Davinder Singh
Singapore
“As a result not many Singaporeans plan for the future. It is very important that the Government lay out the facts so that Singaporeans understand what is in store for them when they retire.”
“Resolved, That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:- "We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the Second Session of this Parliament."”
“In October last year, the Minister informed the House that the Law Reform Committee and the Law Society would be putting up a proposal to the Attorney-General's Chambers and the Ministry of Law on the question of corporatisation of the legal profession.”
“Therefore, I think it is crucial that the Ministry consider extending the time during which students have to engage in community service. I would also ask the Minister to consider not paying too much emphasis on work with the RCs or peer tutoring.”
“Because then, you are deploying all your forces all over the place. It is like in defence of a locality. You do not spread them all over the place. You target them in places of vulnerability and that is the current approach. I think the approach is right.”
“Those applications sometimes make things quite cumbersome. We want to promote ourselves as an attractive place to do business from. We should rationalise all these incentive schemes to make matters simple for the investors.”
The complete record
Every one of 243 lines we hold for Davinder Singh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 5.
“Because then, you are deploying all your forces all over the place. It is like in defence of a locality. You do not spread them all over the place. You target them in places of vulnerability and that is the current approach. I think the approach is right. Because like Boat Quay, for example, if we identify it as a place where increased police presence can meet a particular need, we will do it. But certainly not by putting them all over the place. Then the last point he made is why not have more Police Boys' Clubs or revive them. The Police Boys' Clubs have not been disbanded. What has happened is that they are now under the People's Association. They have taken a larger role and they are called the Boys' Clubs. So they have not disappeared. But under this structure, where the CCs are involved, through the PA, they will reach out to a larger group. And indeed, if your suggestion is that the Boys' Clubs should also play a role in creating more good gangs, then I think this is a suggestion worth considering.”
“Many Members have brought up this point about the need to look deeper into the problem. I am sure when Mr Tarmugi takes the floor for his Ministry's cut, this matter will arise again. The next point is Mr Davinder Singh's point which is a good point. Mr Davinder Singh's questions whether or not there are racial overtones to teen gangs and whether teen gangs of different races are fighting each other. The total number of rioting cases involving youths from different races increased from 11 in 1993 to 27 in 1996. Despite this, it remains a small proportion of the total number of rioting cases involving youths. For example, the 27 cases in 1996 accounted for only 12% of all cases last year. But, nevertheless, I think the point Mr Davinder has made is a point worth taking which I will ask the Police to continue monitoring. Also of course, it is not only a case of gangs of one race fighting gangs of another race. Very often, they are mixed and very often fights arise not so much because of racial animosity but either petty quarrels or territorial disputes. Those that sparked off fights are not racial in overtones. That I think is heartening. But we must be vigilant. Mr Chiam talks about whether or not youth engaging in the teen violence is a passing phase. He talks about "Rebel Without A Cause" in America. But the point is whether or not it is a passing phase. Perhaps, it is with some youths. But if the numbers are large enough, I think we should take care. But his other point is more interesting where he says we should saturate the ground, put more policemen all over the place, particularly where teens gather, like McDonalds. Sir, if we did that, then what he claims is the situation where if you need the police they are never around will indeed come true.”
“This will surely have a deterrent effect on the youngsters. As long as the youths are made aware of the police presence, they shall be afraid to get into fights because they know they will be arrested. Police presence is definitely an important factor in helping to solve this problem. The importance of Police presence to deter crimes among youths has been highlighted by Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung earlier on. The second area in which the Government can help is to provide more amenities in housing estates. The CCs have to be spruced up and made relevant to today's youngsters in order to attract them. Thirdly, the Police should revive their Boys' Clubs. In the past, the Police did organise Boys' Clubs. I do not know what has happened to them now. They all seem to have been scrapped. This idea of Boys' Club should be revived. At least if the boys go to these clubs, we know that they are supervised and not get into bad company. These are perhaps some of the measures that Government can do to help eradicate youth violence. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I thank the Members for speaking. First, Mr Chew Heng Ching's point about whether or not there is a need for a task force. He makes this as a suggestion. I do not know whether he was in the House just now when I talked about the Inter-Ministry Committee on Juvenile Delinquency, which I chair, which draws together a lot of agencies. But I think the point he made is whether or not there is a need for a task force at the working level, chaired by the PS, and drawing in more Ministries focusing specifically on youth violence or youth fighting. I think it is a matter that not only the Home Affairs can consider. In fact, IMJD is a spring-off from the IMC Committee under the Ministry of Community Development.”
“Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, violence among youths is not a new thing. In fact, in America, in the 1950s, they had this problem. This problem is highlighted in such films as "Rebel Without a Cause", starring the famous James Dean and another film called "Black Board Jungle", highlighted this problem in that country. Now, we are experiencing this problem here in Singapore. As has been pointed out, the disturbing thing about this is that these boys and girls who are involved in these fights are not true gangster elements and are not members of secret societies. But many of them in fact come from good homes. I know of two teenagers, one a boy of 12 and the other a girl of 16, both come from good homes. Yet they were arrested by the Police for rioting. The problem is with the parents. These parents are both working. This is perhaps the genesis of teenage delinquency. Both parents are out of their home most of the time and they do not have time for their children. The children are unsupervised and they get into bad company and also into trouble. Sir, the Government can assist to alleviate this problem by giving assistance. I can think of three areas in which the Government can assist. Firstly, there must be more policing in the likely trouble spots, such as shopping areas, McDonald restaurants, entertainment places and places where teenagers also tend to hang out. I believe the police presence is very important. They represent the authority. This will deter the kids from getting into fights. These days, the Police do not seem to be around when they are most needed. I heard this mentioned at least more than once. I hope the Police can deploy more of its uniformed personnel in places where youths congregate.”
“Sir, much of what I intended to say has already been said in this House about youth violence. There is only one other point which I do not think has been raised yet and this is another dimension to the problem which may have potentially far graver consequences arising from youth violence and teen gangs. And it is this. Some youth gangs may wittingly or otherwise organise themselves along racial lines and we know where the problem lies, if that happens. Because if you have fight between two gangs of different races that will turn up its own set of problems, particularly in Singapore. The difficulty with that is not only the fight between the two gangs but the whole issue of youth violence will be lost sight of in the larger context of the racial dimension. All sorts of anxiety will arise and parents who ought to be focusing on their wayward children will be distracted by the racial element in the fight. And therein lies a major difficulty which, I think, we ought to address. Because the moment there is a racial element, the neighbourhoods that we are so accustomed to will no longer be safe because there will be distrust and suspicions will set in. What we really need to do is to look towards the long term. Today, it is a youth violence problem. But the moment you have gangs of two different races taking each other on, there will be complexities which we will have great difficulty handling. The way the Police will investigate the particular incident will also give rise to difficulties because there will be all sorts of rumours about preference towards one particular gang because of the affiliation to one race, etc. This is a difficulty which transcends but arises from youth violence and I think the Ministry ought to pay some attention to it.”
