E.W. Barker
Singapore
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This is a simple Bill which seeks to amend section 33 of the Land Acquisition Act on the amount of compensation payable to owners of land compulsorily acquired under the Act.”
“For the five-year period from 1st July, 1981 to 30th June, 1986, the HDB demolished a total of 8,098 units. As the HDB's new accounting system was only implemented from 1st April, 1985, the Board does not have ready information on the value of flats demolished prior to 1st April, 1985. RELOCATION OF CREMATORIUMS 4.”
“The HDB did not allocate any MP's office to the previous PAP MPs for Anson and Potong Pasir constituencies. NUMBER OF H.D.B. UNITS DEMOLISHED 3.”
“I would not know. Why don't you ask them? I don't know. Sir, to put things in a nutshell, it is the legal profession amongst all the professions that help in the administration of Singapore. Doctors help to cure you of diseases.”
“I am not saying it's wrong. I am not telling you stories. I am relating. So they decided to take us on. When we went into Select Committee, the first day and the later part of the second day, there was confrontation between the Committee and the lawyers.”
“As the Member for Anson would know, the Minister for Law is not in charge of prosecutions or the conduct of any criminal proceedings in court, nor does he give any directives on these matters.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,152 lines we hold for E.W. Barker, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 44.
“As for punishment, the Committee are inclined to take a lenient view as the Member is new and has not been for long in this House. The Committee feel that it will suffice if the Member were to be reprimanded and warned by you, Sir, and so recommend. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Parliament doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Report contained in Paper Parl. 3 of 1982, and that Mr Speaker do reprimand Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam, Member for Anson, for his dishonourable conduct and contempt of the House and do warn him. Sir, I am moving this Motion in my capacity as Leader of the House. I am also a Member of the Committee of Privileges whose Report is before the House for its consideration. It is my duty, unpleasant as it is, to ask the House to endorse the recommendation of the Committee that we should pass censure on one of our Members. Sir, this is the first time that such a Motion has been brought before this House. That is some consolation to those of us who are jealous of the honour of Parliament. That does not, however, make today's task any easier. The circumstances in which this matter arose emerge clearly from the Report of the Committee of Privileges which has been circulated amongst Members. Briefly, the Member for Anson is a practising advocate and solicitor. As such, he had acted for five persons who had been detained under an Order made by the Director, Central Narcotics Bureau, under the Misuse of Drugs Act. At the Sitting of Parliament on 19th March last he raised in this House matters relating to the detention of drug addicts. He should have disclosed that he had acted as advocate and solicitor in those cases, but he did not. At the time one of these cases was still pending in the High Court. Sir, the Committee found that it was improper for the Member to have raised the matter in Parliament without first disclosing his interest which was, in the view of your Committee, a direct personal pecuniary interest in the matter.”
“Sir, on a point of order. We have come to the end of our day's business and this is not the time for the Member to raise his point. Mr Speaker: Apparently, Mr Jeyaretnam, you could have raised it on the 24th of March.”
“Sir, I think the Member wants you to decide whether, on the facts as set out on what he said previously, he should have declared his interest in the matter, in that he had acted for this particular person relating to the same matter”
“Sir, I would like to give the Member another chance. He says he is prepared to apologize provided he is wrong. Is he prepared to say that he had no intention of misleading this House and if he did, he expresses his regrets.?”
“Sir, we are not in Committee. If we were in a Committee considering whether or not there was a breach of privilege, we would have to decide. But this particular Motion, if passed, will go on to the Attorney-General and it is the Attorney-General who will decide whether there is a prima facie case against the Member, and it is the Attorney-General who will have to decide on the law and what is the meaning of "direct personal pecuniary interest." It will take us nowhere to argue in this House as to what that phrase means. It is for the Attorney-General, if he thinks there has been a breach of the section or an offence, to send the case to court, and there the Magistrate or Judge will have to decide what is meant by "direct personal pecuniary interest." As far as this House is concerned, we are not preventing the Member for Anson from speaking. The particular section does not. He can speak on the subject provided he declares his interest, whatever direct personal pecuniary interest means. The reason for this Motion is that the complaint against the Member is more serious than the one before the Committee of Privileges. It is more serious because, first, he was asked whether he had acted as an advocate and solicitor in any of these matters. His reply: 'I acted for six cases but as a Member of Parliament.' Shown a letter by his firm, he said it was signed by his assistant. Then he was shown another letter which was signed by himself, long before he became a Member of Parliament. But the fact is that he acted. He is the sole proprietor of his firm. He received money when he acts for his clients. So prima facie it is a receipt of moneys - direct, personal, pecuniary. Question put, and before the votes were taken - Mr Barker rose -”
“' The offence which we are dealing with today is an offence under section 31 of Part V of the Act and the procedure for such an offence is provided for in section 21 (c) - refer the matter to the Attorney-General with a view to the institution of criminal proceedings against such person.”
