am saying is, of course, there is already evidence. I am not bringing up a subject which has got nothing in it. In fact, there is already evidence that bribes have been taken by a very trusted senior Minister. Is that not enough evidence to have an inquiry? Does it mean that since the Minister has died everything will be closed and covered up?”
“To the land involved at Lim Chu Kang. This is the subject matter of the bribe.”
“He says that anything I want, I could have access to. I will take his word for it. I attempted to make a search at the Land Appeals Board but I was denied the two files. The Prime Minister can check that out for himself. Even a Member of Parliament, on a simple thing like access to the appeals file, is not allowed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this is something new that the Prime Minister has brought up. He did not tell us at the last sitting of Parliament that there was another person involved, now hiding in Macau. As far as we know, there was only the giver ---”
“Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister himself is a qualified Advocate and he knows that the wrongdoer is now dead. And no criminal court will pursue a matter which has got no witness and the matter ends there as far as the criminal court goes, and he knows that. And he says whether or not we have ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have to interrupt. This is Question Time and the Prime Minister goes off again and I suppose the Leader of the House has to suspend Standing Orders. Is he a Member of the House? I am not allowed to make a speech. Is he answering or is he making a long speech? This is Question Time.”
“We know for a start there was this bribe of $800,000 taken. So it is of public interest and the matter has not really been resolved yet because there are many many unanswered questions. We would like to know the circumstances which led to this bribe. That is a very wide area. What are the circumstances? Then we want to know whether other people were involved in this bribe or maybe any other bribes. The Prime Minister has told the House that no other persons were implicated. Then we read in the papers that there was this contractor who was charged or at least he was under investigation at the moment. Of course, we would want to know the system that is now being employed by the Ministry of National Development in relation to acquisition/alienation of land, tenders and perhaps also its own companies and related companies that do business with the MND. These are of public interest. We go into a public inquiry and if there is enough evidence coming forth, then perhaps the commission could make recommendations to the Government to prevent a repetition of bribery by a very senior Minister. I presume these are enough grounds for a public inquiry.”
“After I have defined the areas, what then? Are we just going on with a question and answer session? Or do we want to have a commission of inquiry?”
“I certainly must clarify myself that this matter will go before a public inquiry before I come to the terms of reference. So I take it that the Prime Minister agrees that this matter is of public interest. And if he agrees it is of public interest, he is now assuring the House that there will be a public inquiry. Am I correct in the position you have taken? There will be a public inquiry? I will spell out the terms if the Prime Minister says so.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government is ready to hold a public inquiry into any matter of public interest. May I have the Prime Minister answer whether or not the matters that we are speaking in relation to Mr Teh Cheang Wan are, in fact, of public interest?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, have I heard the Prime Minister correctly - that he is going to have a public inquiry on the so-called Teh Cheang Wan affair? May I have that assurance first?”
“I understand that foreign students are given half-grants, and they have to sign a bond whereby they have to work in Singapore for at least three years.”
“(1) How many illegal hawkers are there in Singapore today? (2) When the goods, especially foodstuffs are vegetables, are seized from these illegal hawkers, what does the Government do with them? I hope the Senior Parliamentary Secretary is taking them down. (3) How many complaints are there against enforcement officers for their rough treatment of illegal hawkers? And (4) what is the average earnings of an illegal hawker per month?”
“May I be allowed to ask supplementary questions?”
“I will ask the Minister then. If the ruling party, the political party, has merged with the Government, the civil servants, then what is the difference between Singapore and any of the communist countries? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, the ruling party has not merged with the civil servants. Secondly, in a communist country there would not be any opposition Member to ask questions.”
“Sir, I do not know why Members are laughing. There must be certainly a distinction between the political party which is in power and the Government, the civil servants which form part of the Government machinery. The Minister is going on the basis ---”
“All right, I accept your ruling, Sir. If the PAP has been using Government machinery, does the Minister admit that, in fact, the PAP and the Government have almost become one? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps I should clarify that this is a PAP Government. [Laughter]”
“I want to know to what extent an issue is considered national before the PAP can use ---”
“Sir, it looks like we are going around the mulberry bush. Sir, in the press conference not long ago, the Minister has, in fact, admitted ---”
“Sir, this is typical of this Parliament. You have a question answered by a question. Let us have the answer, please.”
“I do not think the Minister has answered the question. The question is, to what extent an issue is considered national in nature to warrant the use of Government machinery by the ruling party. I understand that the ruling party has been using Government machinery in their so-called National Agenda. Please answer the question. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask if the Member disputes that it is the responsibility of the Government to set the National Agenda?”
“One last supplementary question, Mr Speaker. Is the delay a strategic retreat on the part of the PAP?”
“Yes. I am asking the First Deputy Prime Minister whether he believes in democracy. And if he does, whether or not it is in line with the democratic process where the people have a right to choose a representative in Parliament, of their own choice and not an appointed one in the case of Geylang West.”
“I would ask the First Deputy Prime Minister the reason for the delay in holding the by-election. Is it because the ground is against the Government at the moment?”
“It is, Sir. It has something to do with the delay in the holding of the by-election.”
“Sir, the last time, I believe the answer was that there was going to be some kind of an announcement. May I ask the First Deputy Prime Minister whether this announcement has got something to do with the elected President that has been proposed?”