“But fabrication of data, if left unchecked, will destroy the integrity of the entire system. If either the Government, and I think this cuts both ways, or a representor is allowed to make false claims, and gets away with it, people will not know who to trust. In this case, the subject of the debate was health care. It is an extremely sensitive subject with Singaporeans. It affects all of us. People have strong views on health care and the issue of subsidies. If the Government had been shown to be untruthful, the consequences would have been extremely grave. Politically, it would have had to pay a very heavy price. The Government would have lost a great deal of its moral authority. All other claims made by it would become suspect. And those in Government responsible for misleading Parliament would have been hauled up before the Committee of Privileges. They would have been severely punished by this House. The same standard must apply to anyone who wishes to influence public opinion. All the more so when, in this case, Chee was aware of the ground rules. The Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act expressly prohibits misconduct and the presentation of false documents. Chee accepted that he knew that a submission to Parliament is a serious matter, and that it is imperative to put up correct figures so as not to mislead anybody. Despite this, he misled the Select Committee. We must be prepared to unequivocally affirm that such conduct has no place in our political process. There can be no room for ambivalence. I support the motion, Sir.”
“In fact, the entire process enables Members to stand up, look at the record, look at the findings and challenge those findings, impugn them if the findings are not satisfactory. Mr Ling and Mr Cheo would have had the opportunity of going through the facts and explain to Members that, having regard to those facts, the findings of the Committee of Privileges cannot be sound, cannot be supported because other inferences can be drawn which are entirely reasonable. But their absence, I think, entitles this House to draw the inference that Mr Ling and Mr Cheo who must be familiar with the Report of the Committee of Privileges are unable to find fault with it. The second issue, Mr Speaker, Sir, is whether the penalties recommended are suitable. And in some ways, it is a larger issue. The question of the penalties to be imposed is inextricably tied up with the question whether Singaporeans should accept such conduct in our political process. Some people might think that too much is being made of some errors. But we are not here dealing with simple mistakes. That is why I prefaced the issue when I started with the question of whether these are innocent errors or deliberate errors. If you accept the findings of the Committee of Privileges, then we are dealing not with errors or exaggerations, but with dishonesty. It is perfectly all right to stand up to the Government and challenge it. Any Singaporean is entitled to question the Government and engage it on a debate on its figures. But there must be one indispensable condition and that is the debate must be conducted honestly. There is nothing wrong in making an error. The process is not designed to punish or embarrass anyone for an innocent error.”
“But the most telling piece of evidence, I think, is this. The second claim that I am now talking about was contained both in the text of the written submission as well as the chart. The claim in the written submission conveyed the distinct impression that the figures in the chart which accompanied it were all figures on Government health expenditure. In other words, the impression given in the written submission was that we are comparing expenditures by Governments on health and the chart would bear this out or would give you a graphic description of it. But the chart contained figures on national health expenditure. Again, another dilemma for Chee. Because he could not explain first why he told the Select Committee (I think it was on 15th July) that in the chart, he was comparing "apples with apples", when clearly he was not. The second thing he could not explain was why is it that in the written submission, the impression conveyed was that the comparison was of Government health expenditure when three of the four figures in the chart were on national health expenditure. The facts really speak for themselves. There is really only one conclusion. The SDP submission contained figures which Chee knew were false. Try as you like, it is impossible, without straining credulity, to accept Chee's explanations. And the extraordinary thing is this. Three of the other representors also affirmed the same defence that Chee advanced that there was a misunderstanding. But they could not explain what the misunderstanding was. I am somewhat disappointed that Mr Ling and Mr Cheo are not here today. I was looking forward to having their version of what the proper inferences are to be drawn from the facts. This is the perfect forum.”
“If someone claims to have a misunderstanding, the first thing the person would be able to say is my original understanding was X, but now I have realised, because of A, B, C, that that original understanding is wrong and, therefore, it was a misunderstanding. And I think an honourable person would go further and say, "Forgive me if I have misled you. I didn't mean to." But Chee, despite taking the defence that there was a misunderstanding, was unable, despite repeated requests, to say how that misunderstanding arose or indeed even before that, what the misunderstanding was. A few things were settled. We were all able to identify the materials which he claimed to have read in preparing the written submission. Those materials were brought to the Committee of Privileges hearing because we wanted to make sure that if there was any possibility of a misunderstanding because of any vagueness in what the authors of these materials had written, we should give him the benefit of the doubt. So we took him through each of these materials and asked him to explain where it was or what it was in those materials he could not understand. He understood them perfectly. He knew what the materials said. He understood the concepts. He had no difficulty following the concepts. In fact, he addressed those very concepts in his books Dare to Change and Singapore, My Home Too, two years and one year before the written submission was put up. So he was familiar with the terms. He could follow what the authors were saying and that put him in a dilemma. Because he could do that, he was unable to say what the misunderstanding was. And in truth, there could not have been a misunderstanding because had there been a misunderstanding, he would have easily been able to point it out, but he could not.”
“In fact, and this is interesting, if you contrast Chee's conduct with the conduct of his fellow representors, Mr Kunalen and Mr Kwan, you will find that the answer becomes quite obvious. Mr Kunalen and Mr Kwan, on the version given by all the four representors, were not directly involved in the preparation of the written submission or the chart. Yet, both of them agreed that the 5% drop struck them as being very odd. These are two people not involved in the preparation, not involved in writing Singapore, My Home Too or in Dare to Change, did not do the calculations, but instinctively thought that the 5% is not quite right. But if you have regard to that evidence, can you accept the evidence of the person who prepared the written submission, who was involved in the preparation of the charts, who wrote Singapore My Home Too, who wrote Dare to Change? Can you accept his evidence to the effect that he did not pick up the error, that it was a typographical error and yet it eluded him? The second main claim made by the SDP was that the amount of Government spending on health care as a percentage of GDP has been falling to the level of less than 1% compared to 7% for Japan, 13% for the US and an average of 9% for the OECD countries, and a chart accompanied this particular claim. Chee admitted that at least the figure for Singapore is incorrect. His defence, and he made this defence for the first time only at the Committee of Privileges hearing, was that there was a misunderstanding of the figures. Members must ask themselves whether, again, in the light of the undisputed objective facts, there is any substance to this defence of a misunderstanding.”
“9% and picked the 5% from Dare to Change, as he claimed, and put it into his written submission. All this was done without any explanation as to how it could have occurred. First, there was this inexplicable change from 25%, which is also incorrect for 1990, to 5%, then 5% to 0.9%, and 0.9% back to 5%. And when he was asked to explain, he could not. This House must then ask itself: Is it plausible that this could have been an innocent error when he had before him all the materials which he personally read? If one claims that an innocent error has taken place, one has to explain away why it is that that so-called innocent error was not detected. Consider these circumstances. The written submission, where the so-called innocent error appeared, was prepared some time in April 1996. It was prepared for submission to the Select Committee. It was prepared by Chee. It was discussed by Chee, two other representors and perhaps others whom he could not identify. At that discussion, surely it would have been apparent to Chee, if not to the others, that an error had occurred. It would have been plain on the face of the submission as well as in the graph that accompanied it that there was this dramatic plunge to 5% for 1990. But Chee could not explain why it is that he did not pick up the error, if indeed it was an innocent error. Members may wish to give the benefit of the doubt to a person who has little training in research, preparation of statistics and persons who do not author articles and books. But here, we have a person with a PhD, who has written two books, researched and written a number of articles. His research work involved having to draw charts and graphs, and he claimed that he took his research work seriously.”
