Chua Sian Chin
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on this Bill as a person who had been in Government for many years and before that in legal practice for more than eight years and now back in legal practice. While I was in Government, I had cognizance of the shortcomings of the legal profession.”
“It is 62 members out of a total of 1,335 practising lawyers. This has brought about a situation which no responsible government can let it pass in the public interest. The Government has good reasons to deal with this situation firmly. In fact, the present amendments have only made a small inroad in self-regulation.”
“At the same time, a minority group of activists has also chosen to take on the Government by calling an Extraordinary General Meeting of the Law Society to pass fierce resolutions against the Government. This group comprised only 62 members.”
“Though he has only limited Constitutional powers and acts on the advice of the Cabinet, he is the symbol of the unity, loyalty and aspirations of the people of Singapore.”
“- to hold classes for children of his constituents. What right has he got? The PAP MPs equally have no such rights. It is the right of the Government, if they think so, to have such classes. In fact, through the People's Association, they have been holding kindergarten classes in the community centres.”
“It is the Government who says that, and the Government has the right to say it because they are responsible for the Government of Singapore. And it is not what I say or what you say. Let me turn to the Member for Potong Pasir. He also produced some exhibits which are equally bogus.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,639 lines we hold for Chua Sian Chin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 33.
“Sir, I feel that the Member for Kim Seng is asking me a rhetorical question. I think he knows why they are still active in certain areas like Jalan Besar and Geylang. The straight answer is that in Jalan Besar and Geylang there are still some red light areas.”
“Sir, they are still the triad type of secret societies. They have their initiation ceremonies and so on. Their common types of activity are extortion, crimes, and so on. They still have their traditional methods of operation. At the same time they also have modernised. Of course, they also take into consideration the lie of the land when they commit these activities. We also counter these new techniques and methods.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there are 37 active secret societies comprising 110 gangs operating in various parts of Singapore. They are more active in certain areas in Jalan Besar and Geylang, and in rural areas such as Jurong and Sembawang. Some are found in Housing Board estates. The Police are keeping these areas under close surveillance. There is no evidence of secret society elements infiltrating youth groups or organisations.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said, we have facilities in the prison where a detainee can study in peace and quiet. Some of them have done so and have attained GCE 'O' and 'A' levels. If the Member for Whampoa is asking about further study in the university, we have no university facilities in the prison, but if there is such a case we will consider it. TAXI DRIVER LICENCES (Tests) 2. Mr Ho See Beng asked the Minister for Communications and Acting Minister for Culture the reasons why applicants for taxi driver licences have been unable to take their test since 1977.”
“Sir, I do not know under what circumstances my predecessor's predecessor made that statement. But the point is this. I would not like to make a general comment on this matter as it is quite clear in my answer to the Question that each case must be treated on its own merits. In other words, a first offender could be detained for a shorter period whereas a hardened criminal would be detained for a longer period. Of course, the length of detention would depend on the progress of the rehabilitation of the detainee.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no stipulation in the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act of a maximum period of detention. But all detentions under the Act are for a period of 12 months initially. Orders of Detention can, however, be extended for periods not exceeding one year at a time. A Review Committee reviews all cases to assess whether a detainee should be released. The Committee takes into consideration the gravity of the criminal activities the detainee was involved in, his conduct in prison and his response to rehabilitation. As soon as he is found to have been suitably rehabilitated, he is released from detention. It is difficult to specify what period of detention would be adequate for the purpose of rehabilitation. Each case will have to be considered on its merits. Generally, first offenders will be released earlier than hardened criminals. Education is part of the rehabilitation programme for the detainees who wish to study. Some of them have earned GCE 'O' and 'A' level certificates through studies during detention. If a detainee requests to be released early in order to pursue his studies abroad, his request will be considered by the Review Committee. So far, there has been one such request and it was granted.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think that a re-application will, in fact, impose hardship on the applicants. Each application is considered on its own merit. When the time comes for processing and, on consideration, it is found that the particular application does not merit the granting of citizenship, it is refused. Is there any point then in delaying consideration of the application? I think it is a disadvantage to delay because if it is found that an applicant has no hope of getting citizenship, it is better that the application be considered and that he be told that citizenship will not be granted to him. On the other hand, the applicant is free to re-apply. May I explain the matter? It does not mean that an applicant's situation is static. He may improve upon his income. He may improve his skill and qualities. If, after having been rejected once, he feels that he has improved on all these aspects, he may apply again. NWC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PENSIONERS 13. Mr Ivan Baptist asked the Minister for Finance whether he will give sympathetic consideration to implementing the National Wages Council's recommendations or a cost of living allowance to alleviate the hardship faced by pensioners over the past six years due to the steep rise in the consumer Price Index from 100 in November 1972 to 155.9 in May 1978.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, generally, an applicant who satisfies any of the following criteria would be considered to be making a contribution towards the economic well-being of the Republic: - (1) He possesses a recognised professional, university or technical qualification, including a trade certificate; (2) He is a skilled or semi-skilled worker (such as a welder, carpenter or fitter) and has regular employment; (3) He is an entrepreneur or investor who is providing jobs for local people; and (4) He has satisfactorily completed National Service. Applicants who are likely to become a liability may be categorised as follows: - (1) Persons who are likely to bring into Singapore wives, children or aged parents who are not citizens or permanent residents of Singapore; (2) Persons on public assistance; (3) Persons with character defects and criminal records; (4) Unemployed persons; (5) Persons without steady employment, such as odd job or casual workers; (6) Persons who are not prepared to do National Service, except those exempted on medical grounds; and (7) Unskilled labourers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Boon Lay Garden area is presently patrolled by one Team Policing car with four policemen, one scooter with two policemen, and three teams of 10 full-time Police National Servicemen on vertical policing on an 8-hour shift. Additional patrols are also performed by detectives from Jurong Police Station, Police Reserve Unit (PRU) Troops from PRUs 3 and 4, and members of the Special Constabulary under the neighbourhood policing scheme. The crime rate in the Boon Lay Garden area is relatively low. For the first six months of this year, the number of offences committed in the area averaged about 15 per month as compared to the monthly average of 16 for the whole year of 1977. The Police has, therefore, provided adequate coverage for the Boon Lay Garden area. It is, therefore, not necessary at this stage to deploy more policemen in the area. However, the crime rate in this area will continue to be monitored, as in all other areas in Singapore, and adjustment on the deployment of policemen will be made, when and where necessary. CRITERIA FOR SINGAPORE CITIZENSHIP (Elaboration) 12.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said that each case is treated on its own merit. In fact, we have reinstated a large majority of those who have lost their permanent resident status through failure to obtain a re-entry permit before leaving Singapore. In fact, it is over 87%. We cannot reinstate permanent resident status to every one of them. If they had a good case, they would have been given their permanent resident status back. The Member wanted to know why the remaining few were not reinstated. I cannot give specific reasons now because I would have to go through all the applications that have been turned down. But generally, I can say that they do not merit reinstatement. BOON LAY GARDEN AREA (Police patrol) 11. Mr Ngeow Pack Hua asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Education whether he will consider sending more policemen to patrol the Boon Lay Garden area.”
