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 38 of 44.
“Very well, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Act to amend the Criminal Justice (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance (Chapter 131 of the Revised Edition)". Bill read the First time. Second Reading”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Back-benchers for expressing their support of this Bill at such short notice. It has been reassuring and gratifying. In the same way I am confident that our citizens outside this House, all of them except for a very small minority, want to live in peace and harmony and will certainly support the provisions of this Bill. 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 Barker]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. CRIMINAL JUSTICE (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL First Reading 4.56 p.m.”
“I am just finishing, Sir,I was going to say that meanwhile investigations are proceeding, and I wish to make no further comments at this stage on what transpired except that surely any Court in such circumstances should be given at least the discretion to refuse bail. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 3.32 p.m.”
“And offences that are termed "non-bailable" merely mean that those charged with these offences are still entitled to apply for bail but each and every application will have to be considered according to its merits. In regard to non-bailable offences, if having regard to all the circumstances of the case the court arrives at the conclusion that the interests of the community at large must prevail over those of the individual, then it may refuse bail in respect of such offences. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government is always reluctant to take any Bill on a Certificate of Urgency through three Readings in one day. But yesterday's disgraceful events outside and inside a Magistrate's Court in Singapore are without a doubt very good reasons for taking this Bill through three stages today. Some of those who had been given bail and had under the terms of their bail to appear before the Court yesterday misbehaved not only outside but, judging by mere reports in the newspapers, inside the Court as well. They behaved in a manner unheard of in the history of our Courts. Mr Speaker: Mr Barker, can I have an assurance that their behaviour is not the subject of a charge?”
“The Government owes a duty to the people of Singapore to ensure that such lawless gangs of hooligans, whatever their ideologies and whatever their political persuasions may be, should not be allowed to take advantage of the liberalism of our democratic system to undermine democracy itself. These present rules which were devised during an era of comparative peace and quiet must not be allowed to be abused by those who seek to destroy the very basis and fabric of our society whilst sheltering under the benefit of the very laws they so flagrantly flout. The provisions in this Bill have been designed to correct these apparent defects in our procedural laws. The amendments contained in this Bill will therefore make the offences I have mentioned earlier non-bailable. And I wish to make it clear that this does not mean that bail would automatically be refused to accused persons charged with offences against the public tranquillity. This will merely mean that the courts will now be given a discretion to allow or to refuse bail according to the circumstances of each case. The result of these amendments would be, in other words, to confer upon the court jurisdiction to refuse bail in respect of these offences when heretofore the offer of bail was obligatory and no amount of objections on the part of the prosecution would make any difference. Mr Speaker, Sir, as you know, the terms "bailable" and "non-bailable" have acquired special technical meanings in our laws and these specialised meanings have been derived from those basic fundamental precepts that I have enunciated at the beginning of my speech to the House. Offences that are termed "bailable" are those where the general rule is that an accused person must be offered bail.”
“Such persons under the existing law will have to be offered bail even though there is the likelihood that they would continue to commit the same offences whilst awaiting trial. Persons who wantonly give provocation with intent to cause a riot, are entitled as of right to bail, even if a riot ensues, and no amount of objections on the part of the law enforcement officers can confer upon the court the right to refuse bail. All those accused of such offences which militate against a well-ordered society are bailable and to the extent of denying even the courts who are given the authority and jurisdiction to decide upon their guilt or otherwise, the right to consider whether or not in the particular circumstances in any given case, bail should be refused. But ever since the Barisan Sosialis decided to carry out their struggle outside Parliament and to abjure the constitutional process, Communist Front members have mounted a campaign to disrupt law and order in our society as evidenced by their demonstrations in the streets and their wanton destruction of both public and private property. The Government cannot afford to ignore this organised threat to the public peace, and recent events have emphasised the need to tighten our laws in respect of bail. The Police have evidence to show that those who have been charged with rioting and destruction of property have, after their being charged in court and let out on bail, gone back to commit the very same crimes for which they had already been charged.”
“And this is even so in regard to offences against public tranquillity which are grouped together under Chapter VIII of Schedule A to the Code. All such offences like rioting and unlawful assembly are bailable as of right. This, in effect, means that the accused person must be offered bail, irrespective of the difficulties that might be faced by the prosecution in their efforts to get up their case by reason of the accused being let out free and irrespective of the number of times the accused person continues to commit the same offence whilst awaiting trial for the offence with which he has been charged. The experience of the last few months of rioting and destruction of public and private property in the Republic has emphasised the inadequacies of certain of the present provisions in our rules of procedure requiring the offer of bail as of right. Persons charged under section 144 for joining an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons must, in accordance with our present rules of procedure, be offered bail as of right. Again, persons charged under section 145 for joining or continuing in an unlawful assembly, knowing that it has been commanded to disperse, are likewise to be offered bail. The offer of bail is again obligatory and must be made to persons charged with rioting or rioting armed with deadly weapons or with offences committed by one of their number whilst they form part of an unlawful assembly, or hiring or engaging or employing persons to take part in an unlawful assembly. Again, persons who knowingly join or continue in an assembly of five or more persons after it has been commanded to disperse, are treated in exactly the same way as persons charged with assaulting or obstructing public servants when suppressing a riot.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill that is now before the House has been introduced by Government in order to bring about certain amendments to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code relating to bail. As in all countries that have inherited their systems of law and criminal justice from the English legal system, an accused person is presumed innocent until he has been convicted of the offence with which he has been charged. From this fundamental precept, there follows the equally fundamental rule which can be regarded as one of the cornerstones of every administration that practises democracy, namely, the right to bail which is accorded to every accused person awaiting trial. And so in constitutional laws governing the procedure in all criminal trials, we find rules ensuring the offer of bail to every accused person who stands charged with an offence. However, as hon. Members of the House will appreciate, all these fundamental precepts would be made a mockery of if they were to be applied as absolute rules unbending and regardless of circumstances, variations, or situations that must occur in any given case. And so even in the Criminal Procedure Code as it now stands, there are exceptions where bail must be refused altogether - for example, in cases of murder and treason and such like offences. Again there are cases where the offer of bail is not as of right but at the discretion of the court, and, lastly, a third category comprising the majority of offences in which bail is offered as of right to accused persons pending trial. One could therefore say that as a general rule our Criminal Procedure Code requires that bail be offered as of right to the alleged criminal.”