“Could there have been a typographical error in Dare to Change and if so, could it have been inadvertently carried over from Dare to Change into the written submission? Consider these circumstances. If, as Chee claimed, there was a typographical error in Dare to Change in relation to the figure for 1990, one would have expected when reading Dare to Change to have found the figure 5% with reference to 1990 in the text of that book. But there was no such reference in the text of Dare to Change. How is it possible then for anyone to have borrowed the 5% from Dare to Change when the 5% in the text of Dare to Change did not refer to 1990 but to a different set of years, the 1990s? Members should also test the veracity of Chee's explanation against his conduct. In 1994, when he wrote Dare to Change he claimed that the percentage of government health expenditure over total health expenditure for the 1990s was 5%. Yet, one year later, when he wrote Singapore, My Home Too, he claimed that it was 0.9% for 1990. Then one year later, in 1996 when he put up the written submission, the figure went back to 5% for 1990. And all these three figures are incorrect. Surely, when preparing Singapore, My Home Too, Chee would have realised that just one year ago when he wrote Dare to Change the figure that he claimed to have had in mind was 25% or the figure that he erroneously put in was 5% for 1990. But yet he selected 0.9% for Singapore, My Home Too, ignoring the 5% or the 25%. Then one year later when he wrote the written submission, surely it must have occurred to him that now he had two sets of inconsistent figures - one, 5% in Dare to Change, another 0.9% in Singapore, My Home Too. But inexplicably he forgot the 0.”
“And the fairest approach to the issue must be this - to discern from the two Reports what on any view must be the undisputed facts, without taking a view one way or the other about where the merits are, select the objective facts and then in relation to each of these facts test the explanations that were advanced by the SDP for the inaccuracies that were contained or found in their submission. Clearly, if there is some reasonable doubt that those errors could be innocent, having regard to those facts, then I think the benefit of the doubt must be given to them. But if this House, having regard to the explanation and contrasting it with the objective facts, comes to the view that on no view can those errors be innocent, then this House must come to only one conclusion and it is this: that the errors were deliberate. Let us examine the two claims. The first major claim made by the SDP was that between 1970 and 1990, the Government share of total health expenditure fell from 40% to 5%. Chee explained to the Select Committee that the 5% for the year 1990 was a typographical error. He said that when he wrote Dare to Change in 1994, he did the calculation for 1990, and came to the figure 25%. But when he typed it, the "2" dropped, with the result that the figure became 5% for 1990 in Dare to Change. Chee continued to maintain this defence when he appeared before the Committee of Privileges. The question which the Committee of Privileges had to decide was whether there was any factual basis to that defence. It is undisputed that the 5% is incorrect. It is also undisputed that in the written submission and the chart which accompanied it, the 5% was related to the year 1990.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion. There are two main issues which this House has to address. The first is Members must determine whether to accept the findings and the reasoning of the Committee of Privileges; and secondly, whether the penalties which have been recommended are suitable, having regard to those findings. Chee and his fellow representors made a number of claims. One was that the Government health expenditure as a percentage of total health expenditure had fallen from 40% in 1970 to 5% in 1990. A chart was submitted to the Select Committee which plotted the dramatic plunge to 5%. The other claim was that Government spending on health care as a percentage of GDP had fallen to less than 1% in comparison to 7% for Japan, 13% for the US and an average of 9% for the OECD countries. A chart was produced which graphically depicted the difference in expenditure between Singapore and the other countries. There is no dispute that some of the figures presented by the SDP are inaccurate. The question that Members must ask themselves is whether the errors were innocent or deliberate. The fairest way of resolving this issue is to test the defences put up by the SDP team against undisputed facts and then determine whether, in the light of these facts, the reasons advanced by the SDP for the errors are plausible. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is not a case where this House, or the public, only hears one side of the argument. It is a case where the record is available to everyone who is willing and interested to read it. The record is in the Select Committee Report and the Report of the Committee of Privileges where there is a verbatim transcript of the proceedings both before the Select Committee and the Committee of Privileges.”
“The PAP dominates the House. Ministers are not really called to account. Are our critics right? There was nothing which required either SM or DPM Lee to come before the House and explain in the way they have. PM was satisfied that there was no impropriety. MPs did not table any questions on this issue. No one initiated an adjournment debate. In other words, the Parliamentary procedures which ensure accountability were not invoked. Yet SM and DPM Lee asked to have this debate. They knew that they would be scrutinised by the House, the public and the press. This debate was not called because of any law which required it or because of any Constitutional requirement. SM and DPM Lee voluntarily chose to account for their acts for the reason that there is in Singapore a system of political morality which dictates that the conduct of Ministers must always be consistent, not only with the law, but with good conscience. The concept of Ministerial responsibility in this country is not limited to answering for one's department or the legality of one's conduct. Our concept embraces accountability for the conscionability of one's conduct. It is this morality, together with the willingness to be examined, that underpins the strength of our system. In the final analysis, the strength of a political structure should not be judged by the numerical majority of the ruling party or the frequency of amendments to the Constitution. It should be judged by the morality of the guardians of that Constitution.”
“The upshot of the concerns that have been expressed is really this: that a Minister should not accept an offer which carries a discount. This is a flawed proposition: first, a purchaser has often no way of knowing if a discount is being given; secondly, even if he is told that he is being offered a discounted price, he has no way of knowing if it is a discount to the true market value or a gimmick which does nothing more than dress up the market value at the time. Those who say that the Minister should make inquiries are really suggesting that Ministers should stand in a special category of purchasers who are required to conduct a kind of a due diligence on the pricing scheme of the developer. A due diligence is a process where the purchaser of, say, a company, goes behind the warranties that are given to him, goes into the corporate information, the books to open up everything, to verify for himself the accuracy of what he is told. Quite apart from the fact that Ministers do not have access to such confidential information, they have, with the greatest of respect, no business to pry into the internal affairs of companies. In this case, HPL has decided to go public on its pricing and sales strategy. But that does not mean that vendors in other cases are happy, much less obliged, to disclose similar information. It is not public information, and a Minister, with all his powers, has no right to it just because he is a buyer. The last and, in some ways, the most important issue in this debate is: what do the events leading up to this debate tell us about our political system? It has been said that we have an authoritarian government. The suggestion is that, despite the Constitution, the Government is, in truth, not accountable. It is a cosy arrangement.”
“In the case of a sale of an asset by a company, it is crucial to understand that it is the directors of the company who must determine whether any particular sale is in the corporate interests of the company and its shareholders. They alone are privy to their own deliberations and conclusions. They must justify the sale to their shareholders in accordance with the principle of corporate benefit. Corporate benefit means many things: it can mean immediate monetary returns or it can mean a bargain which brings goodwill to the company and its product. Goodwill, broadly speaking, is anything which adds value, which in turn draws custom. Take the example of lawyers. Developers offer their units to their lawyers because if they take it up, goodwill is generated which in turn can be used to sell the product to a wider market and for a better price. It is thus a plus for a developer to be able to say that his lawyer, who acts for numerous developers, chose his development over others. There is a corporate benefit. But we must be very clear that this is an issue for the directors of the company. It is a vendor issue. Purchasers are not obliged to determine whether directors have acted for the corporate benefit. Indeed they cannot. They are not privy to confidential corporate information. They are fully entitled to assume that the directors know what they are doing. In the absence of manifestly suspicious conduct, purchasers do not have to concern themselves with how directors determine the price or the discount. So long as a Minister who purchases does not actively procure an offer or dispense any favours, he can and is fully entitled to accept the offer.”
