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 75 of 85.
“I am a lawyer, all right. This is a well-known fact, but I am not thinking of myself alone. I have a pecuniary interest. The HDB could come to some kind of arrangement as regards the fee. I have a pecuniary interest in this matter of what I am going to say because I do conveyancing for a few HDB units.”
“The Minister says, "to make housing estates a safe and comfortable place to live in." I agree with that. And probably it is also for easier administration. There are 600,000 HDB units. That is a massive number by any standards. I think the problem with the HDB is that it wants to manage everything, from the start - the process of getting building materials, sand, quarrying for granite, making bricks, acquiring land, and be a developer and vendor, selling the property, doing all legal work, administrative work, and now we have got this legislation here to supervise the lives of the HDB residents. I think it has got its hands thoroughly full. That is probably why we are having so many problems. I think the Minister should think seriously of divesting some of these functions. It is too much for one body to deal with almost everything, from the start to the end. I think one area in which they could start to divest is the legal work. I cannot see why the HDB should be involved in the legal work when there are so many lawyers who are out of job. If the HDB feels that the lawyers are charging too much, they could --- An hon. Member: You are a lawyer.”
“Yes, of course, it will. It includes HUDC flats by virtue of the fact of what is written in the agreement or memorandum of lease. Every HUDC purchaser is bound by the Act, meaning the Housing and Development Board Act and all enactments thereunto. So anyone who owns an HUDC flat can have his flat forfeited under these amendments. I do not know whether that was the intention but it is there. The Member for Anson has pointed out that the legislation here is against principles of criminal law. A person should not be made vicariously liable for the criminal acts of another person. The provisions here are also against land law. There is no security of tenure, of conveyancing law. It is so one-sided. At any time, they could amend or vary the application or even the terms of the agreement. What about contract law? Just looking at it, even for an innocent representation the party is liable. Under contract law, we know that if a person who makes an innocent representation, he has a remedy for it. It is not his fault. How can he be punished for it? What about equity? I think it is also against equity. One member or one person in a family commits a crime and the whole family is punished for it. We can go on. So this piece of legislation should be opposed; if not, then it should go to a Select Committee to see whether they could improve on it. I would say nearly all the Members here represent con- stituencies which have got HDB housing estates, and the Members are responsible to their voters. You cannot allow a legislation which goes against nearly all the principles of law. However we look at it, it is bad. I think the Members here have a responsibility and they should speak out on this matter. What is the purpose of this amendment?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir , I shall be brief. May I be allowed to join in the debate? I rise to oppose the Bill. I should say almost every section of the Bill is repugnant. It goes against nearly all principles of law, equity. Does the Minister intend to include HUDC flats under this piece of legislation?”
“I think this is important because the Prime Minister has insisted that the inquiry be opened up; we petition to the President for another inquiry. Why is he so anxious to have all these matters heard in public when he knows very well that under section 4 all proceedings in Parliament are privileged. I think the Leader of the House should be serious about this. It can be disciplined in this House and the Prime Minister says that if it is disciplined by Parliament "it will be thrown out like confetti." Did he say that? Unless I am wrong, did he say that, "it will be thrown out like confetti?" I heard him say that. I think he is mistaken there. Does he not realize that Parliament has the power of suspension, of expulsion and even committal? 4.37 pm”
“This is what I have been saying all the time. The Prime Minister is given so much leeway and anybody else is cut off.”
“May I make an enquiry of the Prime Minister?”
“Mr Prime Minister, I am saying my observation. I observe it unless you deny that.”
“Point of order, Mr Speaker. We are hearing a lengthy speech from the Prime Minister. I do not know what the other Members think. This is certainly not a clarification. He is referring to me, referring to the substance I have just spoken and he is supposed to be clarifying only on the speech of Mr Jeyaretnam. This is the sort of dominance I am saying. We just give latitude to the Prime Minister. He holds centre stage probably up to another hour or so. What sort of clarification is this?”
“Point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir.”