“Yes, Sir. Typed copies of the Bill distributed to hon. Members.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intituled "An Act to amend the Criminal Procedure Code (Chapter 132 of the Revised Edition)." Bill read the First time. Second Reading”
“NATIONAL RECORDS CENTRE BILL "to establish a National Records Centre for the purpose of providing for the custody and preservation of public records of Singapore", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Culture and Social Affairs (Inche Othman Bin Wok); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (AMENDMENT) BILL First Reading 3.14 p.m.”
“This was an unacceptable condition as there was no provision in Establishment rules to allow officers to upset seniority in pursuit of personal feuds and rivalries with fellow officers. As a result, Mr Leembruggen turned down the offer of promotion and asked to be removed from his acting Permanent Secretaryship. He was therefore transferred as Registrar of Vehicles, a Grade `G' post. He has now resigned. BILLS INTRODUCED 3.10 p.m. VIGILANTE CORPS BILL "to provide for the establishment and maintenance of the Vigilante Corps and for purposes connected therewith", recommendation of President signified (Mr E. W. Barker); presented by the Minister of State of Defence (Mr Wee Toon Boon) (for the Minister of Defence); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. MONEYLENDERS (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Moneylenders Ordinance, 1959 (No. 58 of 1959)", recommendation of President signified; presented by Mr Barker; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. PUBLIC AUTHORITIES PROTECTION (CESSATION) BILL "to repeal the Public Authorities Protection Ordinance, 1948, of Malaysia (No. 19 of 1948)", presented by Mr Barker; read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. DEVELOPMENT FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Development Fund Ordinance, 1959 (No. 52 of 1959)', presented by the Minister for Finance (Mr Lim Kim San); read the First time, to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.”
“All three rooms improved type at $7,500 per unit. Altogether 200 units Toa Payoh, Neighbourhood 4, Contract 5 - 10-storey buildings Expected date of completion: November 1967. All three rooms improved type at $7,500 per unit. Altogether 360 units Bukit Ho Swee, Phase III, Contact 10 - 16-storey buildings Expected date of completion: December 1967. All three rooms improved type at $6,300 per unit. Altogether 400 units Since the inception of the scheme, 4,955 flats have been sold. Of these, 259 units were paid for by cash and 4,696 by monthly instalments. REASONS FOR RESIGNATION OF FORMER REGISTRAR OF VEHICLES 19. Inche Rahamat Bin Kenap asked the Minister of State (Prime Minister's Department) whether he is aware of the reasons for the resignation of the former Registrar of Vehicles after having held the post for only 5½ months. Tuan Haji Yaacob Bin Mohamed(In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Leembruggen, a Superscale Grade `G' officer in the Administrative Service, who has just left the Singapore Civil Service, had previously resigned on two occasions. First, in 1961 when he was persuaded to stay in the service, and, second, in 1962 when he changed his mind after tendering his resignation. In November 1966, he was invited to appear before the Public Service Commission for promotion. He was, however, then holidaying in the United Kingdom and did not attend the interview. Special arrangements were made subsequently to interview him on his return from the United Kingdom. The Commission found Mr Leembruggen suitable for promotion from Superscale Grade `G' to Permanent Secretary, Superscale Grade `C' -a double promotion. However, he was willing to accept this promotion on condition he was placed senior to certain other Permanent Secretaries who had been promoted before him.”
“The Public Works Department has had a drainage scheme to alleviate flooding in Geylang Serai since 1960, but has not been able to implement it because of squatters. The Ministry of Health and the Public Works Department are together taking action to remove the concrete slabs covering some drains in the city areas to prevent these drains from being choked with rubbish. HOUSING BOARD HOME OWNERSHIP SCHEME (Statistics) 18. Mr Lim Cheng Lock asked the Minister for Law and National Development (i) the number of persons on the register as at 31st May, 1967, for the purchase of flats under the Housing and Development Board home ownership scheme; (ii) the number of flats (giving the type, cost and location) expected to be available for sale by the end of 1967; and (iii) the number of flats sold since the inception of the scheme, and of these, the number paid for by cash and the number by monthly instalments. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Mr Ho Cheng Choon) (for the Minister for Law and National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, as at 31st May, 1967, 1,663 outstanding applicants have been registered for the purchase of flats under the Housing and Development Board home ownership for the people scheme. The number of flats expected to be available for sale by the end of 1967 is as follows: - Toa Payoh, Neighbourhood 2, Contract 7 - 19-storey buildings Expected date of completion: July 1967. Three rooms improved type at $7,500 per unit. Altogether 228 units. Toa Payoh, Neighbourhood 3, Contract 3 - 16-storey buildings Expected date of completion: December 1967. All three rooms improved type at $7,500 per unit. Altogether 576 units. Toa Payoh, Neighbourhood 4, Contract 2 - 10-storey buildings Expected date of completion: October 1967.”