“Take the hypothetical case of a prestigious foreign university which has limited places but is inundated with applications by Singaporeans. The administration of the university chooses, for its own reasons, to make an offer to a limited group of people which includes, to the knowledge of the administration, the son or daughter of the Minister in charge of, say, Education. Many other Singaporeans do not obtain places. But the Minister did not make any special request nor did he offer any favours. In the true sense of the word, the university has preferred the Minister's son and daughter because they were selected out of a larger group of people with the knowledge that he is the son or she is the daughter of the Minister. Is there any sense in the argument that the Minister should not take up the offer because other Singaporeans were not successful? Should he be required to forego the opportunity offered his child even where it is indisputable that he has not breached his fiduciary obligations? Why should the Minister not give his son or daughter the opportunity of the best education? If we accept that it is perfectly legitimate for a Minister to plan for his family's future, then there is absolutely no distinction in principle between my hypothetical about education and the purchases of properties. If the premise is that Ministers are entitled to enter into private arrangements which they have not solicited by using their position and which do not undermine their status as fiduciaries, the next question is whether the trusteeship of SM or DPM Lee was in this case in any way compromised. It is fundamental in the determination of this issue to understand the different and distinct roles and obligations of the parties involved.”
“The first (which is true) that Ministers are trustees of our assets and hold positions of influence, and the second (which is untrue) that they should, while looking after the future of the people, not plan for their own children's future even when the integrity of their trusteeship is not compromised. It is vital that these concepts are not confused because the upshot of the second proposition, taken to its logical conclusion, is that people who are honourable, honest, talented and have the ability to improve the wealth of the public should not and cannot honestly apply these skills and talents for the benefit of their families. Indeed, this is what Mr Cheo and Mr Chiam appeared to be saying. Mr Cheo said that Ministers are under a duty to serve and not make money. The same point is made by Mr Chiam who argues that there is a perception that Ministers who purchase properties are not sacrificing. There is no excuse for either of them to obfuscate the issues. Yes, a Minister has a duty to serve the country. But he has a parallel duty to his family. Where the two duties do not conflict, the Minister is fully entitled, indeed obliged as a good parent, to secure his children's future. So what if a Minister can influence policies? Yes, that makes him a trustee. Yes, he cannot use those policies to enrich himself. But why cannot he buy properties if he can do so without compromising his trusteeship where the policy under his responsibility is not involved? Consider what it will mean for the future of this country if these confused arguments ever take root. Which one of the honest and highly intelligent, with these constraints, will aspire to public office? The principle is the same whether or not money is involved. Take, for example, the case of education.”
“There is absolutely no suggestion that, in this case, in purchasing the properties in question, SM or DPM Lee acted illegally or in a manner which compromised their fiduciary duties to the people. Yet a concern has arisen because of what is obviously an unarticulated duty which some people perceive Ministers to be under: a duty which, I suggest, is manifestly unreasonable and unfair to impose on honourable men who have done nothing to impair their status as honest guardians of the State's assets and future, and who have done nothing to advance their own interests by using their office or position. It is worth remembering that every member of the Cabinet and every senior public servant is likely to be a husband or wife, father or mother with family obligations. They have to look after the interests of their own families. There is absolutely no logic or sense in the argument that because they are the guardians of the people, they are bound, upon becoming Ministers, to relinquish their role as guardians of their children's future. Let me cite an example: lawyers are trustees of their clients' money. Some of these clients are developers. Developers often invite their lawyers to soft launches of their developments, giving them discounts or preference in terms of selection of units, or both. Yet there is and has been no suggestion that the lawyer's standing as trustee or his ability to perform his duty as trustee is compromised because he accepts the invitation to select a unit. Any uneasiness over a Minister's right to accept similar invitations is the result of a confusion between two distinct propositions, a confusion which regrettably Mr Cheo and Mr Chiam had fed in this House. There are two propositions.”
“Directors are accountable for their actions: to the board, to the shareholders, to the creditors, to the Exchange in the event it is a listed company. But the existence of these onerous duties and the fact of accountability does not, for one moment, disable a director from pursuing his private interests, where those interests do not conflict with the interests of the beneficiaries and where they are pursued legitimately and honestly. Ministers are likewise fiduciaries because they control public assets worth billions of dollars. They have the power to devise or influence policies which can have a significant effect on the financial position of a great number of people. They are therefore duty bound to act lawfully, honestly and bona fide in the public interest. Using the analogy of directors, Ministers must avoid conflicts of interests. Also, they cannot actively promote their own interests by using their status. This is a corollary of their duty to use their powers for the benefit of others, and not for themselves. Ministers are guardians of the State and its assets. Their policies must be crafted with the object of advancing the public interest. Does it follow from this, whether it is a matter of principle or common sense, that Ministers should be required to refrain from acting in their own economic interests even when they can do so without compromising their fiduciary obligations? Are we entitled to impose on Ministers a duty to act against what they honestly believe is their own and their family's interests in circumstances where there cannot, on any view, be a breach of their fiduciary obligations?”
“Sir, I declare my interest as my firm acted for HPL in the sale of the units in Nassim Jade. Sir, this episode has thrown up issues much larger than the question of property purchases. The questions that we are confronted with are: (1) What are the implications for future commercial transactions entered into by Ministers? (2) What do these events say about our system of government? The speeches of Mr Cheo and Mr Chiam yesterday raised another issue. Mr Cheo argued that Ministers are under a duty to serve the people and not make money. Mr Chiam says that there is a perception that Ministers who purchase properties are not sacrificing. These arguments are superficially attractive but are wholly untenable. Mr Cheo and Mr Chiam have either ignored or confused the principles which determine the duties and obligations of Ministers. Let me deal with this issue first, and I begin from first principles. A Minister is a fiduciary or a trustee. He is very much like a director in a company whose standards of conduct have been clearly defined by the law. Directors, as Mr Woon says, are fiduciaries for various reasons. First, they are custodians of assets belonging to others, secondly, trust is reposed in them by the people who have an interest in those assets, and thirdly, directors have the power and the ability to deal with these assets. The law is very clear. Directors, trustees or anyone in a fiduciary position must act legally, honestly, bona fide in the interests of those whose assets they have custody of or power over. They must act for what they honestly believe to be in the corporate benefit. They must not place themselves in a position where their interests collide with the interests of those they are duty bound to protect.”
“A steady flow of prominently published international news and their implications will, in due course, similarly result in Singaporeans learning more of other issues affecting the world. The better we understand the world we live in, the better we will be able to put things in perspective. Being a hub city of the world entails more than just being an economic or cultural centre. To be a hub city, we need to be connected to the rest of the world. We must, therefore, understand those connections. We should aim to work towards two objectives: firstly, we should continue to encourage the media to give other major international events similar prominence as that enjoyed by the China-Taiwan issue, as and when such events occur. Secondly, and more importantly, we must ensure that our young are given every opportunity to broaden their horizons when they have the time. Our universities and polytechnics should consider a programme whereby all students are sent abroad for months at a time to study or work. These students will not only then understand how others live, they will also learn more of the world. The experience and knowledge so acquired will remain with them for the rest of their lives.”
