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 72 of 85.
“Mr Speaker, I am not anxious. We here are not concerned about me. We are concerned about the nation. We have been talking of nation building. We have been talking of democracy. We have been talking of the right of representation. Do not all these things mean anything to the Minister at all?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I ask the Minister: Is he afraid of losing the bye-election? Let us have the truth. Are you afraid that Hong Lim 1961 will be repeated all over again? An hon. Member: Are you afraid of being lonely in the House? Mr Chiam See Tong: Don't be funny.”
“This is typical of the Government - "Go to the Courts". We have heard that before. Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1983 at Havelock there were valid reasons. That constituency was to be taken away and the Prime Minister had said that the General Elections was going to be early. Now, let us have the reasons this time, Mr Minister. If there are no valid reasons then a bye-election should be held. Let us have the valid reasons, please, like in Havelock.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the only reason I can say is that, according to the Minister, there is no necessity under the law to hold a bye-election. But I beg to differ with him. There is a necessity to hold a bye-election.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just make a comment on what you have just read?”
“I have been promised an answer, Mr Speaker.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that the Minister has promised to give me an answer as regards which post needs a higher standard, an Ambassador of a country or a member of the Bar Council. He has not given me an answer. Please, it was the Prime Minister he quoted. The Prime Minister is not here to answer any questions that may be put to him. But we have not got an answer from the Minister yet.”
“Are there members of the PAP in the Bar Council?”
“Please be a man. I do not have to include Mr Jeyaretnam in my defamatory action. Please tell us whether ---”
“I will check it out. If the Member for Whampoa wants to take this to the finish, all right, we will do it. He will receive a letter from me. Mr Speaker: Dr Tan, please carry on to another point.”
“I do not know. I have to check this out. The facts have to be checked out.”
“Sir, we have amended the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act to prevent members from ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Whampoa has belaboured this point more than once. If he wants to have a showdown, I will give him a showdown. Let me have a look at the letter. I will explain it.”
“So this is the point I am trying to make, ie, the standard for appointment to the Bar Council. If the Members here feel that we should not have such a high standard, then this section also would have to be amended. Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Bill and I have taken note of some of the points raised by some Members of this House. In the first place, the Member for Anson complained that on some sections of the Bill no representations were made by the Law Society and therefore the amendments do not represent their opinion. Sir, we should be mindful that it was the Government who initiated this Bill. It was not the Law Society's Bill or anybody else's Bill. And let us not forget the primary purpose of this amendment. It is this - to protect the best interests of the public by regulating and maintaining the standards of the legal profession. Sir, we know that law firms regularly hold large sums of money in their clients' accounts. I wish there was some way to get out this information for the public but I am told that it is money in the millions of dollars, tens of millions of dollars. This represents money held by lawyers on behalf of their clients for purchasing and selling properties, in respect of estates which are tied up in legal disputes, estates under probate, and so on and so forth. And we do know that from time to time we get lawyers who embezzle their clients' money.”
“It is up to the Minister to answer, is it not? You are not the Minister. You are out already.”
“Of course, it is relevant. We are talking about members of the Bar Council who should not be flawed and should not be seen walking with girl friends along High Street. Impeccable character, that is what we want. Somebody has said, you will only find that type of people in heaven. Of course, I am not wanting people from heaven but I am just asking for the standards which you have set. You are going to set a standard for the members of the Bar Council. Should this standard be higher than a standard for appointing Ambassadors? That is the question I want to ask. As far as I know there are no complaints from foreign multi-national companies and foreign banks who are here against any one of our lawyers. Then why should we be having such high standards? A standard which is even higher than for the appointment of an Ambassador of a country. That is what it is here. This is the standard you are setting for members to be elected to the Bar Council.”
“I am waiting for an answer. The last time I asked a question I did not get an answer, I was accused of being rhetorical. I want an answer now. I am asking them which is ---”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I think we are on serious business here. This is not a fun and game. This is not a tea-party.”
“I have not finished. Do not jump the queue.”