“The underlying objective of this legal provision is to ensure that those who are conferred the status of permanent residents make Singapore their permanent home or, if abroad, show their intention of returning to Singapore. Otherwise they should not continue to enjoy the privileges of being permanent residents. The re-entry permit which is issued for a specified period is, therefore, an instrument of control over unduly lengthy or frequent absence from the country of domicile. Considerations are, however, given for re-entry permit extensions for valid reasons such as absence on account of overseas studies. During the period 1st January 1977 to 30th June 1978, 1,709 persons who had lost their permanent resident status applied for reinstatement of their permanent residence. Of these, 1,496 or 87.5%, including 944 Singapore blue identity card holders, had their permanent resident status reinstated. A person who values his permanent resident status in Singapore should not leave without a re-entry permit. However, this is not to say that a hard line is taken against those who have left without a re-entry permit and so lost their permanent resident status. Each case is considered on its own merits, and where it can be shown that failure to obtain a re-entry permit was due to ignorance, or for other compassionate reasons, the permanent resident status will normally be reinstated. The figures which I have quoted earlier speak for themselves, and they show that we have been very humane in the implementation of section 11 of the Immigration Act. Mr Ivan Baptist: Mr Speaker, Sir, how many, if any, persons were stateless? And why have the rest, i.e. 213 out of the 1,709 persons not been reinstated?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, between 1st August 1967 and 20th July 1978, 3,494 Singapore blue identity card holders had lost their permanent resident status and had their identity cards impounded. Unfortunately, the records do not make a distinction between those who lost their permanent resident status because they left Singapore without a re-entry permit and those who lost it for other reasons. However, the Immigration Department studied the cases occurring during the period 1st January 1977 to 20th July 1978 and found that 94.5% of them were due to failure to obtain a re-entry permit or to renew their re-entry permit. If this parameter is representative, then approximately 3,300 of the 3,494 persons who had their blue identity cards impounded, lost their permanent resident status because they left Singapore without obtaining a re-entry permit or renewing their re-entry permit. It is not a question of the Government or the Immigration Department retracting the permanent resident status of these persons. The requirement for a re-entry permit for re-entry into Singapore is provided for under the Immigration Act. Under section 11 of the Immigration Act, a permanent resident who intends to leave Singapore temporarily must obtain a re-entry permit which will authorise him to re-enter Singapore. Failure to comply with this will make him lose his permanent resident status automatically, and I repeat, automatically, and he can only return to Singapore as a visitor. This legal provision is found in the immigration laws of many countries, including Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Immigration Head Office on the first floor of the Empress Place Building has a total floor area of 2,312 square metres. This is not adequate to cater for the number of persons visiting the Office. The Immigration Department has recently taken over 540 square metres of office space on the ground floor of the Empress Place Building which was vacated by the Currency Board. The Department plans to renovate the additional space. Public waiting areas will be extended. Air-conditioning will be provided for the office and public areas of the Building if approved by the Ministry of Finance. With this additional area, the Immigration Head Office will be able to meet its requirements in the next few years. On a longer term the Department is developing a conceptual plan to construct a new building for its Head Office. CENTRAL FOREIGN EXCHANGE MARKET (Setting up of) 8. Mr Ang Nam Piau asked the Minister for Finance if the Government will set up a Central Foreign Exchange market to reduce the risk taken by manufacturers in Singapore, who buy raw materials from Japan and West Germany and export their finished products to dollar areas, of incurring losses in the event of sharp rises or falls in currencies.”