“For most of us, domestic policies and events have a direct and usually immediate impact on our lives and livelihood. With greater public discussion both in the media and in offices, restaurants, coffeeshops, our appreciation of local issues has increased. For example, many of us are comfortable talking about property and share prices and the forces which affect the markets. This has not come about by accident. Daily coverage in the media of news which affects us has raised our awareness. But if we are to aspire to be a hub city of the world, we need to do more to ensure that we raise our level of awareness of world events, both for the sake of educating ourselves and, more importantly, so that we understand that events outside Singapore can make a difference to our lives. The newspapers and TCS do sufficiently cover foreign events. But that does not necessarily mean that they grab the attention of readers and viewers. Many people have very little free time. They read or pay attention only to items which affect them or arouse their curiosity. It is, therefore, very important that they are given very little choice but to take notice. Let me illustrate. The China-Taiwan issue has been receiving almost daily front page coverage in the Straits Times. One has no choice but to read something about it. Because of it, many more of us now understand a bit of the history of the relationship, the issues involved, the roles of the various parties, and the implications for the region and Singapore. I dare say that our understanding of the problem would have remained superficial if we were not treated to a blow by blow account of what is happening.”
“This means that parents must spend time talking to their children about such things. But that, in our context, is not the best solution because in many families, both parents work. In the evenings, parents spend their free time on their children's education. There is very little time to talk about social issues. The responsibility must therefore lie with the schools. If we are to make a serious attempt at polishing our conduct, we must start with our children. Rights and wrongs of social behaviour, if taught year in, year out will, hopefully, become second nature to our children. We can, in the meantime, work on reminding adult Singaporeans of what they should or should not do and why. This can take the form, for example, of constant reminders on the media and the existing courtesy campaigns. But the real answer lies in the schools. Programmes should be introduced which encourage children to do volunteer work. Children should be taught the virtues of correct behaviour and to expect the same from others. Children must be made to understand that there will be real benefits in being considerate. Make a difference there and you will make a different society. But we must be realistic. It will be a huge task to teach children that the dignity which they will enjoy as citizens of a successful country will depend as much on how they deal with each other as on their success in examinations. Sir, I will now speak on my second cut. Singaporeans have a wide array of newspapers, periodicals, books and other sources of information available to them. With rising levels of and better quality education, Singaporeans are well placed to digest and analyse the implications of what they learn. Generally, we are more preoccupied with domestic affairs. This is natural and understandable.”
“We are better educated and know how people in other countries live. Yet we have not developed voluntary norms of conduct which instinctively tell us that certain forms of behaviour are unacceptable. We continue to be heavily reliant on the Government and on legislation to set the standards for social interaction. Our behaviour continues to be influenced, to some extent, by our desire not to be punished for what the law regards as anti-social conduct. For example, do we have cleaner streets because we believe that we have a responsibility to keep our country clean or because we have to pay a fine if we are caught littering? Why has there not been a marked change? The reason, I suggest, is that our expectations of each other have not really altered. If our expectations are geared exclusively to our individual well-being and if we are happy with the present state of affairs, campaigns will not make a difference. Singaporeans know that if the Government wants to do something which it cannot by exhortation, it will legislate. Singaporeans will abide by the legislation and we will get along. We can only aspire to graciousness if we, as a people, decide to expect more of each other. Whether it is littering, or queuing for the MRT, there must be a common instinct that this is poor form and is unacceptable. Unless we change our expectations, unless we are willing to demand more of ourselves and our neighbours, it will be very difficult to aspire to become a gracious society. Money and economic success alone do not result in better behaviour. But what should we expect given our constraints? It would be foolish to be over-ambitious; to believe that refinement will set in because we want it. Values have to be shaped, transmitted and ingrained.”
“Sir, one issue that has been the subject of public debate for some time now is whether Singaporeans are a gracious people. There are a number of reasons for the interest in this subject. First, the media has taken every opportunity to highlight instances of boorish behaviour. Secondly, we are beginning to appreciate that unless we deal with this issue, we may have the makings of a social problem, which in turn will affect our development and image. There are two questions which we ought to consider. Firstly, what are the reasons for our conduct?, and Secondly, how can we aspire to graciousness? What is the cause? How we conduct ourselves is determined by a number of factors. Firstly, the values that were transmitted to us at home and in school, both verbally and by example. Secondly, peer or social pressure. And, thirdly, sanctions. 5.00 pm Our parents and theirs were wholly preoccupied with our economic well-being. They worked hard. They ensured that we received an education. However, there was very little time to discuss the rights and wrongs of social behaviour. It was quite irrelevant when the primary concerns were to secure a decent living and to give the children a chance in life. As this was the experience of the majority of Singaporeans, there was hardly any norm or norms of social conduct to speak of. People have had little choice but to live in the environment in which they found themselves. They had other problems to deal with. But this did not mean that there were no standards which regulated our behaviour. The vacuum was plugged, if you like, by legislation. Our laws prescribed rules of social conduct. We have come a long way. We have job security, a roof over our heads, time to eat out, shop and go for holidays.”
“The second test that the SDP has to satisfy is to demonstrate how the allegations against the judiciary are consistent with the fact that courts in Singapore have ruled against the Government. The fact that SDP Members of Parliament were not at Williams College is, with respect, irrelevant. In all the material press statements and letters published in connection with this affair, Dr Chee has used the SDP notepaper, or signed off as Secretary-General of the party, or both. In his letter of 8th September 1995 to the Prime Minister he said that he would put the SDP's alternative ideas of Singapore. In his 10th September 1995 press statement, he confirms that it is SDP which will participate at the counter panel discussion and that it is SDP's objective to clear any misperceptions. Dr Chee, as Secretary-General, was clearly authorised to issue the letters and statements on behalf of the party. Therefore, SDP was at Williams College and is in this House. More significantly, two of SDP's Members of Parliament are members of the bar. They are in a better position than Dr Chee to comment on the judiciary. The SDP Members of Parliament have the following options in the face of this motion: they can either expressly repudiate their present endorsement for Mr Seow's views or they can maintain their support for his claims in which case they are duty bound to justify the basis of the criticism. 4.00 pm”
“Would the Court have so ruled if it was beholden to the Senior Minister or was corrupt? Mr Seow has also claimed "that judges are invariably leaning over backwards in favour of Government and the establishment". A foreign company which wanted to buy land in Singapore had given undertakings to the Controller of Housing not to sell that land. Those undertakings were secured by bank guarantees. The company granted options over the land conditional on the purchaser obtaining the necessary qualifying certificate to purchase the land. The Controller took the view that the grant and acceptance of the options amounted to a breach of the undertakings which gave him ground to forfeit the guarantees. He forfeited $7.8 million. The company appealed to the Minister for Law who referred it to the Ministry of National Development which disallowed the appeal. The Government chose to retain the $7.8 million. The company went to court. The Court of Appeal ordered the Government to return the $7.8 million with interest and costs. Is this an example of a court which leans over backwards for the Government and the establishment? These are only illustrations. We should therefore ask ourselves why is it that those who discredit our judges choose to ignore such decisions. This House must demand that the SDP, indeed anyone wishing to make out a case against the judiciary, satisfy two tests: first, to show that the decisions in favour of the Government, the Senior Minister and the Prime Minister are so perverse that they cannot be justified on any view of the law. In that connection, the SDP must explain why is it that in some of those cases, the Privy Council has upheld the decisions of our Court of Appeal.”