“I clearly heard the Prime Minister say that he was going to clarify as to what the Member for Anson said this morning and not in regard to my speech.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order, please.”
“I do understand Malay. The Member said that I was expanding on the allegations of the Member for Anson. I have not expanded. Please, do not ---”
“When did I expand on the allegations of the Member for Anson? Can you please tell me? Encik Yatiman Yusof( In Malay): When the Member for Anson mentioned two additional names besides Mr Michael Khoo, he had in fact widened his allegations that the Executive had interfered in the running of the Subordinate Courts. Is that enough?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Member for Whampoa sitting behind me or to my right?”
“We have had a debate on privilege. Perhaps the Member of Parliament was not here. And there is a matter, in fact, pending in the High Court of proceedings in one of the Select Committees of Parliament. Even that should have been privileged but this House refused to decide on that. So it leaves it to the Court. If we bring it to the Court, they will probably throw it back to Parliament.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do believe that the Prime Minister knows that the House can waive that privilege. But until then, any proceeding in this Parliament is privileged.”
“By the dominant figure of the Prime Minister. That is what I am saying. This is an observation that people have made in Singapore. So under these situations, I think some people will tend to have some misconceptions and sometimes they may draw some inferences from this kind of a situation. Sir, therefore, I am opposing this motion only because I say that it has contravened section 4 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. In the first place, this Commission of Inquiry should not have been held at all to inquire into the evidence of what transpired in this House. And we hope that after this date, if there is any impropriety or any accusations of improper conduct, then it should be disciplined within Parliament and not outside.”
“There is the usual procedures for getting a judgment from the court. I am sure the Prime Minister should know that. You just make an application and it will be supplied to you. That is the usual procedure. If the Prime Minister wants to go direct to the Chief Justice, then I suppose he is privileged and we are not privileged. As regards the appointment of the Head of the Civil Service and heads of statutory boards, can the Prime Minister tell us whether these appointments are purely based on efficiency and character and not on political considerations? Are they appointed just purely on efficiency? My observation in Singapore today is that we have got this dominant figure. And what is the result? Even this can sometimes be perceived by the public that members of the Civil Service - I am not saying all of them, some of them - may have been influenced by this.”
“Well, we have got a code of conduct in Singapore. We have got procedures. If the Prime Minister feels that all these procedures are not binding on him ---”
“No. I am asking a question and I got the answer and I am happy about it.”
“Perhaps the Prime Minister could tell us how he obtained this copy of the judgment from the court.”
“I have the privilege of sitting just across and could see for myself that when the Prime Minister walks in, everybody sits up. It is like a school teacher coming into Parliament. The Member for Whampoa at one time was making a loud, gesticulative speech on the economy and I observed when the Prime Minister walked in, he tapered, slowed down. It is not the Prime Minister's fault that he dominates the country. In fact, I think foreign observers also noted that. One Canadian reporter says, "How can you fight George Washington?" Well, I am not fighting the Prime Minister. I am in politics because I want to help make Singapore a better place to live in. And, of course, there is a journalist, I believe he also wrote a book, "Lee Kuan Yew, Prime Minister" in which he says he akins the Prime Minister to a Banyan tree. I wonder you have seen a Banyan tree. The roots grow down and they grow more, and the roots grow down and they spread and spread. I have seen such a tree, really the biggest one in the world, in India. It is true that nothing grows under the Banyan tree. During the lunch break, the Prime Minister called for some written matter from the Chief Justice. There was a Queen's Counsel in Singapore at that time and somebody asked him, "Would the Chief Justice jump (in England, that is)? - a query from Margaret Thatcher while she is having a fierce battle in Parliament. The Chief Justice in England would say, "Tell Mrs Margaret Thatcher to go jump in the lake."”