“I would like to ask the Minister whether those who are, say, above 30 years want to join national service or any uniformed organisation, will be considered for permanent residence. Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Member for Sembawang had listened to the answer carefully, he would have noticed that what I said was that consideration would be given on joining the SAF regular service, and not doing national service. If a male person is over 30 years old and if he is accepted as a regular of the SAF, then of course, he will be considered for the grant of permanent residence. But there is a difference between doing national service and being in the service of the SAF. I hope this clarifies the mind of the Member for Sembawang. REVISION OF ATTENDANCE FEES AND DENTAL SERVICE CHARGES (Statement by the Minister for Health) 2.37 p.m. Accident & Emergency Fees”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Special Pass holders are normally persons who are unable to prove their lawful presence in Singapore but are allowed to remain here on purely compassionate grounds. Where the grant of permanent residence is concerned, they are treated on the same basis as others who are staying here lawfully on other types of immigration passes. Special Pass holders cannot claim special privilege over these other people who may also have family ties in Singapore. The grant of permanent residence is governed by the provisions of the Immigration (Prohibition of Entry) Order, 1973. Family roots is only one factor when considering applications for permanent residence. Much will depend on whether the applicant has special skill and can contribute or have contributed to the well-being of the country. Generally, a Special Pass holder who is a professional or skilled person, the wife of a Singapore citizen, or a child under the age of six of a Singapore citizen, is eligible for the grant of permanent resident status. Alternatively, if he is a male of national service age, he can also be considered for permanent residence provided he signs up for regular service in the SAF. During the last five years, 400 persons who were previously on Special Passes were granted permanent residence. They included those whose families are made up of Singapore citizens or permanent residents. Mr Teong Eng Siong (Sembawang)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in his reply the Minister says that those with special skills or technical skills or those who sign up for national service will be given consideration for permanent residence.”
“Sir, it is not difficult to give such an assurance. I shall give the assurance. I think in this debate itself, the fact that I have made the assurance in Parliament today will be sufficient to highlight it.”
“As I said, 33,000 people go through the checkpoint everyday and if the Immigration Officers have to see whether or not each and every person has got a re-entry permit, there will be a traffic jam. But the fact that we have debated this in Parliament and when it is reported in the newspapers it will serve as a reminder to them that they should obtain a re-entry permit before leaving Singapore. In fact, many of them do have a re-entry permit because they are not that ignorant. Those cases which the Member has quoted must have happened years ago. But at the moment, I can assure the Member that many of them know about this requirement. Even I myself do remind my constituents during my meet-the-people sessions that there is a need to apply for a re-entry permit. Likewise, I presume the Member for Punggol, amongst others, would remind his constituents about this. I think the publicity is enough at the moment. And if in spite of the publicity they still go over to Malaysia without applying for a re-entry permit, I think they are grossly negligent which does indicate that they do not really treasure their blue identity card privilege. 6.15 p.m.”
“Sir, I always sympathetically consider the cases from the Member for Anson. May I answer the Member for Serangoon Gardens? I agree that officers in the Task Force do arrest illegal immigrants and so on. They do jobs which are equivalent to that of Police officers. That is why it is an elite force and that is why even the Member says that if an officer is in this Force his chances of promotion are very bright. I agree that is so. But the point is that the majority of the Immigration Officers are doing a white-collar job. Some, of course not everyone, go to Sultan Shoal; maybe they can enjoy fishing as the Member for Punggol has indicated. So it may not be a hard job where they have got to brave the elements. These are exceptions but, by and large, they are doing a soft job. But I have already posed the question: why is it that we have no dearth of applicants when we advertised for Immigration Officers but there is a dearth of applicants when we advertised for Prison warders and Police officers? I come now to the Member for Punggol and the Member for Mountbatten. They must not get the impression that I do not view these cases sympathetically and that I do not know the difference between a Special Pass holder and that of a blue identity card holder. Of course, there is a difference. In considering the case on its merits, if it does not merit a restoration of permanent resident status, we will deal with the case sympathetically by allowing the person to stay on a Special Pass. At least that person can continue staying in Singapore. With regard to the point about reminding blue identity card holders of the fact that if they go out of Singapore they must apply for a re-entry permit, I think it is not necessary to get the Immigration Officers to remind every person.”
“May I assure the Member that if the officer is found to be good and efficient, he has equal chances. With regard to salary scales, he said that Prison warders and Police officers have got better salary scales. May I point out that the Immigration Officer's job is more a white-collar job when compared to Prison warders whose job is not a pleasant one or to the Police officers who have to work in the rain and sun. This is the first time that I hear of such grievances and I will certainly look into it. But the point is this. In spite of the fact that he says that the conditions are unfavourable and that there are grievances, we had no problem whatsoever when we advertised for the recruitment of Immigration Officers. We had an overwhelming response. On the other hand, when we advertised for the recruitment of Prison warders and Police officers, we did not get similar response. Comparing the terms and conditions of service between the Immigration Officers and the Police officers or Prison warders, I cannot understand the reason for this phenomenon which he has now projected to me. I will look into it but personally I do not think the grievances can be that serious as made out by the Member for Serangoon Gardens.”
“In such cases the point is, being a male person, if he were to do national service, he might be sympathetically considered for permanent residence. In answer not only to the Member for Punggol but also to the Member for Anson, we do consider such cases sympathetically. Where a person has lost permanent residence because of non-possession of a re-entry permit before leaving Singapore, we do take into account this factor sympathetically and in some cases we do re-grant these persons permanent residence. In any case, a person will be given Special Pass and will continue to reside in Singapore, although he may not get back his permanent residence. Each case, of course, will be treated on its own merits. The point made by the Member for Serangoon Gardens is about the grievances of Immigration Officers. He said that one of the grievances ii that they have to travel long distances to the various checkpoints. This, again, is one of the exigencies of service. We had occasion to hear of complaints of teachers being posted to schools far away from their home. 6.00 p.m. He also mentioned about the disparity of treatment between headquarters officers and those in the various checkpoints, on account that those in headquarters would be favoured for appointment in the Task Force. I do not think it is a question of favouritism. The Task Force is an elite force in the sense that it must have good officers in order to solve the problem of illegal immigration. It is a difficult problem and therefore we need the best personnel. I do not agree with the Member for Serangoon Gardens that if an officer is appointed to work in the checkpoints instead of in headquarters, he would have less opportunity of joining the Task Force.”