“It is neither here nor there. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Second Report contained in Paper Parl. 4 of 1987 and resolves - (1) that Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam is guilty of contempt of the Committee of Privileges and of Parliament by his publication of the five offending newsletters relating to the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges between 8th and 12th September, 1986; and (2) that a fine of $5,000 for each of the five offending letters be imposed upon him. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr S. Dhanabalan]. Adjourned accordingly at Twelve Minutes to Four o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. note - THE CPF MINIMUM SUM ACCOUNT TOPPING-UP SCHEME (Cols. 1063 - 1066)”
“So what? He has already been adjudged guilty. Please! Look at it properly. He has been adjudged guilty of contempt. We are going to pronounce it here. He is not guilty yet. An hon. Member: But the Committee has.”
“I think you are getting me into a position which I need not be in. Am I not entitled to come to this House and give an opinion? Am I not entitled to? You just answer me on this point.”
“What serious matter? Everything is serious to me.”
“Which normally is done by legal assistants or pupil lawyers. We here are all Members of Parliament. You give us time to go and do research on this kind of thing? I do not know what is becoming of our Singapore Parliament.”
“Please, Professor. Our point here is whether or not we should or should not be calling Mr Jeyaretnam whom we are going to pronounce guilty and on whom we are going to impose a fine. That is the issue before us at the moment. So you are asking me to look for a precedent to say that on all such occasions the defendant must be called, otherwise we cannot impose a fine. Is that not an issue now? But what I am saying is that we are setting a precedent here. To me, as trained in the law, I am giving an opinion, that is, I think that Mr Jeyaretnam should be called. I say yes, you say no; so what? And now you want me to look for a precedent. It takes time, isn't it? I am not sure whether I can find one. But the point I am making is - this is what I think and this is my opinion, and if you does not accept it, as always this House does not accept it, so be it. But what I am trying here is to put a point across. Is that wrong? That is certainly not wrong. I think every Member of Parliament here is entitled to put forth his opinion. And when I put forth an opinion, you say, "Go and look for a precedent." Please. What are we becoming now? We are taking up precious Ministers' time looking for precedents. An hon. Member: You are.”
“Yes, that is a sentence. Nevertheless, it is a sentence. We want to see whether there is a need for the defendant to be in the House. That is the point in issue now.”
“"For sentences of imprisonment imposed by the Australian House of Representatives in 1955 see House of Representatives Debates." The Prime Minister: We are not imposing a sentence of imprisonment.”
“Perhaps you should call for the copy that I looked at. I made a mark there. It is on page 125. Have you got page 125? You look at footnote 20.”
“I thought you would like to call for Erskine May at the Library, please. [Copy of Erksine May's "Parliamentary Practice" handed to Mr Chiam.]”
“Well, I have looked up Erskine May, and I thought I found something in the Australian precedent in 1955 House of Representatives there. But I asked for this report; unfortunately it was not there. What I am going to say is that in 15 minutes' time I am not going to find on all fours, as in Court we say, a case which will fit exactly. But I thought I found something there and it was not in the Library. Maybe more time could be given for research, we could look up the matter. I don't know. In 15 minutes I flipped through the page on Privileges content. Of course, Parliament has powers to call witnesses and there is a provision, as the Minister has said. But as regards precedent on all fours, well, at the moment I do not have it. But I thought I saw something there. Unfortunately, this particular report was not in the Library.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have been asked to give a precedent. Assuming I come up with a precedent - this is like playing poker, does he have the card or I have the card? If I have it, what then? Are you going to call Mr Jeyaretnam, or what?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what exactly do you call me for?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I just be allowed to answer that. The precedent which I referred to is a precedent in court, and I said that Parliament was the highest court of the land. I never said Parliament as Parliament. I would say now that I have not looked at Erskine May and come across this kind of precedent. But the important point here is that we ourselves are setting a precedent for future Parliaments to follow.”
“Well, thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to speak a second time.”
“I know of the trained lawyers but I do not know who are the untrained ones. Anyway, my point is made. It is up to the House whether to take my point or not. If we are going to find a person guilty, he should be present and maybe even given a chance to mitigate or given a lesser sentence. As regards the law, I think there is a provision which says that a stranger can be admonished. This is rather conflicting because when the offence was committed, he was a Member and now he is a stranger to this House. It is a question of interpretation. So we have a moot point there. One point the Leader brought up which I think he wants me to answer is about conduct. Did you want me to answer a point?”
“My point is that we are setting a precedent here and you are going to find a person guilty and to punish him with a fine in his absence. This goes against the grain of every trained lawyer in this House.”
“I do not want Erskine May now. I have looked at Erskine May and there are many, many footnotes and references to all the decided cases.”
“I have never made research here but I am not sure whether you have authorities in our Library.”
“I think we are all intelligent people. We are all people of wisdom. Now out of the blue, you want me to produce authorities from Erskine May. I have been reading Erskine May and I have looked at all the footnotes. I do not think we have all those authorities in this Library. Do we have it here? Some hon. Members: Yes.”
“I am much obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point brought up by the Minister is whether or not I agreed with the findings of the Committee that he is guilty. The fact that I had suggested a form of punishment, what does it mean? Can you punish a person without finding him guilty? You are a lawyer. You are a Professor of Law; so I cannot understand why you asked me this question. Again, there are prominent lawyers in this House. There is a practice or custom - or now it is probably made law - that a person who he is about to be found guilty and punished is normally required to be present. This practice was started not only recently. It goes back to English history, probably 300 or 400 years ago. There must be a reason for it. Probably there might be a last minute plea or whatever you want to take note which might change the whole course of this debate here. The English have in their wisdom this procedure because of certain things that may happen at the last moment. You are going to find a person guilty and he is not present here. The world will be laughing at us.”