“Sir, these matters complained of took place on different days and on different subjects. There are two ways in which Parliament can deal with alleged breaches of privilege. One is to deal with the breach itself, as has been done in the other matter complained of, and the other, if it is more serious, is to send it to the Attorney-General. Sir, the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, section 20, says: '20.-(1) For any dishonourable conduct, abuse of privilege or contempt, on the part of a Member, Parliament may - (a) impose upon him a fine not exceeding the sum of one thousand dollars; (b) suspend him from the service of Parliament for the remainder of the current session of Parliament or for any part thereof; and (c) direct that he be reprimanded or admonished in his place by the Speaker.' and it sets out in section 21 the procedure in cases like this. '21.-(1) If it is alleged or appears that any person has committed an offence mentioned in section 20 of this Act, Parliament may - (a) if the offence is alleged to have been or has apparently been committed in the view of Parliament or in the precincts thereof when Parliament is sitting or in any committee, deal with the matter summarily, in the case of a Member, under the Standing Orders and, in the case of a stranger, . . (b) refer the matter to any select committee for investigation, consideration and report to Parliament; or' This was what took place in respect of the other matter. '(c) if the offence is an offence mentioned in Part V of this Act, refer the matter to the Attorney-General with a view to the institution of criminal proceedings against such person.”
“Of course, it is my signature. But this signature on the letter dated 5th February 1982 is my assistant's signature. It is about this that I was talking. But the letter dated 30th May 1981, of course it is my signature and I wrote that letter.' The explanation, if any, was in my view unsatisfactory. Two days later, on the 19th day of March 1982, the Member for Anson once again took part in the discussion of the same or similar matter in this House. This was in the debate in the Committee of Supply on Head Q of the Main and Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April 1982 to 31st March 1983. This is reported in our Official Report, Volume 41, No. 13, at col. 1281. The Member said:- 'My plea now this time is not for persons who think they are being wrongfully incarcerated in the drug rehabilitation centres but for the wives of Singapore citizens. I do not have to again, I hope, remind Members of this House that the right to marry a person of one's own choice is a personal right that belongs to the individual, and it finds expression in Article 16 of the Declaration of Human Rights to which we have subscribed.' The Member for Anson may have an explanation. If he has, hon. Members will be pleased to hear him. The Member is new in this House and may not have been conversant with all our Standing Orders, rules and regulations and the Act which sets out our powers, privileges and immunities. Perhaps he may wish to express his regrets in which case I will not proceed with the resolution. Sir, I beg to move.”
“' The Member for Anson replied, and again I quote -- 'I have, as a Member of Parliament, raised about six matters concerning non-citizens who have married Singapore citizens and who have been asked to leave the country.' I cannot speak for you, Sir, but the impression I got from the Member's answer was that he had raised these matters as a Member of Parliament and not as an Advocate and Solicitor. The Minister for Home Affairs then produced a letter from the legal firm of J.B. Jeyaretnam & Co. of which the Member is the sole proprietor. The letter read:- "We act for the abovenamed who is a Malaysian citizen. Our client (not a voter) has been residing in Singapore for more than 10 years. On the 17th of May 1981, our client married Mr Latib Bin Ali who is a citizen of Singapore by birth at Johore Bahru by Muslim rites. She now resides with the husband . . We would urge you on compassionate and humanitarian grounds to grant our client an entry permit for permanent residence in Singapore. We would stress that our client's husband is a citizen of Singapore. As such if our client were to leave Singapore it would cause a break-up in the family . .". This letter was dated the 5th February 1982. It was shown to the hon. Member and he said it was signed by his assistant. The Minister then produced an earlier letter from the firm in respect of the same client on the same matter signed by the Member himself. When the Member rose to explain, you, Sir, were kind enough to suggest that he referred to section 31 before he committed himself any more on the subject. The Member rose and said, in : 'All I want to say is that this second letter that was handed to me was dated 30th May 1981. It is long before I became a Member of Parliament. It is dated 30th May 1981.”