“The main reason for the widespread recent flooding in areas which were not subject to floods some years back was the exceptionally heavy rainfall. About 8.4 inches of rain were recorded over a period of 24 hours on the 11th of January this year. This was followed by 6.4 inches of rain over a period of six hours on the next day. Again, about 7.4 inches of rain fell over a period of 24 hours on the 17th of February this year. These figures exceed the maximum rainfall of not more than 4 inches per day recorded in Singapore ever since 1931. This exceptionally heavy rainfall coincided with high tide and caused the floods. Other reasons for the flooding were: The outlet drains at Bukit Timah Canal, Sungei Whampoa, Sungei Kallang, Geylang Serai and New Bridge Road/South Bridge Road areas are inadequate to serve the catchment runoff. Previously many low-lying areas and vacant lands served as ponding and storage areas for heavy rainfall. But these areas have been filled and developed, and thus cause greater run-off into streams and drains which become inadequate to cope with this additional discharge. In the densely populated areas, rubbish and other waste materials are dumped indiscriminately into the drains, thus preventing the free flow of water especially in covered drains. Measures have already been taken to alleviate the flooding in Bukit Timah, Sungei Whampoa and Sungei Kallang catchments by (1) the Bukit Timah flood alleviation scheme, Phase 1; (2) the Sungei Whampoa improvement scheme; and (3) the Sungei Kallang improvement scheme. Work on all three schemes is already in progress. New measures to alleviate flooding are being planned for 1968 in the Boon Tat Street and Alexandra Canal catchments.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the total cost of the concrete-lined canal is approximately $271,000. The canal extends from Tampines Circus along Tampines Road to the Bridge at the 7th milestone and is about 3,165 feet long. Along the first 800 feet from Tampines Circus to Jalan Hock Chye junction where the adjacent lands are highly developed and pedestrians numerous, two horizontal rails will be provided as protective barriers on both sides of the canal. Along the rest of the canal down stream from Jalan Hock Chye, no protective barriers will be provided since the lands being drained are little developed and there is an existing side table which is fairly wide. Work on this project started in June 1966 and is expected to be completed in about November this year.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 1, at end, to add ", and to repeal the Parsee Intestate Succession Ordinance (Chapter 30 of the Revised Edition)". This is a consequential amendment in view of the new clause 12 in respect of which an amendment has been moved. Amendment agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; read a Third time and passed. WOMEN'S CHARTER (AMENDMENT) BILL (As reported from Select Committee) Order for Third Reading read. 6.18 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the clause be read a Second time." Question put, and agreed to. Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill. 6.15 p.m.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 39, to leave out "and no brother or sister". Sir, again this amendment is necessary to rectify a drafting error. Amendment agreed to. Amendments made: In page 3, line 30, to leave out "neither" and insert "no". [Mr Barker]. In page 3, line 30, to leave out "nor" and insert "or". - [Mr Barker]. Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. New Clause - "Repeal. The Parsee Intestate Succession Cap.30. Ordinance is hereby repealed.". - [Mr Barker]. Brought up, and read the First time.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 38, to leave out the comma where it secondly occurs and insert "and". Mr Speaker, Sir, this amendment is necessary to rectify a drafting error. Amendment agreed to.”
“Now, Sir. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 6.12 p.m. Clause 7 -”
“Mr Speaker, in reply to the hon. Member for Jalan Kayu, if he has any complaints of delay by the Building Department or corruption, then he should refer them to the Ministry concerned or send them direct to me so that I can direct an investigation. But coming here to make general observations will not help anyone.”