“Where, as here, a political party and its Secretary-General assume a duty, indeed undertake, to defend Singapore against unfair criticisms, but remain silent in the face of an assault on our judiciary, and indeed declare agreement with many things that Mr Seow has said, the irresistible conclusion must be that SDP's silence and conduct amount to a clear and unequivocal endorsement of that attack. I shall now deal with the second issue, which is, is there any basis for the attack? The allegations which Mr Seow made are in essence: (1) That the judiciary is beholden to the [Senior Minister] and the establishment. (2) That the Chief Justice is a "faithful crony" of the Senior Minister. (3) That the "judges are invariably leaning over backwards in favour of the Government and the establishment." The hallmark of an independent judiciary is its ability to decide in accordance with the law without fear or favour and without regard to the identity or standing of the parties. Are our courts independent? Let us test the point by a few examples. Mr Seow has claimed that Chief Justice Yong was appointed because he was a "faithful crony" and that the "rule of Lee has displaced the rule of law in Singapore". Consider this. In 1990, Mr Jeyaretnam filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal against a decision of the High Court. The other party was the Senior Minister. The Senior Minister applied to strike out one of Mr Jeyaretnam's grounds of appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Senior Minister's application and awarded costs against the Senior Minister. Presiding were the Chief Justice, Justice L P Thean and Justice Chan Sek Keong, who is now the Attorney-General. Ask yourselves: Is the Chief Justice "a faithful crony"?”
“Again, this is not at all a reasonable inference for the simple reason that Dr Chee has himself claimed that he "will speak forthrightly concerning matters about my country". He said this in the Straits Times of 27th September 1995. Here is the Secretary-General of a party saying that he will not mince words when it concerns an issue affecting Singapore. It is therefore impossible, on any view, to conclude that Dr Chee and the SDP were coy about setting the record straight. What then is the only inference which can be drawn? The SDP by its own claim has said, not once, but twice, that one of its objectives in attending the counter panel discussion was to put right misperceptions about Singapore. And yet, in the face of Mr Seow's charge, and despite many opportunities to clarify, not only has the SDP maintained a silence about the integrity of our judiciary, Dr Chee has not once resiled from his assertion that "I agree very much with many things that Mr Seow and Dr Lingle have said." That remains his and the SDP's stand up till today. The SDP had another opportunity to clear up the misperception, if it believed that Mr Seow's views on our system were without basis. On 10th October 1995, the Straits Times published a letter from the Prime Minister's Press Secretary. In that letter, Dr Chee was asked to clarify his position regarding the independence of our judiciary in the light of Mr Seow's allegations. Dr Chee's reply was published on 17th October 1995. The reply was issued in his capacity as Secretary-General of the SDP. Again, the SDP refused to deal with the issue. There is not one word in that letter which clarifies the position, one way or the other. It is not necessary to make a positive assertion of fact to endorse or support an attack.”
“Well before Williams College, in a letter published in the Straits Times on 12th August 1995, Dr Ow asked Dr Chee to state whether he disagreed with the views of Mr Safire who had labelled our judiciary "corrupt". Dr Chee avoided dealing with this in his reply. At Williams College, Dr Chee did not once suggest that Mr Seow's views on the system in Singapore was a misperception. He did not do so at the counter panel discussion or during his speech the following day. Remember that, according to Dr Chee, one of the purposes of attending the counter panel discussion at Williams College was to address misperceptions about Singapore. After Williams College, Dr Chee and the SDP had many opportunities to clear up this possible misperception, this time, on the part of the PAP, about SDP's stand on the judiciary. After Dr Chee returned to Singapore, Dr Ow challenged him to state his stand about Mr Seow's attack on our judiciary. Dr Ow's letter was published in the Straits Times on 21st September 1995. Dr Ow reminded Dr Chee that during the counter panel discussion, Dr Chee had said that he and his party faced some of the constraints which Mr Seow talked about. Here was an excellent opportunity for Dr Chee to clear the air and to take a stand. Dr Chee, replying as Secretary-General of the SDP, chose not to address the issue. In fact, he and the SDP repeated that the SDP was at Williams College "to clear up misperceptions foreigners might have about our country". There was no doubt in their own minds about their mission. What about the other possible interpretation of Dr Chee's conduct? Was he too reticent to rebut Mr Seow?”
“Dr Chee and the SDP therefore voluntarily undertook, and assumed a duty, to all Singaporeans to defend our system if it came in for what, in their view, was baseless criticism, and to take a stand. At the discussion, Mr Seow disparaged the judiciary, the legal system, and the rule of law in Singapore. The SDP was represented by three persons, including its Secretary-General and Vice-Chairman. But Dr Chee and his two colleagues were conspicuously silent on this attack. There was no rebuttal either at the discussion or in Dr Chee's speech the following day. In Dr Chee's and SDP's view, Mr Seow's claim that our judiciary is corrupt was either a misperception or it was not. If it was a misperception, Dr Chee and the SDP were under a duty, and had undertaken, to Singaporeans to speak up to clarify the matter. They remained silent when Mr Seow discredited our legal system. Their failure to refute the criticisms of our judiciary is consistent only with one conclusion: that the SDP and Dr Chee did not consider it to be a misperception. In other words, they considered that Mr Seow had a legitimate basis to discredit and run down our judiciary. It is important that we give SDP the benefit of the doubt. There are other possible interpretations of SDP's failure to rebut Mr Seow's claims. First, that the SDP was so caught up in the discussion at Williams College that it forgot to clear up the misperception. Secondly, that Dr Chee disagreed with Mr Seow but was too diffident to clear the air. Let me deal with each in turn. First, was there an oversight? The SDP's conduct before, during and after the event militates against any such interpretation.”
“The question here really is, do the circumstances of this episode entitle us to infer that the SDP has, by its inaction and other conduct, made a positive assertion of fact in respect of our judiciary? By a letter of 8th September 1995, Dr Chee informed the Prime Minister that he intended to present the SDP's alternative ideas for Singapore at the counter panel discussion at Williams College, and sought a meeting with the Prime Minister. In his reply, the Prime Minister's Press Secretary assailed Dr Chee's motives for agreeing to be a party to that discussion. In particular, the Press Secretary said, and I quote, "Your desire to see the Prime Minister in Williams College does not prove your commitment to Singapore." In a press statement issued on 10th September 1995 on SDP's notepaper, Dr Chee signing off as Secretary-General, stated that the SDP's participation "is to clear any misperceptions that anyone may have about Singapore". That is one of the most important statements that has been made by Dr Chee and the SDP in this episode. I repeat it: "to clear any misperceptions that anyone may have about Singapore". That statement, which was carried in the Straits Times on the following day, was made specifically in response to a challenge to SDP's commitment to Singapore. Dr Chee and the SDP attempted to dispel the notion that they are anti-Singaporean by promising to clear any misperceptions about Singapore. In other words, to defend Singapore against unjustified attack. In the circumstances, Dr Chee and the SDP expressly represented to Singaporeans that if, in SDP's view, any unjustified allegations against Singapore are made at the counter panel discussion, he and the SDP would clear the air.”