“Irregardless.[Laughter.] Or regardless. [More laughter]. I will ask the question again. Which is more important: a post as Ambassador of this country or to be a member of the Bar Council? I should like that question answered. Perhaps the Minister for Law or Second Minister for Law could tell us which is the more important post: to be a member of the Bar Council or to be appointed an Ambassador of our country? Can I wait for an answer? Dr Augustine H.H. Tan rose -”
“Correct. I have been trying to point out to the Member for Chong Boon that the word "or" is disjunctive. Perhaps you still have not understood what I was trying to tell the Member for Chong Boon. Perhaps the Second Minister for Law will explain it. As long as this solicitor is suspended for six months or more, irregardless of the reasons.”
“I have already commented that the Ambassador to France, Mr David Marshall, had been suspended for six months and yet this Government deemed it fit to appoint him as Ambassador to France. I think the Senior Minister who is laughing there knows it personally. According to Mr David Marshall, he was called to the Senior Minister's office and for a moment he thought he was required to make out a will for him.”
“It must be neutralized. So that is what it has done, trying to neutralize the Law Society and at the moment, of course, the rallying force is the President. With this amendment, of course, the President would not stay very long. Individuals are okay. Individuals can criticize but not an organization. This is what the British do. They knew about it. That is why they have this colonial type of legislation. They do not want organized people to oppose it. The third reason for all this publicity is for the Prime Minister to give a lesson to all the new Ministers on how to deal with your opponents. Crush them, annihilate them. I think this is a lesson he is trying to teach to the new Ministers. That is what I can see. Because there is really no need for it. I mean, you do not have to crush your opponents to a pulp, using a sledgehammer, so to say, to kill a fly. Or, as has been said by the President of the Law Society, using a steamroller to crush a nut. I think this Government always over -reacts. May I comment on the other amendment. In fact, I have already commented on this and pointed out to the Member for Chong Boon - I see he is not here - that the words in this amendment are disjunctive. These are the reasons or grounds in which members or practitioners can be barred from being voted to the local Bar Council if he is struck off the roll or suspended from practising as an advocate and solicitor for a period of six months or more, or has been convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty. Well, if a member of the Bar has been convicted of fraud or dishonesty, that is fair enough if he is struck off. But what about this solicitor who has been suspended for a period of six months or more? No reasons were given. He could be suspended for technical reasons.”
“Of course, the reason given by the Prime Minister was, "Circumstances have changed. I am a realist." In other words, the PAP can say anything they like. They can never be bound by their words. It is very easy. When they want to go back on their words, they say, "Circumstances have changed. I am a realist." Who would dare to do business with such a man? After undergoing a contract, he says, "Oh, circumstances have changed. I am not bound by it." The credibility is very important. But, of course, the Prime Minister has said, "Yes, of course, I still believe in them." These are his words. If he still believes in what he said in 1977, then he should be here opposing this Bill. Because there are no two ways about democracy. Either you have it, or you do not have it. He should be here opposing this Bill, and not fighting so hard for the last two days, on television. As far as the television screening of it is concerned, I think we can learn three lessons from it. Firstly, I think it has not really shownany compelling reasons. There are no justifiable reasons why the Legal Profession Act should be amended. The number of complaints that were brought to the Disciplinary Committee by the Supreme Court, by the Attorney-General, has dropped over the years. There is nothing alarming about it going up. It is going down. In fact, for 1985 there was a clean record. Even complaints from members of the public have decreased. So what is the urgency? All the evidence produced has not brought out one iota of compelling reason to have this Legal Profession Act amended. The other reason is that this Government does not believe in any organization or body of persons opposing it. It does not mind individuals. But whenever it sees an organization opposing it, it gets frightened.”
“Of course, I am here, in the Opposition. I hope my learned friend from Whampoa will say something on what the Prime Minister has said.”
“What is so obvious? The credibility of this Govern- ment is at stake. Can we believe you? I certainly for one do not believe you. You say something and you do something else. You have said this. There are no two-ways about democracy. And you say, "No law should permit those democratic processes to be set at naught." What clearer, more clear-cut words than these have been put here? And yet we are embarking on a law which will restrict the free publication of the Law Society of Singapore. If you are curbing their free publication, according to what the Prime Minister has said in 1977, you are curbing the democratic processes. We are undermining the very foundation of our society. This is the reason why I am in politics. I was worried, as far back as 1976, about the direction this Government is going. And it has not changed. It is still going on course, going against the democratic processes.”
“He is unable to answer me. He said I have misinterpreted. Please, where have I misinterpreted? This is word for word, printed.”