“17% of the total number of arriving travellers during the same period. On the enforcement side, over this period a total of 2,036 persons were refused permission to enter while 46 persons were not allowed to leave Singapore. Of this latter group, three were SAF deserters and 14 persons who were liable for national service attempted to leave Singapore without exit permits. The other cases involved mainly income tax evaders and people wanted by the Police. There were also a few cases of foreigners attempting to leave their children behind illegally. Let me turn to the question posed by the Member for Punggol with regard to the loss of permanent resident status by leaving Singapore without obtaining a re-entry permit. May I say that it is not a question of the Immigration Officer wanting or waiting to deprive these persons of their permanent residence. The regulation is such that once they leave the Republic without a re-entry permit, they lose their permanent resident status, and that is why they will be asked to surrender their blue identity cards and given a Special Pass. In the case cited by the Member about an adopted child who is a Malaysian and who was two years old when the incident happened, he was brought back to Malaysia without a re-entry permit, and therefore under the regulations he has lost his permanent residence. Yet he was allowed back and given a Special Pass. He was not treated unsympathetically because he was issued with a Student Pass, with which he was able to get his education in Singapore. The point now is that he is no longer a student. He has grown up, I presume. The Student Pass is then withdrawn because he is no longer a student.”
“From 3rd January to 13th March this year, a period of 70 days, 354 persons who had overstayed were detected when they were leaving Singapore at the Woodlands Checkpoint. This constitutes about 0.13% of the total flow of travellers arriving through the Checkpoint during this period of 70 days. 76.6% of these people had overstayed in Singapore for less than one week and only 2.1% had overstayed for more than three months. Prior to 6th March, 1978, the overstayers were issued with warning notices only. Since then Senior Immigration Officers at the Checkpoint have been authorised to impose composition fines on visitors who have overstayed. From 6th March, 1978 to 13th March, 1978, a total of 91 persons were dealt with in this way. No one has been prosecuted yet. Besides the Woodlands Checkpoint, there are other checkpoints at Keppel Railway Station, Clifford Pier Building, South Quay, Changi Point, Jurong Fishing Port, Paya Lebar Airport, Seletar Airport, Changi Aerodrome, Tengah Aerodrome and so on and so forth. The main emphasis of immigration clearance at these checkpoints is that we provide an efficient and courteous service to genuine tourists and other travellers. Over the last two months the Immigration Officers cleared a daily average of 40,827 travellers and an equal number of departing travellers at all our checkpoints. Despite the large number of persons handled since the introduction of Exit Control on 3rd January, 1978, the Immigration Department has been able to maintain a satisfactory level of service and no major problem has been encountered. From 3rd January, 1978, to 13th March, 1978, a total of 4,930 visitors were found to have overstayed in Singapore. This is the figure for all the checkpoints. However, this constitutes only about 0.”
“Sir, may I first answer the Member for Punggol with regard to the Woodlands Checkpoint. The Woodlands Checkpoint provides clearance for travellers entering or leaving Singapore through the Causeway. Besides Immigration, the Customs, the Registry of Vehicles, Police, Central Narcotics Bureau and the new Narcotics Dog Unit share the facilities of the Checkpoint complex. On the average, 33,000 travellers enter Singapore and about the same number leave Singapore through the checkpoint each day. Prior to the implementation of the Exit Control Scheme on 3rd January this year, the Immigration Officers at the Checkpoint could only examine travel documents of arriving visitors and they had to decide whether or not such visitors could be allowed to enter Singapore. This system was common to all the checkpoints but it was found to be inadequate as it did not ensure that a visitor would leave Singapore on or before the expiry of the visit pass. Over-staying was rampant. To deal with this problem, Exit Control was implemented. From 3rd January to 13th March this year, a total of 752 persons were refused entry into Singapore at the Woodlands checkpoint either because they were undesirable immigrants or because they were not in possession of proper travel documents. During the same period, 11 persons were prevented from leaving Singapore at this Checkpoint. They were mainly people wanted by the Income Tax Department or the Police. Although it is too early to assess the effectiveness of the Exit Control Scheme at the Woodlands Checkpoint, it has certainly tightened up control of entry and exit. This is my answer to how effective the Woodlands Checkpoint has been since Exit Control came into operation on the 3rd January this year.”
“Sir, a general question merits only a general answer. It depends on the case in question. I have already stated most of the factors which, if satisfied, will result in a grant of citizenship. I just cannot answer a general question. If a person can support a parent, then how will the Registry deal with the application? If, for example, in the case mentioned by the Member that the elderly gentleman has got children who are doctors and who can support the parent, and we are satisfied that the parent concerned will not be a liability to the State, then the grant of citizenship will be approved. However, on the other hand, if we suspect that the grant of citizenship to the old-aged parent is to find a place for the parent in a home for the aged - whether or not the son is a doctor he does not want to take care of the parent but just want to shift the burden to the State - then such an application would not be granted.”
“Sir, in answer to the Member for Kallang, the law as stated in the Constitution is quite clear. If a person does not take the oath, he automatically loses it. There is no power on the part of the Government or the Minister to prevent that. As I have said, in a deserving case the person has got to reapply and we give priority to the application. If the person deserves it, then a fresh grant of citizenship is given, I must not say "regrant" because the person has already lost the citizenship. I think that is already a major concession. The Member mentioned about a person who is abroad and would not know that he or she is a minor citizen. Even if the person is abroad, I am quite sure the parents would have told the minor that he or she was not born in Singapore. Surely the minor will know that he or she was not born in Singapore and being of an age below 21 years, he or she could only be a minor citizen. The fact that the person is abroad and is not able to go to a Consul is, I think, not a good excuse. If the person is abroad, even if we can write a letter to the person to remind him to take the oath, he will not be able to do so. Mr Teong Eng Siong( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, just now the Minister said that economic requirements are not sufficient. There are applicants who do not have to support their families. Can the Minister explain why the Registry of Citizenship refused to grant citizenship to this category of applicants who do not have to support their families?”