“One such obligation is that required by section 31 which provides as follows: 'A Member shall not in or before Parliament or any committee take part in the discussion of any matter in which he has a direct personal pecuniary interest without disclosing the extent of that interest and shall not in any circumstances vote upon any such matter.' It is a serious offence to contravene section 31 and a conviction under the section is punishable by a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both such fine and imprisonment. This is provided in section 35 (1) (c). You will recall, Sir, that on the 17th day of March this year, the Member for Anson asked an Oral Question No. 1 on the Order Paper for the day and the question was: 'What the policy of his Ministry [the Ministry of Home Affairs] is on applications from non-citizen spouses of Singapore citizens to live in Singapore with their spouses.' The question and the answer by the Minister of State for Home Affairs are reported in Volume 41, No. 11, of our Official Report for the day, cols. 1033 to 1040. The Member asked several supplementary questions and, whilst one was being answered, the Minister for Home Affairs rose on a Point of Order. His Point of Order was this. Sir, I quote from col, 1037 of the Official Report:- 'Will he declare his direct personal pecuniary interest in his line of questioning? In other words, has he got cases of this nature representing non-Singapore citizens regarding application for permanent residence? How many cases has he got, acting as a lawyer outside this House or in the name of his firm "J.B. Jeyaretnam and Company"? Can he declare his interest?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Motion* *The Motion reads as follows: That, as it appears that the Member for Anson has committed an offence or offences under section 31 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act (Chapter 49) in that - (1) on the 17th day of March, 1982, he took part in the discussion of a matter in this House relating to the question of the policy of the Government on applications from non-citizen spouses of Singapore citizens to live in Singapore with their spouses (Question No. 1 on the Order Paper for the day). (2) on the 19th day of March, 1982, he took part in the discussion of the same or similar matter in this House (Debate in the Committee of Supply on Head Q of the Main and Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1982 to 31st March, 1983), in which matters he had a direct personal pecuniary interest without disclosing the extent of that interest. Parliament resolves that this matter be referred to the Attorney-General with a view to the institution of criminal proceedings against the Member. standing in my name as it appears in item 1 on the Order Paper. Sir, I take no pleasure in moving this Motion because this is the first motion of its kind in this House and because it is against the one and only Member of the Opposition in this House. But Parliament is supreme and the rule of law must always prevail in our Republic and, above all, in this House. The powers of this House and the privileges and immunities of hon. Members are set out in the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act enacted as long ago as 1955. But besides privileges and immunities, hon. Members also have duties and obligations which, unfortunately, do not appear in the title of the Act.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we have come to the end of a long and interesting debate highlighted by the presence in this House, after so many years, of an Opposition Member of Parliament. At times some of us have irritated you but, all in all, I can safely say that you have been extremely patient with us and I am sure Members of the House will join me in paying a tribute to you. Thank you, Sir. [Applause]. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr E. W Barker]. Adjourned accordingly at Half- past Three o'clock p.m. to a date to be fixed.”
“Sir, one of the terms of the three-year lease was that at the end of that period the additions, including airconditioners, could not be taken away by the Applied Research Corporation. This term was also applied to the PAP. SBS BUS FARES (Request for reduction) 2. Mr Hwang Soo Jin asked the Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour whether, in view of the substantial savings in costs achieved, he will direct the Singapore Bus Service (1978) Limited to consider a reduction in fares.”
“Sir, I am not aware of the values in the vicinity. The Chief Assessor made the valuation. But perhaps I could help the Member. When the Applied Research Corporation first went into occupation, the building was in a bad state and they had to spend about $72,000 towards repairs and renovations. When the PAP moved in, the PAP reimbursed the Applied Research Corporation $55,000. So, in addition to the rental of $2,000, if you consider this big sum divided by the number of years, it would be another $2,000 per month over a three-year lease.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is yes. Prior to the PAP's occupation of No. 11 Napier Road, the building, which was managed by the Ministry of Finance (Revenue Division), was rented out to the Applied Research Corporation at a monthly rental of $2,000. The Commissioner of Lands, in consultation with the Ministry of Finance, charged the PAP the same rental of $2,000 per month.”
“' and 24: 'It follows therefore [This is the penultimate paragraph] that had Mr Marshall raised the matter of the case of Sardara Singh in the Assembly and in the manner proposed, he could have come within the mischief indicated in the preceding paragraphs and could have been dealt with accordingly for abuse of privilege or for dishonourable conduct.'”