“Erection of temporary dwellings Total number of applications received - 81 involving erection of 81 temporary dwellings. Number of applications approved - 59 involving erection of 59 temporary dwellings. Number of applications disapproved - 19 involving erection of 19 temporary dwellings. Number of applications withdrawn - 3 involving erection of 3 temporary dwellings.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I already explained to the hon. Member for Kampong Kembangan in this House on 14th March, 1967, the basis upon which funds are allocated to the 51 constituencies. Perhaps he may wish to refer to the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates, No. 17 of Volume 25, col. 1268 onwards. To supplement the funds for projects in his Constituency for 1967 now will mean that some of the other 50 constituencies will have to give up part of the funds allocated to them. This will riot be fair. Besides, other constituencies have also been asking for more funds. Later in the year, however, if it is found that the funds allocated to any constituency have not been used, then it would be possible to reallocate these savings to Kampong Kembangan or, for that matter, any other constituency where the necessity for any project or work is justified. JALAN KAYU CONSTITUENCY (Applications for erection of new houses) 18. Mr Teo Hup Teck asked the Minister for Law and National Development the number of applications for the erection of new houses in the Jalan Kayu Constituency received between 1st January, 1965, and 30th April, 1967, and the outcome of the applications. Mr Barker: Mr Speaker, Sir, the number of applications for the erection of new houses in the Jalan Kayu Constituency received between 1st January, 1965, and 30th April, 1967, and the outcome of the applications are as follows:- A. Erection of permanent houses Total number of applications received - 11 involving erection of 686 houses. Number of applications approved - 6 involving erection of 179 houses. Number of applications disapproved -3 involving erection of 81 houses. Number of applications under consideration -2 involving erection of 426 houses. B.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, action was taken in March 1966 to establish the identities of the owners of heavy vehicles who frequently used Jalan Perwira and to serve them with notices under section 22A of the Local Government Integration Ordinance, 1963, requiring them to contribute towards the repair of the road. However, these persons through their lawyers disputed liability, asserting that the road was not used solely by their lorries. The road has now been repaired at a cost of $5,510 paid from Government funds. Action will be taken to recover all or part of this sum from the owners of vehicles who caused damage to the road. RURAL PROJECTS IN KAMPONG KEMBANGAN (Supplementary vote for 1967) 17. Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi asked the Minister for Law and National Development if he will consider supplementing the vote for 1967 rural projects in Kampong Kembangan.”
“Once it is tabled, of course, it is made public. I think it is only right that the public should know what the Council has recommended and `what the Government accepts or rejects. If I may proceed, Sir,I now go on to the entrenched provisions. The Report mentions three methods of entrenchment. The first is to provide for an amendment of the Constitution by a Bill which specifically sets it out as an amendment Bill. This is acknowledged to be the weakest form of constitutional entrenchment. The only useful purpose that: a specific reference in an amendment Bill ensures is that there may not be any amendment of the Constitution through sheer inadvertence or by implication.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, once the report is tabled in this House, it will be available to all Members. Then it will be up to the Government in power to accept the recommendations in tow or in part, or to reject all recommendations. Does that satisfy the Member?”
“In conclusion, with regard to the functions of the Council of State which I went through just now, with the passage of time we may even consider extending the powers of the Council to look into petitions and complaints from the public. In other words, instead of appointing an Ombudsman in 5 or 10 years' time, we may invest the powers of the Ombudsman in this Council of State, as the Member for Punggol has pointed out -”
“`(xi) any "Urgent" Bill notwithstanding that it has been assented to shall nevertheless be submitted as soon as possible to the Council who shall consider and report on it as in the case of other Bills.' Acceptable. '(xii) the term of office of a member shall he nine years ---'. I have stated earlier that we intend to appoint permanent members and members who may be removed after three years. `(xiii) any Minister may attend all proceedings of the Council and take part in its deliberations but may not vote.' I would add "unless he has been appointed to the Council". Mr Speaker, Sir, having dealt with the detailed recommendations on the Council of State and Government's views of what we accept and what we do not, before I conclude the subject, I would like to make it clear - and I think this point must be made and stressed for the particular attention of some Members who are rather unhappy about this Council - when Government views the recommendations of the Commission on the Council and, in fact, on the whole Report, we are not looking at it just as members of the Government. We are also looking at it from the point of view of the people outside this House, non-Members of Parliament. In 10 or maybe 15 years, most of us will not be in this House. We may be outside and, if you are good enough, you may be on this Council of State. Perhaps a younger set will be occupying these seats here, and if we are on this Council, I think, with our experience, we can discuss their views and send them advice for what it is worth. At least when that day comes, we will still be making some contribution.”
“(ix), Sir, deals with proceedings: `every Bill except all Supply Bills or an `Urgent" Bill shall after its First reading and after the Minister in charge has made his opening speech during the Second reading hut before any debate takes place on the principle of the Bill be submitted to the Council of State;'. Sir, this is acceptable. `(x) the Council of State shall consider the Bill in public, regulating its own procedure, ---'. If I may pause there, Sir, in order to avoid confusion. I have stated before -- and other Ministers have stated it -that the Council of State shall consider the Bill in private. But within thirty clays of the submission of the Bill to the Council, the Council may make a report to Parliament. The report, it goes on to say, shall be submitted within thirty days, and if no report is forthcoming, then proceedings in this House are to be no longer delayed. This means, in effect, Sir, a delay of one month. In accepting the Council of State, we are, in fact, entrenching it into our Constitution. I say "entrenching it into our Constitution" - I will deal in more detail with this when I come to the proposed methods of entrenchment. But if I may shortly say so, Sir, at this stage, there are three methods of entrenchment recommended. But, in my view, there is a fourth method, and that is this. Some constitutions provide that some Bills cannot go through three stages unless there is a delay of 6 months or 7 months. So there is a clause in the constitution - an entrenched clause -and in accepting the Council of State, we are, in effect, accepting the fourth method of entrenchment.”