“Among other things, he said that the judiciary is neither free nor independent and that judges "lean over backwards in favour of government". He described Chief Justice Yong as a "faithful crony" of Senior Minister. At the same discussion, Dr Chee, speaking from the floor, said, "I must say that I do agree very much with many things that Mr Seow and Dr Lingle have said." Dr Chee also said that he and his party faced some of the difficulties which Mr Seow talked about. He then went on to inform those present that he would be speaking the following day during which he hoped to address misperceptions "positive or negative" about Singapore. The following day, Dr Chee spoke on a number of issues. In his speech, he commented on some of the criticisms that had been levelled against Singapore. However, he was silent on Mr Seow's attack on our judiciary. Arising from these facts, the issues in this motion are whether Dr Chee and the SDP have endorsed and/or supported an attack on the independence and integrity of our judiciary and, if so, whether there is any basis for the attack? I will deal with the first issue. Did Dr Chee and the SDP endorse and support the attack on our judiciary? It has been suggested by Dr Chee and the SDP that they have not endorsed or supported Mr Seow's view because neither has made a statement impugning the integrity of the judiciary. That, with respect, misses the point. While it is true that ordinarily a statement is made by an express assertion of fact, it is equally true that one can make a statement by one's conduct. It is also the case that while usually very little can be construed from mere silence, in some circumstances, silence speaks volumes about one's true intentions and beliefs.”
“When people lose respect for the judiciary, they also lose regard for Members of Parliament, because the perception will be that we make laws in the knowledge that those laws will not be justly applied and enforced. Therefore, the legislature comes in for criticism every time the judiciary comes in for attack. We therefore have a duty and a responsibility to demand that those who allege corruption prove it or abandon the charge. There is another reason why we cannot sit back and do nothing. Judges are in an extremely difficult position. They have the power to punish anyone for any act or publication which is calculated to bring the court or a judge into contempt, or to lower his authority. If someone says that the judicial system is crooked, the courts can and will punish. But every time the courts do that, they expose themselves to further criticism. The judiciary, as a rule, does not engage in a debate with the public or its accusers on the issue of its independence and integrity. It therefore cannot defend itself. Parliament therefore has a responsibility to protect the honour of our judges. It is the duty of every Member of Parliament, first, to take a position if and when one of our institutions is ridiculed or discredited and, secondly, to justify his or her stand. We have a duty to defend the system or, if there is a flaw, change it. Sir, this motion has been inspired by the recent events at Williams College and their aftermath in Singapore. These are the facts: On 15th September 1995, Dr Chee attended a counter panel discussion held by those opposed to the honour bestowed by Williams College on our Prime Minister. It was chaired by Mr Crane. Mr Seow was one of the panellists. Mr Seow attacked the judiciary in Singapore.”
“Sir, laws are vital for the maintenance of order in society. Laws are made to prescribe the rights and obligations of government and those who are governed. Our laws also define the norms of acceptable social conduct. Laws will only be effective if they are respected by the people. There is no universal law which prescribes that all citizens must support legislation or decrees made by States. People accept legislation only if, first, there is a deep-rooted and widespread belief that the executive and/or the legislature's motives in passing or amending legislation are nothing short of honourable and, secondly, that the laws will be fairly and justly applied and enforced. The most well-intentioned piece of legislation will be ineffectual if a dishonest judiciary disregards the law. If that happens, it undermines all the work done by the executive and the legislature. People who lose faith in the judiciary will lose their trust in the entire system. It is very important to understand that in the majority of cases, the average man encounters the law only when he is in court. The law only becomes a reality and relevant to them when they are alleged to have transgressed it or when a dispute arises which cannot be resolved without judicial intervention. A rotten judiciary will leave a lasting impression on anyone hoping to see justice served. An accused or a litigant who feels that he has been short-changed by the courts because of extra-legal factors will not only lose his respect for the judiciary, but for the system. Why should he have any regard for a government which has fixed the judicial odds?”
“Is the Ministry proposing to tackle this problem and, if so, how?”
“Sir, it was recently reported that some students at the National University of Singapore have to take a compulsory course which has been designed to teach them to think, speak and write. This has come as a bit of surprise. Year after year, we read that our schools churn out students who excel in GCE `O' and `A' level examinations. No doubt, the education that most of our students receive will prepare them for their chosen vocation. However, the fact that some university students have difficulty analyzing, evaluating and thinking logically tell us that we should be doing more with the students well before they enter the universities. It is a good idea to start a course which will teach them these skills. But the course at the university level is not the best way to deal with the problem. We should really evaluate the kind of training that our school children are receiving to determine whether, in addition to obtaining excellent grades at examinations, they are being properly prepared for university and their careers. With an economy that is becoming more competitive, we will need more people at the top and middle level management equipped with the skills of inquiry and analysis. We are also going to need people who are more articulate and are willing to think through and take stands on issues. We need to develop initiative and creativity. It was reported in the newspapers that the most powerful business organisation in Japan is leading a private sector effort to find ways of nurturing originality and the inventiveness of its people. Top Japanese businessmen, academics and industrial experts believe that these qualities are essential for creativity which, in turn, is needed to maintain Japan's vitality and international competitiveness.”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $19,417,200 for Head B ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $721,200 for Head B ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head E -”
“He pays for his crime by contributing in a tangible way. CSOs lower the administrative costs associated with custodial sentences, prevent disruption to the family of the offender, prevent disruption to work commitments and go some way towards protecting the offender's sense of worth. In most cases, CSOs strike a better balance between punishment and rehabilitation. Sir, CSO may, in certain circumstances, be very constructive, not only for the offender but also for the community. Instead of being stuck in prison and losing his job, the offender can carry on working to support his family and do community work in the evenings and on weekends. There are many types of work which offenders can be required to do, eg, maintaining facilities for or looking after the handicapped, the disabled and the elderly. Some of them have skills that society can usefully tap. CSOs have the advantage of giving the offender an opportunity to make amends for the harm that he has done and to rehabilitate himself. In some cases, Sir, we find that offenders have no difficulty paying fines. To them, a fine is no deterrent. They learn nothing from the experience. But they will very quickly understand the consequences of their action if they have to spend their precious leisure hours doing work for others for free. We should consider changing the law to give our courts power to impose CSOs in cases where the courts feel that the offender needs to be taught a lesson in responsibility to society but does not deserve the stigma of being sent to prison. Sir, I would like the Minister's views, please.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head B of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. The main sentencing options that the courts have are imprisonment, caning and fine. The type of sentence that is handed down depends primarily on what the law provides, the extent of judicial discretion and the nature and gravity of the offence. Of all the sentences, fines feature most prominently. In some countries, a new form of sentencing has been introduced and this is called the Community Service Order (CSO). It has been introduced in the United Kingdom and it is also an option that is available in Australia. In essence, the CSO requires an offender to perform unpaid work on behalf of the community and for its benefit. It can be imposed in England on anyone over the age of 16 who is convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment. The nature of the work to be performed is left to the supervisors. The question is whether we consider that the CSO has a place in our sentencing policy and that depends on whether our philosophy embraces the concepts of reparation and rehabilitation. There can be no doubt that for serious offences, there can be no substitute for death, imprisonment and caning. However, there are a range of non-violent offences which can more effectively be dealt with by CSOs or by a combination of CSOs together with fines or imprisonment. The idea of CSO is not new to this legislature. We have given courts power to make corrective work orders for littering offences. Day release prisoners are employed during the last phase of their prison term. And we have implemented a system of supervising drug addicts. We can therefore go further in this direction. The advantage of a CSO is that the offender is required to do work for the society.”