“But paragraph 8 reads: 'it is well established that it is a breach of privilege for any Member to accept any fee or reward in connection with the promotion of any matter submitted or intended to be submitted to the House, and, to guard against indirect influence, the House of Commons has forbidden the acceptance of fees by its Members for professional services connected with proceedings in Parliament.' Sir, to end, the Bar Committee was consulted, and I will read paragraph 21 giving one of their views: '21. Thus, if a Member, who is also an Advocate and Solicitor, conducts himself in the Assembly in such a manner as is calculated to attract business to himself, he would clearly be using the protection of the Assembly to breach the etiquette of his own profession and for his own personal advantage. Your Committee are of the opinion that even if the Member referred in general terms to matters of public interest which he had gleaned during the course of his professional activities, it might well be that the notoriety gained by the Member in such matters would, even though no names were mentioned, relate his activities to such matters in such a way as could conceivably be thought to be in the nature of advertisement of his own activities.' The Committee concluded in paragraphs 22: 'Conduct as described in the foregoing paragraph would tend to bring the Assembly into disrepute and could, in the view of your Committee, be rightly dealt with as being an abuse of privilege and as dishonourable conduct.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have not risen to do battle with the hon. Member for Anson. But something similar happened years ago, in 1962, and I have with me the Second Report of the Committee of Privileges together with Appendices, Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings of the Committee. I do not intend to proceed to read the lot. Suffice it to say: 'On the 22nd day of November, 1961, Mr David Marshall, Member for Anson, having obtained the right to raise the matter of the case of Sardara Singh, former Acting Sergeant, Singapore Police Force, on the motion for the adjournment, stated that he had acted in a professional capacity for Sardara Singh,that the matter had ended, that Sardara Singh had left Singapore and that he (the Member for Anson) had no further pecuniary or professional interest in the matter, nor any personal interest apart from certain facts which he had gleaned and which, to his mind, raised very grave public issues. As it had been indicated that it might possibly be deemed improper for him to bring forward the matter, he welcomed a reference to the Committee of Privileges, whereupon the Leader of the House, Dr Toh Chin Chye, raised the matter as a matter of privilege and Mr Speaker, in accordance with the Standing Orders, referred same to your Committee . . 4. The question before your Committee was whether it would be improper for Mr Marshall, who had acted professionally in a matter for a fee, to raise that matter in the Assembly after that matter had been completed and Mr Marshall had no further pecuniary or personal interest therein.' I do not propose to read the following paragraphs. The Member will be supplied with a copy later for his information.”
“Thereafter the mark proceeds to registration. Recently there has been an increase in the number of applications. I have the figures here. From about 3,000 applications in 1972 it went up to 5,876 in 1981. This is due to our industrial and commercial development. Presently, the Registrar receives an average of 490 applications a month. As for staff, the Member is right. I understand that although there has been an increase in the number of staff by the addition of five more clerks, two more typists and two more record keepers since 1972, that is 10 years ago, there has been no corresponding increase in the number of senior staff. Since 1974 there have been only two legal officers and three executive officers, with a high turnover rate of executive officers. We will see what we can do to increase the staff. As for computerization, we have raised this matter but I am afraid the Computer Services Department and the Management Services Department are of the opinion that it is not feasible to computerize the present manual procedure of searching word marks, surnames and geographical names. However, the matter is still being pursued. There have been some measures already taken to improve efficiency in the Registry. I understand that two Word Processors will be installed for the coming financial year. Further ways and means to improve procedures and reduce the time will be looked into, but I am not very optimistic about reducing the time for trade mark registration.”
“Sir, can I first deal with the Member's second point about counterfeiting and the penalties that are imposed? At the moment I cannot say whether these penalties should be enhanced. There have been a few cases. Perhaps they were treated leniently; perhaps correctly too. I have no details of the cases but we are always open to suggestions. The Member has suggested that the penalty for counterfeiting should be increased. I can assure him that we will give it consideration. This depends, of course, on the number of cases and whether they have increased recently. On the Member's first point about delays in trade mark registration, I understand that a trade mark, if nothing goes wrong and there are no objections, can be registered in about 16 to 17 months. This is quite some time, but there are difficulties in the procedures. First, the Registrar upon receiving an application must look at and examine the mark to see whether it is a registrable trade mark under section 10 (1) of the Act which provides that a mark must comply with certain features. It must be a distinct mark. That having been done, he must make a search. There are thousands of trade marks registered in the Registry. There are 34 classes, two parts (Part A and Part B). On receipt of an application, the Registry has to go through thousands of these registered marks and also those that are pending to find out or ascertain whether there are similar or identical trade marks. This takes quite a bit of time, sometimes five to six months. That having been done, the mark is then registered in the Government Gazette. I believe the printers take some time to print. Thus some more delay. Then the mark is allowed to rest there for two months so that anyone who wants to object can object.”
