J. B. Jeyaretnam
Singapore
“And even if he did not know, as the Court of Appeal said, he was wilfully blind to that fact. This cannot be a defence because you cannot prove knowledge on the part of the accused. But what the court can do is to look at all the circumstances of the case and then conclude that it is beyond reasonable doubt that he had that knowledge.”
“Sir, as I now understand it, the payment to Mr Olds was compensation or gratuity, and not salary for the year 2000. If it was gratuity or compensation, may I ask whether there was any term in the contract of employment with him for the payment of gratuity, how long was he employed for, and why did he leave?”
“Maybe there are other areas in which we can think of similar useful schemes so that those who are unable to upgrade themselves sufficiently can still have good employment. It is a complex problem. And I think all Ministries and economic agencies would have to think harder how to address this problem.”
“May I make it clear that I shall talk about the aspects of the case which should have been considered by the court. So, in that way, it might reflect on the court's decision. But I do want the Cabinet, when it comes to advising the President on the clemency petition that had been sent to him, to take these points into consideration.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with respect, I do not quite understand your restriction because, as I understand it, all court proceedings are now over. So there are no pending proceedings in court. The court is now functus officio. Mr Deputy Speaker: You did not listen to me carefully.”
“Mr Noris Ong Chin Guan asked the Minister for Manpower, given the current economic climate, will his Ministry consider encouraging local employers to give priority to employing Singaporeans who can perform equivalent jobs, including our healthy elderly, rather than to resort to engaging foreign employees too readily.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,058 lines we hold for J. B. Jeyaretnam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 82.
“And even if he did not know, as the Court of Appeal said, he was wilfully blind to that fact. This cannot be a defence because you cannot prove knowledge on the part of the accused. But what the court can do is to look at all the circumstances of the case and then conclude that it is beyond reasonable doubt that he had that knowledge. When the prosecution had proven that, only then did the presumption kick in. And then the presumption says that if you are carrying more than 2 grams of diamorphine, you are presumed to be trafficking in drugs, unless you can show, on a balance of probabilities, that you were not trafficking in drugs. In other words, you have to show that you probably wanted the drugs for your own consumption. Then you will not be charged for trafficking. That is how the law operated. That is how the presumption operated in that context. Of course, the other point is that ---”
“I think Mr Jeyaretnam must know of recent press reports of how drugs have been trafficked into Singapore through various means, how even in the regional countries, drugs are clandestinely produced. I think that is the context in which we must view, not just this case, but also other cases of drug traffickers. The other point which Mr Jeyaretnam mentions is the lottery winnings. The point to note here is that even though it was discovered, after the Court of Appeal had decided on the appeal, that indeed he did win some money through lottery, this was not a material consideration in the decision of the trial judge. In fact, the trial judge said that he was prepared to give the defence counsel the benefit of the doubt that these were lottery winnings. But that was not a material consideration because the way the law was applied was, as I mentioned just now, the prosecution had proven possession of drugs with knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt, because all the defence counsel had to do was to cast a reasonable doubt that he had knowledge. But given the fact of the circumstances in which he was carrying the drugs, the fact that he had the drugs for three hours, which means that he had ample opportunity to examine what he was carrying, and given the fact that he himself was a drug addict - he was in fact arrested way back, his first criminal offence, in 1985 for theft, after which he had a string of criminal and drug antecedents, and then he was in the DRC on four separate occasions - given that background, does Mr Jeyaretnam and other people not think that he would, in fact, know that something was amiss? In fact, he said that he felt something amiss. He knew that he was carrying drugs.”
“But imagine if you take that tack for all accused persons who suffer from the penalty of the law, including the death penalty, then I think Singapore will not, today, enjoy the standard of law and order and reputation for safety which we enjoy. There are other societies which will primarily look at the circumstances of the accused persons, both present and past. In fact, some societies will dig up the past history of an accused person, how he was mistreated by his father, by his peers and so forth and then say, "Let's be soft on him". But I would remind Mr Jeyaretnam and others of his kind that what is really important is to look at the impact of heinous crimes on both society and on the persons directly affected; in other words, the real victims in the case. In the case of drug trafficking, we are very clear who these are - lives which are wasted, many of them in their prime. And through the wasting of addicts' lives, the vicarious wasting of lives of families who are affected as well. Can we go soft on drug traffickers? I would say no. Having said this, do we therefore not comply with the law? We do not do that. Our laws on drug trafficking are indeed tough - draconian. But they must be so, because we are dealing with a very serious problem, a problem that many other countries are still grappling with, unable to get a handle on. And these drug traffickers and others who peddle drugs do not care very much about the effect of their actions on those who become addicted to drugs. Drug is big money and people who are desperate for big money will do such acts. And indeed CNB is working hard to be on top of the situation.”