“`The Speaker.... shall not be a member of the Council and shall take no part, except to preside, in the deliberations of the Council....'. Mr Speaker, Sir, if you are on that Council, you will be a member. `(viii) the Council of State shall have power to consider all proposed legislation except all Supply Bills or a Bill presented on a Certificate of Urgency;'. This, I have great pleasure in saying, is acceptable to the Government. The Member for Havelock yesterday pointed out that this is a Report on minority rights, and if the Council of State is being set up to protect the minorities, then he argued - and argued logically - that only Bills that affect the minorities in any way should go to the Council of State. He suggested one method to ascertain whether a Bill does or does not affect minority rights, and he put the burden on you, Mr Speaker, Sir. He wanted you to certify whether or not any Bill affects minority rights. This indeed would be a difficult task, though not impossible. However, Sir, to save you all that trouble, we would prefer' that all Bills, whether or not they affect minority rights, except, of course, Supply Bills or Bills presented on a Certificate of Urgency, should go to the Council of State. And at this stage I must say that it is our object, in creating this Council, not merely to protect the rights of the minorities but to protect also the rights of the majority. This is not a Council merely to protect minorities. What about the others? We are not afraid that all our Bills with the exceptions mentioned should go to the Council of State, and we would be happy to receive their advice and might benefit therefrom.”
“`(v) the disqualifications for membership shall be - (a) membership of any political party at the time of appointment; (b) the disqualifications set out in Article 29, suitably modified, of the present Constitution of Singapore ...' (a) is not acceptable, but (b) is. The Prime Minister has dealt with this point and has set out our view that just because someone has been in our Party or U.M.N.O. or the Labour Party or the People's Progressive Party, or some other party, we will not bar him from this Council. Parties come and go in Singapore. They change names except ours. But we feel that political affiliation should not be a bar to membership. `(vi) the circumstances under which a member shall cease to be a member shall be the same as in Article 30 (2) (a) , (c) , (d) and (e) , suitably modified, . .'. This part is acceptable but not the second sentence which reads: `A member shall also cease to be a member if he offers himself for election to Parliament or becomes a member of any political party.' Just because one is a Member of Parliament does not mean one cannot be a member of the Council of State. In my previous statement, I did indicate that it was the Government's contention to appoint not only, say, the Chief Justice and you yourself, Sir, but also certain Ministers of the Government and also ex-Chief Ministers. `(vii) the Speaker of Parliament shall be the' Chairman and shall preside at all its meetings.' I have great pleasure in informing you, Sir, that this is acceptable. Then it goes on: `The Deputy Speaker of Parliament shall he the Deputy Chairman and shall preside during any absence of the Chairman.' We feel on this that if you are the Chairman, we would rather leave it to the Council itself to elect someone from their midst to be your Deputy.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, at page 16, paragraph 59, the Report says: `We recommend - (i) the creation of a small advisory body to be called "the Council of State" consisting of 21 members of which a minimum of 15 shall always be appointed;'. This deals with the composition and, if I may refer to my previous statement, I did say that the members would be of two types, permanent members and members who are removable. But, in any case, they would consist of men of distinction, men who are mature citizens and who have either rendered distinguished public service or attained eminence in their respective walks of life regardless of race, colour or creed as recommended by the Commission. On this subject, I think the Member for Anson wants this Council to have less members and someone else also shares his views. The view of the Government is that we should be flexible and we intend to appoint a maximum of 36 and no more. We may appoint less but not beyond 36. Secondly, the Commission says: `all the members shall be appointed by the President after consultation with the Prime Minister but in the President's discretion;'. This is not acceptable. All the members will be appointed by the President on the advice of the Cabinet. Recommendation (iii) is acceptable. I have already referred to it. Recommendation (iv): `the other qualifications for membership shall be as set out in Article 28 (2) (a) , (c) , (d) , (e) and (f) , suitably modified, of the present Constitution of Singapore which provides for the qualifications for membership of Parliament;'. This is acceptable.”
“It was then, as it is perhaps now, a promising innovation which can make for far more harmonious relations between the Government and the governed, and because it does not take the form or substance of a second Chamber, it cannot impede the Government's legislative programme in any significant degree. Indeed, given a proper relationship, such a Council could be as constructive and as helpful as an Ombudsman, though on a larger scale. The Council, as envisaged in this Report, would be no more than an advisory council to assist the Government in the drawing up of Bills and to advise on Bills that have been drawn up, and further to safeguard the rights of minority groups in Singapore. The legislative primacy of Parliament is not in any way affected. Yet its members who may not be members of the Legislature can be of assistance to Parliament. Their functions would, of course, be purely advisory, but, at the same time, minority groups can look to them to safeguard their interests so that measures that may in any way derogate from their interests may be brought to the attention of those responsible. Mr Speaker, at this stage, I must deal with the functions of this Council. In my previous Ministerial statement, I said that though Government accepts the recommendation to create a Council of State, Government differs from the recommendations with regard to the composition and the functions. I did set out therein some particulars of the composition of the Council, but I did not say much about what its functions should be. And perhaps it would be best if I dealt with this matter by actually referring to the recommendations as they appear at page 16 in the Report, and then set out the Government's stand in respect of every detailed recommendation.”