“Mr Lim Boon Heng asked the Minister of Defence how many applications for deferment of and exemption from national service were received in 1981 and how many of these applications were granted and on what grounds.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Chit Funds Act came into operation on 14th January, 1972. Since then, a total of 26 chit fund companies have been ordered by the Court to be wound up mainly upon the application of the Minister for Finance. The Official Receiver was appointed liquidator of 22 companies, and the remaining four were administered by private liquidators. Subsequently, however, the liquidators of these four companies made applications to Court to transfer the liquidation to the Official Receiver. The main assets of these companies are monies owing by subscribers who had successfully bid in the chit fund groups before the companies were wound up. The collection of these debts takes time; a debtor paying under a Court instalment order may take several years before he finally pays up the debt. However, in order to assist the creditor-subscribers, interim dividends are declared as and when there are sufficient funds to do so. To-date the subscribers of nine chit fund companies have received a 100% dividend exceeding $2,375,000. Interim dividends totalling about $22,237,000 have been paid to the subscribers of the remaining 17 chit fund companies. Particulars of these companies and other details are given in two Tables (Cols. 1223 - 1224) which are with the Clerk of the House, (marked Appendices I and II). Tables - INFORMATION ON CHIT FUND COMPANIES WHICH HAD PAID OUT 100% DIVIDEND (Cols. 1223 - 1224) On the affairs of Gemini Chit Fund, the total realization to-date is $12,406,135. Two dividend payments totalling $9,769,018 have so far been declared to its 23,469 subscribers. DEFERMENT/EXEMPTION FROM NATIONAL SERVICE (Particulars) 2.”
“Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1982 to 31st March, 1983, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.”
“Sir, I beg to move the Motion* standing in my name as it appears on the Order Paper. * The Motion reads as follows: That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders,-- (1) an additional day, namely, Tuesday, 16th March, 1982, be allotted for the debate on the motion for approval of the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1982/83 moved by the Minister for Trade and Industry on 5th March, 1982; and (2) the allotted days named by the Minister for Trade and Industry for discussion of the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1982/83 in Committee of Supply be, as a consequence, altered to 17th, 18th, 19th, 22nd, 23rd, 24th and 25th March, 1982. Sir, Standing Order 84 (3) provides for a one-day debate on the Budget which begins soon. I doubt whether one day will be enough. So, in case we cannot wind up the debate today, I beg to move that an additional day, namely, tomorrow, be allotted for the debate. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, - (1) an additional day, namely, Tuesday, 16th March, 1982, be allotted for the debate on the motion for approval of the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1982/83 moved by the Minister for Trade and Industry on 5th March, 1982; and (2) the allotted days named by the Minister for Trade and Industry for discussion of the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1982/83 in Committee of Supply be, as a consequence, altered to 17th, 18th, 19th, 22nd, 23rd, 24th and 25th March, 1982. ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [5th March, 1982], "That Parliament approves the financial policy of the Government for the financial year 1st April, 1982 to 31st March, 1983.". - [Minister for Trade and Industry].”
“Sir, I just like to point out to the Member for Moulmein that, after the Ministerial Statement, he is confined to asking questions. He has taken a long time to ask two questions.”
“57 of 1981, the Registrar of Deeds will have the power to accept for registration any notice of any statutory charge or mortgage created under section 14 of the Central Provident Fund Act in respect of any part of Government survey lot (including a flat) shown in an attached plan without requiring the prior approval of the Chief Surveyor. The amendment will benefit the Central Provident Fund members who will not be required to bear the survey costs and at the same time will protect the interests of the Central Provident Fund Board. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to, Resolved, That this Parliament, pursuant to subsection (2) of section 29 of the Registration of Deeds Act (Chapter 281), resolves that the Registration of Deeds (Amendment) Rules, 1981, published as Notification No. S 337 in the Government Gazette Subsidiary Legislation Supplement No. 51 of 23rd October, 1981, as contained in Paper S.L. 57 of 1981, be approved. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr E.W. Barker]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six Minutes past Five o'clock p.m. to a date to be fixed. analysis - PRIMARY SCHOOL LEAVING EXAMINATION (Cols. 347 - 348) Appendix II WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS (Not reached within Question Time) TOA PAYOH NEW TOWN ROAD SYSTEM 19. Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee asked the Minister for National Development if he will request the Public Works Department to review the road system in Toa Payoh with a view to relieving traffic congestion, particularly during peak hours along Lorongs 1, 2 and 6 which are frequently used as thoroughfare by motorists for going in and coming out of the estate.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Motion* standing in my name as it appears on the Order Paper. * The Motion reads as follows: That this Parliament, pursuant to subsection (2) of section 29 of the Registration of Deeds Act (Chapter 281), resolves that the Registration of Deeds (Amendment) Rules, 1981, published as Notification No. S 337 in the Government Gazette Subsidiary Legislation Supplement No. 51 of 23rd October, 1981, as contained in Paper S.L. 57 of 1981, be approved. Sir, with the implementation of the Approved Residential Properties Scheme under the Central Provident Fund Act, members of the Fund are allowed withdrawals from the Fund for - (a) repayment (wholly or in part) of outstanding loans secured by subsisting mort- gages on their residential properties where the loans were previously advanced towards payment of the purchase price of these properties; and/or (b) in its second phase from January 1982, payment towards the purchase price of any residential properties purchased or to be purchased. Repayment of withdrawals released under this Scheme are required to be secured by statutory charges or mortgages in favour of the Board. Under section 14(l)(c) of the Registration of Deeds Act, the Registrar has no power to accept statutory charges or mortgages of pans of land lots where survey of those parts has not been approved by the Chief Surveyor. Additional costs will therefore need to be incurred by members of the Fund whose withdrawals have been approved by the Board if a survey has to be carried out by a registered surveyor and survey plans approved by the Chief Surveyor. With the amendment to Rule 13 of the Registration of Deeds Rules, 1979, as now contained in the Registration of Deeds (Amendment) Rules, 1981, presented to this House as SL Paper No.”