“I think Mr Jeyaretnam will know that even in the operation of the presumptions and how they are applied in the law, they are applied carefully. For example, the courts have said that a man should not be convicted based on a presumption following another presumption. In this case, even though there was an operation of a presumption, it was not just the operation of a presumption alone that resulted in Mr Zulfikar's conviction. Because, first and foremost, the prosecution had to prove that he had possession of the drugs, and possession includes knowledge. In other words, the prosecution had to adduce evidence to show that, given all the circumstances of the case, Mr Zulfikar knew that he was carrying drugs. And indeed this was gone through very carefully, both at the trial judge's stage and also at the Court of Appeal stage. The facts were all examined very carefully. I think Mr Jeyaretnam has mentioned some of these facts. The court's decision was that, based on these facts, it was wholly unconvincing to believe that Zulfikar did not know that he was carrying drugs. Why would he take drugs from a person he did not know? Why would he be carrying the drugs for over three hours from Sengkang to Yishun in a taxi? Why would he wait for telephone calls without inquiring who that person was or what he would get out of the transaction? Why would he not be suspicious, given the fact that he was asked to do so many things; first, to put the drugs in a dustbin, and then to bring the drugs up to the ninth floor? Of course, the simple rebuttal to that by Mr Jeyaretnam and those of his ilk will be that he is a simple-minded man, he is a naive man, he is a gullible man.”
“All right. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: The first point that must be made is that there are safeguards in our system and not just in the court system. In cases where there is a death penalty, the Attorney General will give his opinion, marshalling the trial judge's judgment, the Court of Appeal's judgment, if any, and also petitions for clemency that have been filed. And then he will carefully study all these and render his considered opinion to Cabinet for Cabinet's consideration to recommend to the President. That is the first point. And indeed in this case, due process has taken its course because Mr Zulfikar was tried by the learned Judicial Commissioner in a trial court. He was represented by counsel of his choice who, if it was material, could have adduced evidence as to the state of mind or mental condition of Mr Zulfikar, including the fact that he may be naive. But this was not done. And then, of course, the Court of Appeal, with a panel of three Judges, considered all the points carefully and decided that the decision should stand. Sir, I think it is not for us in Parliament to discuss cases, because Parliament is not the Judiciary. Because if Members of Parliament are free to bring up cases, then political parties and Members of Parliament who are unhappy with court decisions will raise them in Parliament. Parliament, as a separate organ of state, should not discuss decisions of our courts. Sir, Mr Jeyaretnam also alludes to the use of presumptions. Yes, indeed, there are some presumptions in the Misuse of Drugs Act. But let me say that every presumption that has been introduced has been carefully thought through. The presumptions have been introduced for specific purposes.”
“But it is unfortunate that the Judicial Commissioner did not make a finding as to whether he accepted the evidence of the CNB officers that the man attempted to run. Because if the man had attempted to run and that there was that finding by the Judicial Commissioner, that might point to knowledge on his part. But that was not the case. There was no such finding by the Judicial Commissioner. And the Judicial Commissioner gave him the benefit of the doubt as to the money that was found. But in the end, the Judicial Commissioner found that he was in possession of drugs. One could attack that, but I am not here to attack that. As I said, he had been found guilty on evidence which the court thought was enough. But I am here simply to say that in such circumstances, the death sentence should not be carried out. As I said, the Judicial Commissioner did not appear to have been aware of his background in coming to these findings. I think particular attention must be paid to his background and to obtaining some medical advice on his critical faculties. The Judicial Commissioner found, in his judgment, that the man said that his only intention was to do his job, to hand the bag as he was instructed, to this caller who had called him. The Judicial Commissioner goes on to say ---”
“He left it in the dustbin and then later on, he was asked to bring it up to the ninth floor. He took it up to the ninth floor. One would have thought that if he had any power of thinking, he might have said, "No, I better get away from all this." But here was a man who was trying to do a job which had been given to him, entrusted to him, and he thought that he should carry it out. When he went up to the ninth floor, he was suddenly pounced upon by CNB officers. When the packages were eventually opened in the CNB office, they were found to contain 72 grams of heroin. It is in these circumstances that the man was charged with trafficking because the law provides that if you are in possession of more than 2 grams of heroin, you will be presumed to be trafficking and there will be a death sentence if the quantity exceeds 15 grams, as it did in this case. Upon his arrest, he told the CNB officers the story about how he came by it and what he was asked to do with it. And the Judicial Commissioner commented that he had been consistent throughout. He had said everything, he had not tried to hide anything. There was some money found on him. Of course, the suggestion immediately then was it must have been the proceeds or profits from his activities in drug trafficking. But it was later confirmed by Singapore Pools Limited that the man had really won a prize of that amount that was found in his pockets. At first when he told the CNB where he had collected the money, that happened to be the wrong place, and so they could not confirm it, but Singapore Pools later confirmed that that money was his prize money. There was also evidence led by the CNB officers that he attempted to run and put up a violent struggle. This was denied altogether by the man.”