“We have to consider every case carefully, so that we will not get complaints that their applications have not been carefully treated. We are making progress slowly. We have cleared the backlog of cases by over 2,000. Perhaps this year we will clear a further backlog of cases.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the trouble with the Member for Sembawang is that he has not thought it over very carefully. It is not just a matter of being able to support his family from hand to mouth that he will not be a liability to the State. May I give one example. If the applicant is married to a non-citizen who is on a visit pass to Singapore and the children also are on a visit pass, then by granting him citizenship the wife and the children will come in and be given permanent residence and citizenship, and that can be a liability to Singapore. Of course, before we consider the case where the wife and children are on a visit pass, we will have to consider whether his income is sufficient to support his wife and children as a result of a grant of citizenship and coming in to live in Singapore. If his wife and children are already permanent residents, then a lower income rate is acceptable. That is the case. If the Member were to think very carefully, he will know why different cases are treated differently. The main criterion will, of course, be whether he will become a liability to the State or not. With regard to the Member for Punggol's question about the backlog, as I have said, we are trying our best to reduce the backlog. We have managed to reduce it by over 2,000 cases. But it is not just 2,000 cases. He may get the impression that we have dealt with only 2,000 cases. What about fresh applications which have come in? We have also been dealing with fresh applications at the same time. So, in all, we have dealt with about 11,000 cases a year. Of course, if we were to process them in a careless manner, we could process more. But we have to be very careful. Citizenship is an important matter.”
“When a person reaches the age of 21 years, if he has been a minor citizen, he should know that he needs to take the oath of allegiance. He knows his age. Whether or not the papers are in his possession is not very material. Once a person has reached the age of 21 years knowing that he or she is a minor citizen, he or she should go and take the oath of allegiance. The question which the Member posed was whether we could change the law. If we were to extend the period to three years, we have got to change the Constitution. But I hope we do not have to change our Constitution and extend the period to three years. I think it is not necessary because what is happening now is that if a person has genuinely forgotten to take the oath within one year, we can make a concession. He or she can apply for citizenship and we will give priority processing or priority consideration. I think that would be sufficient to meet the problem rather than to change the Constitution and extend the period from one year to three years. We have, in fact, now given priority consideration for those who have forgotten to take their oath of allegiance within one year.”
“If I had been approached, I would have explained it to the MP concerned. Perhaps the Members for Punggol and Kim Seng had not done so. I am even explaining now in a general way why certain persons are granted citizenship while others are not granted citizenship. But if Members have any specific cases, I am quite prepared to explain to them. Of course, as a matter of practice we cannot state the reasons because this will lead to interminable arguments. But as far as the MPs are concerned, if they write to me, I am quite prepared to give them the reasons. The Member for Kallang has again raised the question of minor citizens. He has suggested various alternatives to meet the problem. As I have said before, if a person is very unmindful of his oath of allegiance and forgets to take it I think we have to be very careful in granting citizenship to such a person. It is for this very reason that there is this provision in the Constitution that if a minor on reaching the age of 21 years does not take the oath of allegiance, then that person automatically loses his or her citizenship. That is the law. There is nothing the Ministry or myself, as the Minister, can do about it. It is provided in our Constitution that if a person fails to take the oath of allegiance within one year he or she will automatically lose his or her citizenship. There is no exercise of discretion about it. The Member for Kallang has said that reminders over TV and in the press are not sUfficient. This is particularly so, in the case of a minor who became a citizen not at the age of 19 but at the age of 12 years and that the parents who are keeping the papers might be abroad. The minor does not need to have papers.”
“Sir, that is not a point of order. It is a point of clarification. Maybe I have not made it quite clear to him. He was saying that they should be granted citizenship because it would enable the non-voter to apply for hawker licence or Housing Board accommodation. May I remind the Member that his first responsibility is to his voters, the citizens of this country. If he were to ask the Government to grant citizenship to every Tom, Dick and Harry, I do not think his constituents would like it because there would be more competition among the citizens for hawker licences. I would like him to think it over very carefully before he makes that suggestion. With regard to income as a factor to be considered in granting citizenship, I would like to tell the Member that applicants who wish to obtain citizenship should therefore find steady employment and work hard to meet the income condition. If they do so, they will be granted citizenship. On the question of granting citizenship to aged parents, I would like to repeat here that each case should be considered on its own merit. Where the family roots are very strong and the person concerned is stateless and, above all, unlikely to be a burden to the State, I would say that the chances of obtaining citizenship are quite good. If the Member for Sembawang has any case which complies with these conditions he can write in. I will consider it and should it be turned down I will explain to him why it is not possible for us to grant citizenship to such an applicant. That reply also applies to the Member for Punggol and the Member for Kim Seng. We would explain to the Members of Parliament the reason why citizenship was not granted, but not necessarily to the applicant himself.”
“The Member also mentioned the case of a boy who has registered for national service and is the only non-citizen in his family. As I have said before, favourable consideration is given to applicants who are the remaining non-citizens in the family and serving national service is one of the criteria for granting citizenship. I see that the Member for Anson is very satisfied.”