“Sir, I beg to move, (1) In page 5, lines 24 and 25, to leave out "a special investigator or police" and insert "any". (2) In page 5. line 27, to leave out ", special investigator or police" and insert "or that". The reason for the amendment is the same as that which I have given for clause 12, Sir. Amendment agreed to. Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed. ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL Order for Second Reading read, 4.57 p.m.”
“Sir, I beg to move, (1) In page 5. lines 13 and 14, to leave out ", or a special investigator or police" and insert "or any". (2) In page 5, lines 19 and 20, to leave out "a special investigator or police" and insert "any". Sir, the present wording of this clause has a narrowing effect which is unintended. The clause only makes it an offence where a person refuses access to or fails to comply with the lawful demands of the Director, special investigator or police officer. It does not make it an offence where the enforcement officer concerned is a Deputy Director or an Assistant Director of the CPIB. The amendment to the clause will rectify this by substituting the reference to the Director, special investigator or police officer with a reference to the Director or any officer. Amendment agreed to. Clause 12 as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 13 -”
“Sir, the point was made in his maiden speech. It has been noted. Question put and agreed to. Clause 8 agreed to stand part of the Bill. Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 10 - Question proposed, "That clause 10 stand part of the Bill."”
“Clause 8 - Question proposed, "That clause 8 stand part of the Bill."”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 2. line 30, to leave out from "person" to the end of line 5 in page 3 and insert the words shown in my Notice of Amendments*. *The words to be inserted read as follows: "charged with two or more offences for the acceptance of gratification in contravention of this Act is convicted of one or some of those offences, and the other outstanding Cap. 113 offences are taken into consideration by the court under section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the purpose of passing sentence, the court may increase the penalty mentioned in subsection (1) by an amount not exceeding the total amount or value of the gratification specified in the charges for the offences so taken into consideration.". Sir, this amendment is one of form rather than substance. It replaces the somewhat lengthy wording of the present clause with a clearer, shorter and neater provision which achieves the same effect. It also seeks to eliminate the doubt which may be created by the present wording of the clause. At present, the clause makes no reference to section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code which is the section which permits outstanding offences, with the consent of the prosecutor and the accused, to be taken into consideration in determining the sentence to be imposed for the offence or offences of which the accused has been convicted. The omission in the existing clause of any reference to section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code may give rise to a doubt as to whether the provision of the clause is related to or independent of that section. The amendment will remove this doubt. Amendment agreed to. Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.”