“Those applications sometimes make things quite cumbersome. We want to promote ourselves as an attractive place to do business from. We should rationalise all these incentive schemes to make matters simple for the investors. Unless there is a serious likelihood of a substantial loss of revenue to the Government, we should extend the concession net as wide as possible and not make businessmen go through cumbersome application procedures. 1.22 pm”
“Also, I would be interested to learn what the rationale is of the 25% or 50% shareholding requirement to qualify for this concession. As part of our drive, we are encouraging companies from other countries to enter into joint-ventures with us with a view to investing in third countries. If those joint-ventures are incorporated locally, and if because of demands of equity or because we need the expertise of our foreign partners, a Singapore party's stake is limited to less than 25%, there is no reason in principle why the Singapore party should not enjoy a flow through of tax-exempt dividends if the dividends originate from foreign income earned by the joint-venture. If one has to settle on a figure, why 25%, why 50%, why not 5%? After all, the Companies Act deems a person who has an interest in 5% of the voting shares of a listed company as a substantial shareholder. Finally, is there a reason for not extending the concessions to capital gains on foreign investments? Today, capital gains on disposal of foreign investments cannot be passed on to shareholders in Singapore in the form of tax-exempt dividends. This is because capital gains are not taxable here. Therefore no foreign tax credit is available. This may result in double taxation for Singapore companies if the capital gain is taxed overseas. There is no reason in principle for the different treatment. A disposal of a foreign investment contributes as much to our accumulation of wealth as trading profits. What is the evil which we are seeking to address by not extending the existing concessions to capital gains overseas? The answer should not be that Singapore companies can make applications for tax exemptions under the Income Tax Act or the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act.”
“If the object is to enable Singaporeans to keep more of the profits, it is difficult to understand why the Government has not recognised that companies may have to restructure not only their Singapore interests, but their overseas holding as well, and this restructuring may have to be done in a manner which results in the imposition or the intervention of a foreign subsidiary between the Singapore holding company and the foreign operating company which pays overseas tax. In other words, the holdings overseas may have to involve more than one tier. The concessions just announced only apply if the first tier foreign company pays tax overseas. The issue that is left unaddressed is what if, as is often the case, the second tier company and not the first tier foreign company is the company that pays the tax? The first tier foreign company may be sited in a tax haven and may not pay tax. And in that event, tax-exempt dividends cannot be received and/or paid in Singapore. I would be interested to understand the rationale for this distinction. Many investors either buy into or incorporate groups of companies overseas for various reasons, including reasons of tax efficiency. Countries like the US or the UK allow group relief for corporate groups in their territories. A Singapore investor may find a foreign asset or business very attractive but may have no choice but to invest in an entire group to get at that asset or business. If the object is to encourage regionalisation and the repatriation of profits, the Singapore Government should grant a concession to ensure that, first, the income received in Singapore can be received as a tax-exempt dividend and, secondly, that that tax-exempt dividend can flow through to many levels in Singapore.”
“This enables foreign income to flow through to shareholders without double taxation. However, the flow through is limited to two levels of shareholding. It is also subject to the Singapore company owning at least 50% of the shares of the company paying the dividends. The Minister has recognised that companies have found it necessary to restructure their holdings in a manner which results in more than two levels of shareholding in Singapore. Also, because it is common practice in Singapore for companies to form consortiums to invest overseas, it is not uncommon that shareholders own less than 50% in the dividend paying company. To address these realities, the Minister has decided to extend the flow through of tax-exempt dividends beyond two levels of shareholding provided that the 50% shareholding requirement is satisfied. He has also decided to waive, but on a case by case basis, the requirement of the 50% shareholding in the dividend paying company. The whole idea behind regionalisation is to add wealth to the nation. That is done by investing overseas and, in due course, channelling the profits back home. In making the changes announced on Budget day, the Government has shown that it is alive to business realities. It has made changes which will result in more money ending up in the pockets of shareholders resident in Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I declare my interest in a group which has gone regional. Sir, the Singapore Government has encouraged Singapore companies to go regional. Regionalisation is crucial if we are to meet the challenges of the global economy and to continue to create wealth for Singapore. Overseas expansion brings with it job opportunities which Singaporeans who are talented and adventurous can take up. The Government is continually refining its policies to encourage regionalisation. Budget after budget, economic incentives to maintain Singapore's competitiveness and to encourage Singaporeans to venture abroad have been introduced and refined. This year's Budget Statement recognises that it is important to strengthen the incentives for businesses to venture and to succeed overseas. Some time ago, a package of incentives was introduced to encourage our companies to invest abroad. Today, if a Singapore company has an overseas investment and as a result derives foreign income, the Singapore company does not have to pay any Singapore tax on that income in Singapore if tax exemption has been granted or if the foreign tax credit is equal to or exceeds the Singapore tax payable. Tax exemption is granted on a case by case basis under the Income Tax Act and the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) Act. Under those statutes, companies must make applications to the authorities and satisfy a number of criteria before tax exemption can be considered. It is a matter of discretion. The other route is to obtain a foreign tax credit which is equal to or exceeds the Singapore tax payable. Under existing law, foreign income in relation to which there is a foreign tax credit is allowed to be distributed as tax-exempt dividends.”
“We get the opportunity, as we did a few minutes ago, for the Minister to tell us what has been happening, both in terms of secret society activities and in terms of drug activities. It is easy for us in air-conditioned comfort to talk about the pros and cons, academic or otherwise, of this Bill. But the question of whether this Bill ought to be renewed ought to be posed to the families of the victims of secret society activities and to the families of the victims of drug activities. When their children are seduced by drugs, as a result of the activities of drug overlords, and if they see that the Government is powerless to put these people behind bars, the question is: where is the justice? Put this question to them, and I would suggest that their support for the renewal of this Act would be unanimous.”
“Sir, I support the Bill. The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act is known primarily for granting the Government power to detain without trial. There is another vital aspect to that piece of legislation. It spans more than 40 sections, a considerable part of which deals with the creation of offences which have to be proved in a court of law. The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act makes a number of activities illegal, eg, carrying, making or distributing subversive documents, eg, documents which incite people to violence. It makes striking in the context of essential services, like the supply of gas, water, electricity, illegal; funding of those strikes illegal; locking out employees engaged in those services illegal. And if you want to throw someone into prison for engaging in those illegal activities, the Government has to prosecute and has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty and this has to be done in a court of law. I am therefore a bit surprised that we are continuing to have a sunset clause in so far as this particular aspect of the Act is concerned. It has got nothing to do with detention without trial. It creates ordinary offences as do the Penal Code and other statutes which create offences. There is no reason, I submit, for this part, at least, of the Act to be subject to a renewal every so often. The other aspect is detention without trial. It has always been a difficult argument. Because, from the purist's standpoint, the person in detention is deprived of his right to natural justice. But really, renewing this Act every few years enables this House as well as Singapore to understand what is happening in this country and in the world around.”
“The Bankruptcy Bill does not catch such conduct. That is fraud. That is dilution of assets. It is as fraudulent as you can get and I think that the Bill ought to address such new sophisticated forms of fraud. It is not really the moving of assets that we are interested in. It is the dilution of the value of the assets that you have at any one point of time before bankruptcy. Another issue is the appointment of interim receivers. This Bill proposes that the court or the Official Assignee be entitled to appoint a receiver of your property during the period between a petition for bankruptcy is filed and the bankruptcy order. What a receiver can do is receive your property. He can take possession of your property. But what he cannot do is manage your property. And I suggest that this particular issue be addressed as well because it is important that when he receives property, he is also given the right to manage it. Otherwise, as in the example I gave earlier, the right to vote is not addressed. I am glad the Bill is going to a Select Committee and it will be interesting to see how the amendments work out. Sir, I support the Bill.”