“It is not a misinterpretation. You can have a look at it, please. All right, tell me, Member for MacPherson. I am going to sit down. Tell me where I misinterpreted it, please.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I should like to comment on two amendments. The first one is to amend section 39(1)(c) whereby the words "submitted to it" are added after the word "legislation".”
“Point of clarification, Sir. There is already a ruling in the Law Society. Monies held by lawyers as stakeholders, if they know that it would be three months or more, will be put in fixed deposit to earn interest.”
“How can you hold a meeting in a mail box? Dr Lee Boon Yang: Mr Speaker, Sir, how can you have a society with no place of business?”
“When? Ten years from today? I want to know how many of them have got their refunds to-date?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to ask two supplementary questions? Of the 49 lessees who have been refused permission to sell their flats to the HDB, how many of them have committed themselves to buying private flats? I wonder if the Minister knows how many of them are suffering from hardship because they are committed to buying a private flat since they have been refused permission to sell their HUDC flats back to the HDB. If I may ask another question which is related more to HDB flats than to HUDC flats. The Minister will remember that I brought up the point that the HDB has breached its contract by making HDB flat-owners pay more than the agreed price in the agreement of sale and purchase. How many of these 24 flat-owners who have paid in excess of their purchase price have now got their refunds from the HDB?”
“Irrelevant. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) 3.40 pm”
“In the first place I am not making such insinuations.”
“He cannot insinuate against the legal profession. Mr Speaker: Carry on, Dr Tan.”
“I think he cannot make insinuations against the legal profession.”
“He is saying that I said something wrong against Mr David Marshall and that I should apologize.”
“But please. I think there should be a point of order. Bring him to it.”
“No. I was comparing the appointments. Which was more important - to be an Ambassador of Singapore or appointed to the Law Society?”
“What I said was truthful and he is implying that what I said was ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, you should pull him to order. He is saying something which ---”
“I have every right to say that and he is saying that I was wrong. I challenge him. The amendment says, "6 months or ...". It is disjunctive there. Read it carefully, please. Mr Chandra Das: Sir, can I carry on? Mr David Marshall now has the distinction of serving as our Ambassador to France.”
“No. This amendment here says "6 months ...".”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this is an important point. It should be clarified. Could the Member please look at the amendment under clause 2? It says: 'A member who has been struck off the roll or suspended from practice for a period of 6 months or more or has been convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty ...'. "Or", that is disjunctive. Please read it carefully before you make your accusations.”
“The Member for MacPherson is capable of answering.”
“Point of clarification, Mr Speaker. The Member for MacPherson is a member of the Bar. He says that there was a complaint in 1982 involving a magistrate; it went before the Disciplinary Committee and probably no report has been made. He is a member of the Bar and I want to ask him: what has he done about it himself? Or has he just come to this House to air his Party's point of view? Now, as a member of the Bar, I am asking him what has he done? And he says there are a few activists "taking the Government on." These are very strong words talking about his own members in the Law Society. Again, I ask him: if he is really that concerned, has he reported this matter to the Bar Council? Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not for me to report to the Law Society Council.”
“That's right. Get your own members to speak.”
“Well, read the Bill. So unless the Minister can come out with some valid reasons, I think one Member has already said, there is a lot of loose and ludicrous legislation going through this House. This is one of the ludicrous and loose legislation. Half-way through, they say, "Ha, all kinds of errors are coming in. Put it to a Select Committee." Why does not the Government sit down and look at it properly? There is the Law Society whom they can consult. There is no better body to consult than the Law Society. Consult them. I think consultation is perhaps a duty of the Government, and the Government has forgotten this over these last 25 years. It has taken the role of "the Government knows best" attitude. Again, this is another point which the PAP must change. This is their old style of governing Singapore. They must change. I would say of this Bill, after it has gone through Select Committee, that they will probably find that there are, in fact, no good points in it at all. Therefore, I am not supporting this Bill.”
“Well, of course, Spring comes before Summer! I think the last amendment to the Housing and Development Act is in the same pattern. We get four cases in a year of people just dropping something out of their window, and they are slammed down with a sledgehammer. This Bill is also the same. We have got here a complaint by the Attorney-General, whom we have been told, is a Government man. A complaint from him, and the Disciplinary Committee straightaway has to take action, bypassing the Inquiry Committee. Why the need for that? An hon. Member: Who says so?”