“But, of course, if there is any restriction which is passed by the House of Commons in England, we are not bound by it unless our own Parliament moves a resolution to that effect. This is all very clear. So in future if there is anything improper, we do not have to be so melodramatic, send it to the Committee of Privileges or have a special committee to look into the matter. There is allegation of waste of time. I think the waste of time is coming from the Government side. I have read the Report of the Commissioner and he has said that he can hardly find any English cases. It is quite obvious because in England they follow precedents. They know that anything spoken in Parliament is privileged and they do not hold a Commission of Inquiry of anything that is alleged in Parliament. That is the reason why he cannot find any English precedents. So he goes to the Commonwealth and he quoted an Australian case. But as we have seen under Standing Order 104, Commonwealth cases do not bind us. It is only precedents in the Commons House of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So I think in that respect the guidance which he sought was quite misdirected. Sir, I think everybody definitely would want an independent Judiciary. Nobody wants to see the Judiciary tampered with in any way. I would like to make an observation. Over the past 25 years - this is only an observation - there is only one Party ruling this country and in that Party, the Leader, of course, is the Prime Minister and he has become a very dominant figure in Singapore. And I believe - I think it is a true observation - that he dominates the universities, the Civil Service, statutory boards (I think even Members of Parliament).”
“It is clearly spelt out in section 4 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act that there is freedom of speech in Parliament and debate and proceedings in Parliament should not be impeached or questioned. Our section 4 goes further than the English section from which it was taken from clearly states that, "No Commission of Inquiry will look into any debate or proceedings in Parliament." This section dates back to 1688 by the Bill of Rights, Ninth Article - as long ago as that: 'That the freedom of speech and debate or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.' So what is the simple answer. The simple answer is that if they feel that there is anything wrong, Parliament itself can form a committee and look into it or form a special Select Committee. The usual one is the Committee of Privileges. This is a simple answer to it. Why be so melodramatic, all the drama and all the excitement all for nothing? And now we have heard from Backbenchers. They said that we have got to have a Code of Conduct in Parliament. Parliament has been going in England since, as I have read, 1668. And of course we are guided by these Standing Orders here. There is no other written matter except this and probably some of the directions of the Speaker, and it is very, very clear. I hope we would not have to come back to this matter again. Standing Order 104 is very clear. This is a guide to us: 'In cases of doubt the Standing Orders of Parliament shall be interpreted in the light of the relevant practice of the Commons House of Parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.' So if we cannot find a precedent here, we look to the English precedent.”
“It is obvious there are two thinkings on this matter - the Prime Minister on his own, Cabinet and other Members on the other side. If they thought alike, they would have brought this matter up in the first place. So it is obvious that it is the initiation of the Prime Minister. None of the Ministers here initiated this whole thing. And they said that there was a waste of time. We have seen the debate broadcast and we have seen the Commission of Inquiry called. The proceedings were telecast, repeated and repeated again. Why all this publicity? What is the purpose? If you want to come to a solution, I do not think that by just broadcasting to the world will come to any solution to the problems. What is the purpose? There must be a purpose for it. I suppose the Government only knows. They are the people who are wasting time, spending public money in televising this three times, not twice but three times - that is my personal knowledge - maybe more times, I do not know. This matter could be easily resolved and I think an important issue is the privilege in Parliament. This is clearly enshrined, freedom of speech in Parliament. It is not absolute freedom but there is freedom of speech. I think this is an important issue which I have brought up before in another debate. If the House feels that a Member has said something improper or acted in a manner which is not becoming of a Member of Parliament, there is the procedure. It does not mean that as soon as a Member makes an allegation, a Commission of Inquiry should be held. We have found the futility of this Commission of Inquiry because it is privileged.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose the motion and I would like to make an amendment to the motion in respect of paragraph (2). This is really the amendment of the Member for Anson and I have been asked to move it, based on the fact that he is now not allowed to speak as he has completed his one hour. Sir, I beg to move, That the whole of paragraph (2) of the motion be deleted and to substitute therefor: '(2) regrets the failure of the Commissioner to give the assurance sought by the Member for Anson before the Member gave evidence and which failure prevented the Commission from inquiring into the Terms of Reference.' Sir, the allegations were first mentioned in Parliament on 10th January this year and the usual rebuttals were made by the Minister. At that time none of the Members in this House was alarmed by it. But now we hear three Members, two from the Backbench and one from the Government side. The Member for Ulu Pandan has said that there is a waste of a lot of time and the Member for Whampoa says that there is a sense of outrage. And, of course, we get the usual lecture from the Parliamentary Secretary. If they were really so alarmed and there was a sense of outrage, why were they so quiet? Nothing was done for two months. It is obvious that either the allegations were properly rebutted and they thought nothing of that after that, or they did not realize the gravity of it, or they were just indifferent. It is only when the Prime Minister, after coming back from a trip, as he has stated, and the allegations made again, that he came into the House to confront the Member for Anson, and we knew what happened then. In the first instance, Ministers, Government members and Backbenchers thought nothing of it.”