“Sir, I did not want to interfere or interrupt the Member for Anson because this is his maiden speech. But he was, I think, out of order on some occasions. This Bill merely deals with two points: the penalty for gratification where charges are taken into account but on which the accused is not convicted, and the other extends the number of special investigators. But he spoke of corruption in general. He spoke on section 21. Let me reassure the Member that this is not a new section. It is merely tidying up consequentially all the powers on which he has spoken and on which he wants checks and balances. These powers have been with the CPIB for a very long time. If we are to stamp out corruption, we must have these powers. We must give them these powers. At the same time if there are abuses, there can be complaints which the Attorney-General or even the Police Department can look into. As for the People's Action Party occupying land at Napier Road, we need not supply him with these particulars. He can easily make a search in the Land Office. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr E W Barker]. Bill considered in Committee. 4.45 p.m. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The objects of this Bill are merely two-fold. Firstly, the Bill will empower a Court to increase in certain circumstances the penalty which may be imposed, in addition to any other punishment, on a person who is convicted of any offence of corruptly accepting gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Where a person is charged with a number of offences under the Act, he may be convicted of one or some of the offences and consent to the other outstanding offences being taken into consideration for the purpose of passing sentence. At present, however, the Court can only order a convicted person to pay as an additional penalty a sum equal to the amount or value of the gratification specified in the charges in respect of which he was convicted. The Court has no power to order the convicted person to pay the amount or value of the gratification specified in the other outstanding charges which were taken into consideration for the purpose of sentence. Clause 5 of the Bill amends section 13 of the Act so as to confer such power on the Court. Secondly, the Bill makes provision to enable the President to create additional grades of special investigators for the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau. With this amendment in clause 3, there will be no necessity to amend the Act in future whenever new grades of special investigators are to be created. The remaining provisions of the Bill are consequential. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. ANNOUNCED INCREASES IN PRICES OF HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD FLATS 3.38 p.m.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Motion* standing in my name as it appears on the Order Paper. *The motion reads as follows: That, pursuant to clause (3) of Article 42 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the allowance of the Deputy Speaker shall be $1,000 per month with effect from 1st April, 1981. Sir, clause (3) of Article 42 of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that the Deputy Speaker shall be paid such salary or allowance as Parliament may from time to time determine. The allowance of the Deputy Speaker has remained unchanged at $500 per month since 1959, i.e. 21 years ago. With the revision of the consolidated salaries of the Chief Justice, the Ministers and the Speaker, the opportunity is also taken to revise the allowance of the Deputy Speaker. It is proposed to revise the allowance of the Deputy Speaker from $500 per month to $1,000 per month with effect from 1st April 1981. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That, pursuant to clause (3) of Article 42 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the allowance of the Deputy Speaker shall be $1,000 per month with effect from 1st April, 1981. ADJOURNMENT TO A DATE TO BE FIXED (Motion) Resolved, "That at its rising today Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Barker]. ADJOURNMENT MOTION”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Motion* standing in my name as it appears on the Order Paper. *The motion reads as follows: That, pursuant to Article 41 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the salary of the Speaker shall be $12,000 per month ($6,500 on part-time appointment) with effect from 1st April, 1981. Sir, Article 41 of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that the Speaker shall be paid such salary as Parliament may from time to time determine. The salary of the Speaker was last determined by Parliament at $9,370 per month with effect from 1st November 1977 by a resolution of this House passed on 31st July 1978. Following the revision of the consolidated salaries of the Chief Justice and Ministers to $13,000 and $11,500 respectively, it is now proposed to revise the salary of the Speaker to $12,000 per month with effect from 1st April 1981 in order to preserve relativities. Members are, however, aware that the present Speaker has drawn only half the salary of the Speaker and will continue to do so as long as he does not devote all his time to the office of Speaker. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That, pursuant to Article 41 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the salary of the Speaker shall be $12,000 per month ($6,500 on pan-time appointment) with effect from 1st April, 1981. ALLOWANCE OF DEPUTY SPEAKER”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the proceedings on the matter proposed to be raised on the motion for the adjournment of Parliament this day be exempted from the time limits laid down in paragraph (8) (b) of Standing Order No. 1. This paragraph (8) (b) merely provides half an hour for such business - 20 minutes for the mover and 10 minutes for the Minister to reply. But the matter to be raised today, i.e. the increase in the prices of Housing Board flats recently, is a matter of grave concern not only for those aspiring to buy HDB flats but also for their Members of Parliament who have expressed a desire to speak. Hence the motion. Question put. and agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings on the matter proposed to be raised on the motion for the adjournment of Parliament this day be exempted from the time limits laid down in paragraph (8) (b) of Standing Order No. 1. SALARY OF SPEAKER”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I propose to move the adjournment now as a mark of respect to the late President. Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Mr E.W. Barker] Adjourned accordingly at Seven minutes to Three o'clock p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we have come to the end of a long debate. Members of the House have asked me to thank you, Sir, for your kindness and your patience. [Applause] Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight minutes past Five O'clock p.m. to a date to be fixed. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS STANDARD OF MEDICAL PRACTICE OF LOCAL DOCTORS 1. Dr Tan Cheng Bock asked the Minister for Trade and Industry and Minister for Health if he will clarify his statement that "The success of a medical centre, in large measure, depends on the reputation of the foreign doctors we can attract to Singapore."; whether it implied that the standard of medical practice of local doctors fell short of his expectation and, if so, how does he explain the increasing number of foreigners who come to Singapore for medical treatment.”