“The Council of State envisaged by the Constitutional Report has its origin, however, in a Kenyan Constitution of 1958. The Kenya Council of State of 1958 was created for a purpose quite different from that in the Irish Constitution, though it was probably from that Constitution that the idea of such a Council was first inspired. The Kenyan Council of State, however, was done away with when Kenya became independent in 1963. In 1962 Dr Hastings Banda rejected outright a proposal by the Nyasaland Constitutional Conference to set up a Council of State. He regarded it as likely to perpetuate racial discrimination and undermine the responsibility of Ministers to the Legislative Assembly. Dr Banda had also objected to the suggestion that there should be an Ombudsman, or indeed any idea of a second Chamber. The Kenyan Council of State of 1958 was a multi-racial body set up to perform functions of safeguarding the rights of minorities. Apart from Kenya in its 1958 Constitution, but not in its present Constitution, and I believe, Southern Rhodesia, no other Commonwealth country has a Council of State. It may be true to say, therefore, that if we today create a Council of State we would perhaps be the only country in the Commonwealth to have such a Council. But then it was for reasons such as that of providing adequate safeguards of minority rights that the Council of State in Kenya was established, and those reasons, I understand, disappeared in Kenya and hence the Council was scrapped. But the reasons behind the creation of a Council of State, in my view, exist for us in Singapore, since the Council had proved effective in dealing with the circumstances that had been existing in Kenya when it was first established.”
“What is really needed is much more careful consideration of powers glibly handed over to people who owe, or at least consider that they owe, no responsibility to anyone, so long as they strictly obey the letter of their charter as they interpret it, and much stronger safeguards written into the relevant statutes against abuse of any powers that can conceivably be exercised arbitrarily.' The net result, they conclude, is that: `if the law is for the general benefit, and the attention of the legislators has been drawn to the danger and they nevertheless enact it, then the public must accept it. That is one of the hazards of the parliamentary system and the remedy, if any, is at the polls.' I think that if the people are dissatisfied with this Government, their remedy is at the polls. One main reason against the introduction of this institution in Singapore is the standard of literacy. No doubt every child in Singapore is educated, and perhaps when they all grow up they will need an Ombudsman. But, at the moment, quite a part of our population is not literate and the introduction of the Ombudsman would mean that this poor Ombudsman would be flooded by complaints by people who do not know what are the limits of his jurisdiction. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now go on to the Council of State. Here again, I think I must trace the history of the Council of State. The earliest of the modern constitutions of today to have a Council of State is the Constitution of Eire, 1937, where in Article 31, there is provision establishing a Council of State to aid and counsel the President in all matters on which the President may consult the Council in relation to the exercise and performance of his powers and the functions accorded to him by the Constitution.”
“The man in the street rarely if ever waits to hear what the other side has to say, and indeed only does so if driven to it, and so the cry is raised for some remedial means to redress the imagined oppression. In this instance the clamour has been raised for the appointment of an official or creation of an office to be called Ombudsman as pointing the way to another utopian panacea.' If I may go on, Sir: `This forces the conclusion that to be effective an Ombudsman must be given real powers and to give him real powers would be a violation of the most fundamental of all the principles on which the parliamentary system of government is founded, that is, that no one shall be above the law. Many, if not most, of the instances that are clamourously pilloried by the drama-conscious press as grievous oppressions, arise from the actions of government agencies and administrative bodies created under regulations, the power to make which the legislature has delegated to another or others. This group of vicarious authorities is generically called the bureaucracy and bureaucracy can put rabbits to shame in the ability to proliferate. The demand for an Ombudsman or its equivalent really arises from this multiplication of authorities responsible to no one, and who therefore arrogate to themselves the right to set themselves above the law. Essentially an Ombudsman would be another bureaucrat and while the proverbial principle of setting a thief to catch a thief has in certain contexts a specious merit, it has a doubtful application to the case of putting a curb on the abuses of bureaucracy. The situation falls far more nearly within the principle of the old adage about locking the stable door after the horse has been stolen.”
“Vol. 34, No. 3, September 1966. It says: `It might well be that under some forms of government or constitution, some device for tempering the harsh winds of the supposedly omnipotent powers of government to the shorn lamb of the man in the street is necessary, or at least desirable... In the Scandinavian country where the idea seems to have originated the political set-up is quite different from that operating in Canada or any of its provinces.' Mr Speaker, Sir, if Canada is different from Scandinavia, what about Singapore? `This perhaps is not so obvious in the case of New Zealand, where at least the form of government is in its origin the same as in Canada. .. Probably therefore bureaucracy is much more firmly entrenched, and the need for relief of the individual far more urgent. Perhaps also the basic livestock and dairy farming economy of New Zealand may have an effect on the political needs of that dominion.' It goes on: `Perhaps it would be as well to take a look first of all to see what is the problem, for the solution of which it is proposed to resort to the appointment of an Ombudsman. This may not be an easy task, as there does not seem to be any degree of unanimity among those who advocate the appointment of such an official. From time to time situations arise in which it can be made to appear that some individual is being oppressively dealt with by some government agency or bureaucracy. Some enthusiastic newspaperman hears of it and seizes upon it as an excellent opportunity to ring the changes on the brand of sensationalism which is the guiding principle of the modern journalist.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, today in Canada a big argument is going on whether or not the Ombudsman should be introduced into that country, and I would like to quote extensively from an article in the Scottish Law Gazette on this subject.