“Approval will also not be given to treat the absence as residence where the person concerned did not succeed in obtaining the academic or professional qualification for which he went overseas. Otherwise, we will be encouraging professional students abroad. The machinery that has been established to deal with citizenship applications ensures that every application is given its due consideration. Before an application is rejected, it is referred to an independent advisory committee appointed by the President under Section 19 (2) of the Third Schedule to the Constitution. The hon. Member can rest assured therefore that all applications rejected have gone before the advisory committee and given due consideration before they are finally refused. The Member for Anson has quoted the case of a person whose application for citizenship was rejected and that applicant's experience with officials of the Citizenship Registry. I would like to emphasise to the Member that officials of the Registry of Citizenship have no power to deny or prevent anyone from applying for citizenship. They have no power to tell any applicant that he should not apply or that if he applies his citizenship will not be considered. Further, we do not normally refuse anyone citizenship on the grounds that the applicant's mother is not living in Singapore, as in the case cited by the Member, especially when the applicant is married to a Singapore citizen and has other close relatives who are Singapore citizens. If the Member for Anson had written to me about this case earlier, I am sure the matter would have been investigated and a satisfactory explanation given to him. But it is still not too late.”
“Sir, may I reply to the Member for Anson first? I would again like to thank the Member for Anson for reminding the House that the grant of citizenship is a privilege and not a right and that the main basis for granting citizenship is that an applicant will be a national asset and not a liability. I hope the Member could do us a favour by reminding the Member for Sembawang this truth, that the grant of citizenship is a privilege and not a right and that the person must not be a liability before he is granted citizenship. Let me answer some of the points which he has brought up. Let me first assure him that it is no offence for anyone who has the means or the opportunity to go abroad for studies to do so. He may go abroad for studies. If he is liable for national service, he must of course have an exit permit. Let me next clear his mind with regard to residential qualification for citizenship. Article 57 (1) of the Singapore Constitution provides that an applicant must have resided in Singapore throughout the 12 months immediately preceding the date of his application and has, during the 12 years immediately preceding the date of his application, resided in Singapore for periods amounting in the aggregate to not less than 10 years. In calculating the period of residence, the period of absence for any course generally or specifically approved by the Government may be treated as residence in Singapore. Generally, Sir, absence abroad for the purpose of tertiary education leading to a recognised academic or professional qualification is regarded as approved absence. However, this does not include periods spent abroad for primary or secondary education which is available in Singapore and which we encourage our citizens to have it in Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought I have already answered that question, although not directly to the Member for Potong Pasir. To the question posed by the Member for Bedok, I gave an outline of the five stages of the rehabilitation. During the fourth stage beginning from the fourth week until the end of the third month, the inmates are not only given exercises but they also have to undergo a military type of training, like a marine corps training, to tone up their bodies. I think they have sufficient exercise. The Member need not worry about it because I am informed that after the three months, relatives who visit them are quite surprised at the tremendous transformation of the inmates both in their physique and their attitude. Before they entered the DRC, they were dopey and sleepy, but now they could pass as national servicemen after their six months' training.”
“Although the cold turkey inmates do not have beds, as far as the living quarters are concerned, they have double decker beds. So the area of the space is quite adequate because the space is not just floor space but also cubic space. The ceiling, of course, is not as high as this Chamber.”
“(2) Many of the addicts arrested are now recidivists. These hardcore addicts will have to be given longer treatment and rehabilitation. (3) In the long term, two of the DRCs with a total capacity of 3,400 inmates will eventually have to be closed for the Changi Airport development. With regard to work schemes mentioned by the Member for Bedok, work schemes for inmates were introduced last year. Inmates who have to undergo the initial three-month treatment and rehabilitation are now given work in five workshops at the Jalan Awan DRC. They make cane furniture, polish rosewood furniture and assemble electrical lights and fittings. The main object of this exercise is to inculcate work discipline in them. Generally, their productivity is low. They are therefore presently paid $3 for two weeks. However, we have now worked out a plan to increase their earnings to $1 a day but this will depend on the productivity and the ability to produce goods for sale. The Member for Potong Pasir complained about the size of the cold turkey rooms. He says that the cold turkey rooms are not big enough. He says that if the cold turkey room is filled to its maximum capacity, each person would have a space of 2.1 square metres. I say that even if the room is filled to its maximum capacity, there is enough space for the inmates to move about as each inmate has an average space of 2.1 square metres. May I also point out to the Member that during withdrawal the inmates are not inclined to walk about as they are tired. Their tiredness is like the tiredness induced by a bout of influenza. However, we are not unmindful of this. We are now building three more cold turkey rooms costing $44,000 and the work will commence next month. With regard to the living quarters, it is not a question of space.”
“Inmates with criminal records are detained separately in the DRC at Khalsa Crescent. At the centres, they have a diet which is equivalent to a Class C diet in hospitals, and this is much better than the prison diet. That is another point. The progress made in the DRCs is reviewed by the DRC Review Committee headed by a medical practitioner to assess whether they warrant earlier discharge to return to society. The whole objective, Sir, of the treatment and the rehabilitation programme is to treat and rehabilitate the drug addicts and put them on their own feet and be useful members of society when they return to society. Sir, I do not know why the Member for Bedok says that the supply of heroin in Singapore is on the increase. This is not borne out by statistics on heroin seizures. Although enforcement action has been intensified, the amount of heroin seized in 1977 was 56.8% less than in 1976, the previous year. Also many drug addicts have admitted that it has become increasingly difficult to get the drug. Sir, as regards DRC accommodation, it was rapidly expanded last year to cope with the large intake of addicts arrested as a result of Operation Ferret. At present, the DRCs can accommodate 5,972 inmates and there are 1,638 vacancies on 15th March, 1978. However, the vacancies are not likely to remain for long for a number of reasons. (1) In the early stage of Operation Ferret when accommodation at DRCs was insufficient, some addicts had to be released earlier than desirable. This was to enable more addicts to undergo cold turkey treatment and rehabilitation. Now, addicts will not be released until the Review Committee decides that they have been sufficiently rehabilitated. Otherwise it would have been a waste of time.”