“At present a member can only be appointed to hold office for a period of five years. The amendment will enable a member to be appointed for a shorter period of not less than three years. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr E.W. Barker]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. CRIMINAL LAW (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 5.00 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This is a straightforward short Bill and I will deal briefly with all its clauses. The most important, in my view, is clause 5 which deals with the language requirement for an applicant for citizenship by registration. At present under Article 123(1)(e) of the Constitution, an applicant must have an elementary knowledge of the national language in order to qualify for citizenship. The amendment will enable an applicant to satisfy the language requirement for citizenship if he has an elementary knowledge of any one of our four official languages, namely, Malay, English, Mandarin or Tamil, the languages which we use in this House. The other clauses 2 to 4 deal with amendments relating to the Public Service Commission. Clause 2 will provide for the appointment of more than one Deputy Chairman for the Public Service Commission and will also increase the maximum number of members of the Commission (apart from the Chairman) from 9 to 11. In recent years there has been an increase in the scope, complexity and volume of work of the Commission and these amendments will help the Commission to carry out its functions more effectively. Clause 3 will enable any professor or lecturer from the National University of Singapore to be appointed as a member of the Commission as his knowledge and experience of various academic qualifications and standards would be useful in assisting the Commission in its work. At present paragraph (b) of Article 106 of the Constitution precludes a University professor or lecturer from being appointed as a member of the Commission. Clause 4 will introduce some flexibility with regard to the period of appointment of members of the Commission apart from the Chairman.”
“Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1981 to 31st March, 1982 and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.”
“Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1981 to 31st March, 1982 and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.”
“So anyone dealing with land matters, whether it be surveying, titles or controls, goes to the Ministry of National Development Building. At one time, when I was Minister in charge of the Ministry of National Development, I was tempted to take the Land Office away from the Ministry of Law and put it under the Ministry of National Development. On second thoughts, I considered that would be giving too much power to one Minister. The present Minister is kind but nobody knows who will come next!”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member should not ask me why the Land Office is in the Ministry of Law. He should ask the Prime Minister. The Ministry of Law should really be confined to legal matters. At one time the Ministry of Law had under its charge the Port Authority, the Public Utilities Board, even tourism. But we managed to discard them. There are very good reasons for having two separate departments to deal with land matters. The functions of the Land Office are not exactly similar to that of the Building Control Division of the Ministry of National Development. For instance, the Land Office deals with acquisition of land and alienation of State lands to various statutory boards and individuals. It also administers State lands. What is similar are the enforcement functions. For example, if someone builds an unauthorized structure on Government land, then the Land Office will take action against him. If it is built on private land, then it is the function of the Building Control Division to either demolish the structure or, as the Member says, give more time. What the hon. Member is saying is that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development is kinder. And so is the Minister for Law. But that is questionable. We do give time, sometimes more than three months. But if they are unauthorized structures, it is our policy to demolish them. Sometimes they are regularized on payment of a penalty fee and sometimes the rent is increased. But in order to serve the public and for the convenience of the public, the departments of the Land Office, like the Survey Department, the Registry of Land Titles and Deeds, including the Land Office itself, are not situated in the building where I work, but are situated in the Ministry of National Development Building.”
“Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1981 to 31st March, 1982 and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This is a simple Bill which is designed to make certain necessary and consequential amendments to the various Acts specified in the Schedule to the Bill as a result of the establishment and incorporation of the National University of Singapore. There are references in these Acts to the former University of Singapore and the Nanyang University which require updating. These references will be substituted in appropriate cases by reference to the National University of Singapore. The Bill will also provide for the recognition of degrees in architecture, law, medicine, dentistry and pharmacy of the National University of Singapore as professional qualifications in the various Acts dealing with these professions. Sir, I beg to move. Question put. and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr E.W. Barker]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. MERCHANT SHIPPING (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.45 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the House, I extend my congratulations to the hon. Member on his election. He was first elected to this House in 1968 and has since taken an active part from the Backbench. Now that he has been elevated to this high position, I hope he will continue to be as active, never mind what hat he is wearing! Sir, I would like to place on record also our appreciation of the services rendered by Mr Tang See Chim, the previous Deputy Speaker, who served us so well during the last nine years. He has performed your functions and duties whilst you were away from this House or absent from your seat, perhaps because you were tired of our deliberations. MESSAGE FROM PRESIDENT OF REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE (Reply to Address) (Announcement by Mr Speaker)”