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is relevant to note that in the United Kingdom, the Whyatt Committee under the chairmanship of the former Chief Justice of Singapore, Sir John Whyatt, when recommending the creation of the office of Parliamentary Commissioner in the United Kingdom, considered that complaints to the Commissioner should be channelled through Members of Parliament. This was considered a necessary interim measure while Parliament and the people got used to this new institution. The Committee also considered it necessary to have reserve powers with Ministers vetoing inquiries in any particular case. As the Member for Bukit Panjang pointed out yesterday, the Parliamentary Commissioner in the United Kingdom has only powers to investigate where a written complaint is made to a Member of the House of Commons by a member of the public, and the complaint can only be referred by the Member of the House of Commons to the Parliamentary Commissioner with the consent of the complainant. Mr Speaker, Sir, this should illustrate the fact that even in an old parliamentary democracy like the United Kingdom, this institution is considered novel and there are opinions for and against it. In Singapore, we are even much younger and it is considered best to make haste slowly and learn from experience elsewhere before introducing such an office here. When we do so, it will be necessary to consider what modifications should be made to suit our society. Some Members say it may be novel in the United Kingdom, but what about Scandinavia where this institution has existed for more than a hundred years?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, another recommendation - regarding the creation of the office of an Ombudsman (or Parliamentary Commissioner) - was not rejected by the Government. In fact, I had stated that Government was in agreement with the thinking behind this recommendation but that the time was not opportune for the recommendation of such an office in Singapore to be accepted. That the concept is acceptable to this Government must be clear from the fact that one of the first measures taken soon after May 1959 was the setting up of the Complaints Bureau to which many Members have referred. We have somewhat the same objective of promptly investigating and remedying allegations of maladministration or abuse of power. This Bureau, which is still operating, no doubt has certainly not got the powers of the Ombudsman. But it could be said to contain the nucleus of the concept of the Ombudsman, albeit at a very much lower level than the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner. Mr Speaker, Sir, when I say that the time is not ripe as conditions in Singapore are not yet suitable, the question is asked, why? In Singapore, parliamentary democracy is still in its infancy and our citizens have not yet developed a full civic sense and awareness of their legal rights and obligations, as is the case in the more established countries following the parliamentary form of government. In such a situation, parliamentary democracy has to be nurtured so that it can take effective root. There are doubts whether the creation at this stage of institutions like the Ombudsman might detract from the role of Members of Parliament, the Citizens' Consultative Committees and other existing channels for the communication of grievances in order to obtain redress.”
“They wanted someone completely independent of Government views or pressures, if you like to put it that way. It was suggested that a High Court Judge should hear these appeals. Mr Speaker, it is my pleasure to inform this House that the Chief Justice of our Supreme Court has agreed to release two of his Judges to sit in turn and hear the backlog of appeals in cases of land acquisition which have piled up over the last two or three years. Mr Speaker, before I go on to the Ombudsman, it might be a convenient time to adjourn.”
“Perhaps to support my arguments, I can just cite one example. Take the case of Jurong. Five, six or seven years ago - I do not know exactly when - Jurong was just one big swamp. The price of land there was in the region of 10 to 20 cents per square foot. The Government went in and reclaimed part of the swamp. We built roads. We supplied water. We supplied electricity. Now there is a little town in Jurong with many industries around. The price of land in the surrounding areas outside the industrial complex has risen as a result of the money the Government has put into Jurong. Let us assume that industries in Jurong expand and we require more land. This means acquisition for a public purpose. If we go in today and acquire land, must we pay $1, $1.50 or $2 for a square foot of land which previously only cost 10 cents and which has risen to $1 or $2 because of our efforts? Mr Speaker, this is the argument. It has been put before by the' Prime Minister, citing the Bukit Ho Swee site. A fire comes along; land which was not vacant before becomes vacant. The land is no longer encumbered with some tenants. The price of the land goes up. If we are to acquire that fire site, is it fair that we should pay the owner for vacant possession when he never had it before the fire? Mr Speaker, in the Select Committee on the Land Acquisition Bill, as you are well aware, several representations were made by the public and quite a few suggestions and recommendations were accepted. One was to the effect that appeals of owners dissatisfied with the amount of compensation paid to them for acquisition should be heard by someone with legal qualifications, preferably the qualifications of a Judge of the High Court, and in particular not a civil servant.”
“25] `Land is a fixed commodity, and with mounting pressure on land as a result of population expansion and development, land values tend inevitably to rise. But for public purposes of acquisition, we attempt in this Bill to exclude the landowner from windfall gains in increases of land values as a result, first, of either public expenditure already incurred in the area, or speculative increases in the price of land in an area which has been earmarked for development.' Mr Speaker, Sir, these principles have been embodied in the new Land Acquisition Act passed by Parliament last year. A constitutional provision requiring the payment of just terms would mean that our intentions in the Land Acquisition Act would be stifled by landowners being able to raise constitutional issues when disputes over the quantum of compensation arise. The Government's intention is to follow the provisions in the Indian Constitution which state, and I quote: `No person shall be deprived of his property save by the authority of law. No property shall be compulsorily acquired or requisitioned save for a public purpose and save by authority of the law which provides for compensation for the property so acquired or requisitioned, and either fixes the amount of compensation or specifies the principles on which and the manner in which the compensation is to be determined and given, and no such law shall be called in question in any court on the ground that the compensation provided by that law is not adequate.' Mr Speaker, Sir, the provision of the Constitution of India was as a result of an amendment found necessary after considerable experience showed that an unqualified constitutional guarantee of the sanctity of property led to interminable litigation on the adequacy of compensation.”