“Drug substitution programmes or what are known as replacement therapy in other countries have failed, and that is why Singapore has chosen a programme of cold turkey treatment, strict regime and work discipline for drug addicts. 4.00 p.m. Sir, may I just outline the stages which drug addicts at DRCs undergo? In fact, they undergo five stages of treatment and rehabilitation. Stage I is one week of detoxification during which no replacement drug is prescribed to the inmate to assist in the withdrawal symptoms except when their lives are threatened. This is monitored by medical officers. Stage II consists of one week of recuperation from the rigours of cold turkey treatment and for reorientation to life in the centre. Stage III consists of one week of intensive indoctrination to drive home to the inmates the evils of drug addiction and the realities of life by officers including a psychologist. Stage IV, beginning from the fourth week until the end of the third month, is to shake up the inmates from the lethargic and disorientated way of life by giving them military style training, including going through obstacle courses to inculcate self-discipline and to tone up their physique. The fifth and last stage is to put up the inmates to work schemes in industrial workshops to inculcate work discipline and prepare them for outside employment when they return to society. Sir, I have enunciated these five stages in order to indicate and assure the Member that inmates of our DRCs are not treated as criminals. They are housed in dormitories in converted bungalows, houses and barracks and not in prison cells. That is the first point. As I have stated in my answer to a Question in Parliament, we do segregate inmates who are hardcore and those who are beginners.”
“For the information of the House, may I say that a preliminary study of the situation indicates that the drug problem has at least been contained. One good indicator is that there is a considerable reduction of new addicts arrested recently. Let me inform the House how we arrived at this conclusion. Of those addicts arrested in recent months, a decreasing number of them are hot already on the Central Narcotics Bureau records. In the first month of Operation Ferret, i.e. April 1977, among all those whose urine samples were positive, there were 217 now addicts to every 100 old addicts. "Old addicts" mean those who are already on CNB records. However, in January 1978, for every 100 old addicts there were only 85 new addicts. This shows that there are proportionately less new addicts, and this in turn indicates that the contamination rate has declined. Another indicator is the feedback from the drug addicts themselves. Many of them when arrested admitted that it has been increasingly difficult for them to get the drugs. With regard to rehabilitation in the drug rehabilitation centres, the addicts arrested are sent to the DRC for treatment and rehabilitation. On admission, they are examined by medical officers to see whether they could undergo the rigorous cold turkey treatment. I am not sure what the Member for Bedok means when he says that the "problem of drug addicts is medical and psychological in nature." If by that he means that drug addiction can be cured medically by substitution of drugs or by psychological counselling alone, then I disagree with him.”
“The rounding up of such a large number of addicts contrasts drastically with the small number of addicts sent to the DRCs before the operation: 191 in 1975, 962 in 1976 and 449 in the first quarter of 1977. This was before Operation Ferret was launched. The remainder of those arrested had negative urine results and were charged in court for possession of drugs if drugs were found on them at the time of the arrest. Operation Ferret Phase II was launched on 1st January this year to seek out the more elusive addicts who had escaped the net in Phase I. Towards the end of Phase I of the operation, it was found that the addicts who experienced difficulty in getting their supplies from pushers and who could not take drugs in public places due to the pressure exerted by the enforcement agencies retreated to their homes and secluded places away from the eyes of the enforcement officers and the public. Despite the difficulties faced by the enforcement agencies to arrest these elusive addicts in Phase II of the operation, 775 persons were arrested in January and 612 in February 1978, compared to 715 persons in December 1977. Persons arrested are subject to urine tests. They are put on bond pending the results of the urine tests. A significant number of persons arrested did not turn up upon expiry of their bond. A total of 124 persons arrested in January and 91 in February 1978 whose urine samples showed traces of controlled drugs absconded. That means they went underground. These absconders are likely to be hardcore addicts and every effort is being made to track them down. This vigorous enforcement will continue indefinitely until the drug problem is decisively overcome.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I first answer the Member for Bedok. He spoke about the estimation of drug addicts. Before Operation Ferret was launched, we had to estimate the addict population by a simple method known as extrapolation which the Member for Bedok has mentioned. Such a simple calculation is unreliable for the reason that national servicemen are within a limited age range and it is not valid to apply the same parameter to other age groups. When Operation Ferret was planned, we recognised that a reliable method of estimating the addict population was essential. Otherwise it would be difficult to gauge whether or not the operation was successful. A method of estimation was carefully worked out, i.e. by a random sampling data on drug addicts arrested over a period of, say, a month, it was possible to estimate more accurately the drug addict population as at the end of the preceding month. After evening out the statistical errors, it was estimated that the drug addict population as at the end of January 1978 was about 9,424 as compared to 12,918 as at the end of March 1977. More significant was that after taking into consideration the number of addicts now under detention, the estimated number of addicts on the loose was 11,600 as at the end of March 1977 and 5,164 as at the end of January 1978. With regard to the arrest of drug addicts between the launching of Operation Ferret in April 1977 and the end of February 1978, a total of 26,376 arrests were made for suspicion of drug consumption. Of these, 7,348 persons whose urine specimens were found positive were sent to the drug rehabilitation centres (DRC) for treatment and rehabilitation.”
“Applications for exemption or deferment by individuals have to be made to the Ministry of Defence, Central Manpower Base, and I am sure due consideration will be given depending on the merits of each case.”