“You are as slippery as a snake yourself.”
“Can he please clarify that? What exactly does he mean by "not far behind"? What have I done?”
“It was quite obvious he was not referring to me. I think it is an unbecoming conduct, all the same.”
“Point of order, Sir. I think it is unbecoming of referring to another Member as a snake. I wish the Member for Whampoa would ---”
“Yes, all right. Why is the HDB not buying back HUDC flats within five years under your rules and under the agreement of lease? Clause 12 for your information.”
“Therefore, if the HDB has got this ruling, that ruling should cover HUDC flats. We are talking of legality now. Why is the HDB not ---”
“Is there not a clause in your lease, which you so much would like to refer to, the legality of it? Is there not a clause in your lease which says that if there is a requirement for the house owner, the HUDC owner, to resell it back, they have to resell it back only to the HDB? Is that not so?”
“All right. Now he concedes that there is an HDB rule which the HDB purchases HDB flats back in five years. Now we go back to your previous policy.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this is wasting the House time. Please answer whether you have a rule to purchase back within five years.”
“We are talking about the purchasing of flats back now.”
“Sir, can the Minister please tell the House that the rule governing HUDC policy is, in fact, not completely governed by HDB rule. Is that what he is saying now? You are making so many exceptions.”
“I will ask a supplementary question. The Minister has conceded that HUDC policy is under the HDB rules. Is it not HDB's rule that the HDB purchases flats back from HDB house owners within five years? Is that not a rule?”
“Sir, a supplementary question as regards the previous Question which you have allowed me to ask.”
“Sir, I think this is important. May I ask a supplementary question?”
“May I ask the Minister this. You make a rule, make a policy, and you deviate from it whenever it suits your convenience. Is it not so?”
“Why is this exception made in regard to financing of HUDC flats?”
“It is very clear that the policy, as enunciated by the Minister in 1983, is that the HUDC flats will be governed by the rules of the HDB.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister seems to be twisting all the time. There is a clear-cut policy in which the policy of the HUDC ---”
“Sir, it was an announced policy that the policy of the HUDC will be governed by the rules of the HDB. Why is it that the financing of HUDC flats cannot come from the HDB but rather from Credit POSB? Is this not a deviation from the policy?”
“May I ask a supplementary question, Sir? This Working Group has been formed. Could the Minister of State please tell the House what measures have they looked into so far, and have they touched on the private schools in Singapore?”
“Do you really see the possibility of an aircraft carrier steaming into Singapore? Do you really seriously think that? BG Lee Hsien Loong: I put forward an example deliberately frivolous as an illustration that there are other possibilities, perhaps as yet unbeknown to the Member, and I commend to him that he consider all possible threats seriously and in such a way as will not compromise the security and the well-being of this nation.”
“Yes, but he has not answered my question. Which country does he foresee this aircraft carrier coming from? If there is no such country, then do not put it up in this House. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I commend the Member for Potong Pasir to have some private conversation with his neighbour. I do not put forward the aircraft carrier as a serious threat. I put it forward as an illustration that there are many possibilities which may threaten our security. There are many developments which may be totally unexpected, which may result ---”
“Sir, defence I would imagine is a serious topic, but the Acting Minister for Trade and Industry takes this whole thing like a joke. There is a large sum of money spent on defence of Singapore.”