“' Sir, whilst we were in Malaysia, we desired to delete Article 13 as far as Singapore was concerned. We were not thinking of acquiring land without paying compensation. We wanted to acquire land for a public purpose with compensation, but not necessarily adequate. Having scrapped Article 13 after the separation, as pointed out by the Commission, the Commission now wants us to put in another clause. Instead of the words "adequate compensation", we have the words "upon just terms". Mr Speaker, Sir, there might be a difference between these words, but if there is one, the difference is very small. And if we were to accept the Commission's recommendations, there would be a flood of litigation in Singapore and our Courts would have to construe the meaning of "upon just terms". Acceptance of the Constitutional Commission's recommendation would mean that Government would have to pay the full market value in all cases of acquisition of land for public purposes. This would make land acquisition, which is necessary to implement the Government's economic and social programmes, exorbitant. Government's policy on land acquisition was enunciated by the Prime Minister in the then Legislative Assembly on 16th December, 1963, [col. 653] when he stated, and I think I must repeat what he then stated: `The first principle is that nobody should get a windfall because of development at public expense. The second principle is that whenever land is required for a public purpose, the price to be paid for that land should not be higher than what it would have been worth had the Government not contemplated development generally in that area.' [Hansard, 10th June, 1964, col.”
“We are convinced that it is necessary, sound and wise and in the best interests of the people of Singapore, with the multiracial composition of its population, that its Constitution should recognise and proclaim this fundamental right. We do not propose, however, to recommend the reintroduction of Article 13 of the Constitution of Malaysia in its present form. We recognise the fact that as the population increases over the years more and more land will be required for public purposes if the needs of the general public are to be adequately served. We recognise also that, Singapore being only a small island of 225 square miles, as Singapore becomes more and more developed and more and better public amenities are provided out of public funds, land will, largely by reason of such public expenditure, increasingly become a more and more valuable commodity in the future. We therefore consider it is imperative that a just and fair balance must be struck between the public interest on the one hand and private ownership on the other, and we think that this result will best be achieved if we recommend as we now do that there should be an Article in the Constitution providing as follows - "l4.-(1) No person shall be deprived of property save in accordance with law. (2) No law shall provide for the compulsory acquisition or use of property except for a public purpose or a purpose useful or beneficial to the public and except upon just terms."' Mr Speaker, I have with me the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. Article 13 reads: `(1) No person shall be deprived of property save in accordance with law. (2) No law shall provide for the compulsory acquisition or use of property without adequate compensation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I now go on to the question of land acquisition which, in my view, was outside the terms of reference of the Commission. But since they feel so strongly about the protection of the individual, as far as his property goes, I intend to deal with their recommendations and set out Government's views which have been stated in the past but which I think are worth repeating. Mr Speaker, Sir, at page 11, paragraphs 41 and 42, the Commission made certain recommendations. Paragraph 41 reads: `The next fundamental right that needs to be considered by us is the right to property. This is accorded by Article 13 of the Constitution of Malaysia but, as we have said in paragraph 14 of this Report, it has not been retained as part of our constitutional law after separation from Malaysia. In the light of the fact that the Legislature has decided that this particular Article of the Constitution of Malaysia should not be so retained, we have given the most serious and detailed consideration, having regard always to our Terms of Reference, to the subject of a person's right to property. We find that all the written Constitutions we have looked at specifically provide, as a fundamental human right, the right of every person not to be deprived of his property save in accordance with law and the right to compensation whenever his property is compulsorily acquired. We find also that one of the human rights proclaimed under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10th December, 1948, is the right of an individual not to be arbitrarily deprived of his property. 42.”
“But, Sir, it is even more possible for Government to distribute to their supporters more unnumbered ballot papers than their supporters are entitled to. However honest this Government is, I would say that protests against unnumbered ballot papers would be more vociferous than those against numbered papers. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is clear that the Government's stand on the recommendations of the Constitutional Commission, which have not been accepted in toto, needs amplification. I propose to deal with these one by one. In regard to fundamental rights, the only recommendation which is not accepted in the form recommended is the one with regard to property rights. But before I deal with property rights, I would like to touch on one recommendation which has been accepted and which appears to have upset the Member for Kampong Kembangan. The Commission has recommended that we should not define "Malays", and for good reasons. The Member for Kampong Kembangan feels that it would be better for us to define "Malays", and he has suggested a definition. I do not propose to criticise his definition. But in whatever way we define a Malay, some people must object. If you restrict the class merely to Malays born in Singapore, those born outside will object. If you take people born in the Malay Archipelago, how far do we go? Do we stop before we come to West Irian, or do we go further to Australian New Guinea? If we define a Malay, the next step would be, perhaps, that the Chinese would like to be defined, and then the Indians are not going to keep quiet. Then where do we stop? But I am glad that the Member for Kampong Kapor would like to leave things as they are.”
“But I can assure you, as Mr Ho See Beng has said, we do not do that. Mr Speaker: The Member for Bras Basah. You are referring to the Member for Bras Basah.”
“If this provision is scrapped, more vigorous protests will he made to the effect that the Government rigged the elections. At present it is possible for the Government to find out who voted for whom.”