“John's Island conducted in February 1978, it was not possible to obtain the assistance of the cooks from the Civil Defence School. Pre-cooked food was supplied for lunch and dinner and this probably led to the complaint by some trainees which I believe is the basis of the complaint of the Member for Anson. What I do not agree with the Member is that, contrary to his belief, the Vigilante Corps Cultural, Sports and Welfare Association does not provide any subsidy for food. The subsidy of 50 cents per person per day which he mentioned is used to defray incidental expenses incurred in hiring of films, purchasing newspapers and for the end-of-course party and not for meals. On the period of national service, may I enlighten the Member that the period of national service in the PDF served by national servicemen who are subsequently transferred to part-time national service in the Special Constabulary or the Vigilante Corps is being reckoned towards fulfilment of their national service liability. I hope that clarifies the point. The other point is that part-time national service for all ranks will be for a period of 12 years or up to the age of 40, whichever is the earlier. I hope this also clarifies the point and I advise the Member for Anson not to listen to rumours that the period of national service has been extended. It is not true. With regard to exemption or deferment, since the Member for Anson has not given sufficient particulars of the person referred to in the case he cited, I am unable to answer his question directly. All I can say is that some civil servants and staff in the statutory boards were called up for part-time national service under the Enlistment Act although they were not in the call-up age when national service was introduced.”
“Sir, I agree with the Member for Anson that the budget allocation for part-time national servicemen in the Special Constabulary called up for in-camp training for three meals a day is $2.45 per head per day. I do certainly agree with him that this is insufficient. But, Sir, the rate of $2.45 was arrived at because it was a rate fixed in 1973 in accordance with the SAF scale of rations then. Complaints Were received last year from trainees, as stated by the Member, that the quantity of food served was insufficient. My Ministry then asked the Ministry of Finance to revise the rate of ration to that of the SAF, that is, a revision from $2.45 to between $3.00 and $3.20. In the meantime, the SAF scale has also been revised upwards. Unfortunately, Sir, the request was rejected by the Ministry of Finance, but my Ministry is still pursuing the matter. With regard to the current budget allocated for food to part-time national servicemen in the Vigilante Corps called up for in-camp training, it was calculated at $2.80 per head per day. Except for officers, where the refresher course is conducted at St. John's Island, in-camp training for the rest is being held at the Civil Defence School which maintains its own kitchen staff and is therefore able to supply the three main meals and tea or coffee during two training breaks and a light snack for supper at $2.80 per head per day. Meals on the same scale and cost per head as supplied at the Civil Defence School were prepared at St. John's Island by two cooks on loan from the school for the first six refresher courses. Except for complaints that the fare was monotonous, no other complaint was received. On the seventh refresher course at St.”
“This is, in fact, a subject within the province of the ROV. As far as the Traffic Police is concerned, although it has an interest in this matter, it is mainly concerned with careless, dangerous and inconsiderate driving which result in accidents causing death and injury. If it will satisfy the Member for Potong Pasir, we will continue collecting the statistics of traffic accidents caused by poor vehicle maintenance. If it proves that it is a major cause of traffic accidents, of course, more stringent action will be taken. But this is actually a question of priority. As far as the Traffic Police is concerned, on present evidence, the conclusion is that it is not a major cause of traffic accidents. It does not mean that if it is not a major cause of traffic accidents, we should not look into it. I presume that is the reason why the ROV is looking into regular checks on vehicles. It is not just because of accidents but also of pollution. Regular checks on vehicles is not necessarily to avoid accidents alone but also to reduce pollution on our roads. 3.30 p.m.”
“Sir, with regard to the point raised by the Member for Potong Pasir, I think he has already raised this matter with my colleague, the Minister of State for Communications. In fact, I need only add that poor maintenance of vehicles, as stated by the Minister of State for Communications, is not an important cause of road accidents. These are the figures and this has been the conclusion after studying the figures. As advised by the Member, we will continue collecting some more figures. Perhaps we will end up with the same conclusion. I also understand that the Minister of State for Communications has informed the House of measures which the Ministry of Communications is taking to ensure that road vehicles are adequately maintained, in spite of the fact that poor vehicle maintenance is only a small cause of road accidents. In fact, the major cause of road accidents is due to the carelessness of drivers. It is the human being that we are blaming for road accidents rather than vehicles.”
“How do you know? If it is a wilful act, then they must be summoned.”
“We do give chances, as I said. In my reply I have already mated that they are encouraged to use their discretion. But if it is a wilful -”
“Sir, instead of prolonging the debate, let me tell the Member for Anson that not only do I not answer questions in general terms but, in fact, I have drawn a plan of Wallich Street/Anson Road/Robinson Road -”
“Sir, as I said, the Member has a propensity to exaggerate. May I scotch another misconception. If a police officer has issued summons indiscriminately and has victimised a member of the public, I think it is the duty of the Member for Anson to give the particulars. Having given the particulars, before I get the matter investigated I must make clear that there will not be any victimisation, because this is a very serious matter. The allegation should be scotched once and for all. If he gives the particulars of the police officer who has issued summonses indiscriminately on persons who are innocent, why should there be victimisation? In every case, the matter is being fully investigated and if it is found to be true, then action will be taken against the officer. If it is not found to be true, then no action will be taken. In fact, I have quoted figures. There were 25 complaints against police officers and only five allegations were found to be substantiated. Action was then taken against only those five persons. So how could the Member for Anson say that there is such a thing as victimisation, just because he gives me the name. I think the misconception has to be scotched once and for all. The other question is on plainclothes policemen who book people. He has said that when asked to produce his warrant card, the police officer should produce his warrant card. If he does not, then he is in breach of discipline. I would like to assure the Member for Anson that when a police officer is asked to produce his warrant card, it is incumbent upon him to produce it.”