“" And he asked, "Would you like a job?" and he said, "Yes." The man later telephoned him and said, "Would you go out and pick up something and deliver it?" It was thus that he became involved in this transaction or activity that landed him in Court. He was asked to deliver it to a particular address but, before that, he had to go and pick it up from somebody. When he went to pick it up, he was given a bag with five bundles in it and said, "This is the bag which you have to deliver." The evidence would suggest that it was not easily visible or apparent to anyone, looking at the bag, to see what the contents of the packages that were inside the bag. As I have said, there were five small packages. I am told that the packages, when they were unwrapped, the officers had to go through several layers of paper before they could come to the drugs. So, it was not clearly visible or apparent that there was anything contraband inside those packages. He took the plastic bag containing these packages. Then, he was asked to call somebody and to get the directions from that man as to where he was to deliver it. I would be the first to confess that any reasonable, rational minded person would have thought there was something fishy, there must be something wrong. But we are not dealing, as I have said, with a person who is fully competent in his power to think and to rationalise. It is a pity that no medical evidence was called as to his faculty in that respect. He called the number and was asked to take it to a block and that somebody would take it off from him. When he went there, there was nobody there and he called that number, and he was then asked, first of all, to leave it in a dustbin. That must have put him on alert. But again, he said that he did not think about it.”
“What I am asking is that before we send a man to his death, we must consider whether it is safe enough simply to send him to his death upon a presumption, where there are no concrete evidence or any other facts which point quite conclusively to the man's guilt or participation in the crime. The background of this man, Zulfikar, is that he became a drug addict at the age of 14. I understand he is now about 31 or 32 years of age. He has been in and out of drug rehabilitation centres from the age of 14. So he is a confirmed drug addict. He has not been able to get any jobs and his life has been something which I think very few people would wish for. The Judicial Commissioner, in his judgement, says, "He cannot be so simple. I cannot imagine that he is so simple." But, unfortunately, I do not see that any evidence was laid before the Court or the Court was informed of his background. I do not think we need expert medical opinion but it is a known fact that someone who is given to drug taking over a period of time will have his mental faculties affected, his power to think carefully and to rationalise. He becomes weak-minded and particularly, and I say this again, vulnerable to people who try to use him or exploit him. It is unfortunate. I do not know whether the background was brought before the Court but I cannot see anything in the judgement of the Judicial Commissioner that suggests that his background was placed before the Court. The facts, as I understand from the Judicial Commissioner's judgement, are that whilst he was drinking at a pub in Changi Village, somebody whom he had met, I think probably in prison or in some rehabilitation centre, approached him and asked him whether he was employed. He said, "No, I am not employed. I have not got a job.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before I start on this, may I first of all say that I have no pecuniary interest in this. I have not seen the man, nor have I represented him in any proceedings. Secondly, I wish to make the point that the case has been brought to my attention by Think Centre, which has also supplied me the information about the man's background. I say this because I have said I did not interview the man. Having said that, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I say that this is not a disputatious speech or a complaining speech that I intend to make. It is more of a plea. May I also go on to say that the plea is not just for this man, but a plea for all who may find themselves in the situation in which this man found himself and has been convicted and sentenced to death. Before I outline several of the facts which had been presented to me by the Think Centre and the judgement of the Judicial Commissioner, may I say, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that the conviction of this man is founded upon a presumption. A presumption is something that the law says you have got to presume, you have got to accept unless the accused is able to rebut that presumption, is able to disprove it. Presumptions therefore reverse the burden of proof in criminal cases. In criminal law, as we have had it, the presumption is that an accused person is deemed to be innocent until he is proved guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. The law did not require the accused to have to prove his innocence. But this is somewhat eroded now by the presumptions that had been built in and the Misuse of Drugs Act abounds in presumptions.”
“May I make it clear that I shall talk about the aspects of the case which should have been considered by the court. So, in that way, it might reflect on the court's decision. But I do want the Cabinet, when it comes to advising the President on the clemency petition that had been sent to him, to take these points into consideration. So that is my whole purpose.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with respect, I do not quite understand your restriction because, as I understand it, all court proceedings are now over. So there are no pending proceedings in court. The court is now functus officio. Mr Deputy Speaker: You did not listen to me carefully. I said, "Your speech shall not reflect on the decision of the courts."”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the assumption seems to be: "The bigger, the better". Up to a point. The Deputy Prime Minister talks about the Government seeing to it that the small account holders will be catered to by these big banks. I have been asking, in line with a lot of other countries, why is it not possible for a banking ombudsman to be appointed so that it is not just the Government saying "We will see to this", but the small account holders will have an institution to which they can take their grievances and see that something is done? The Association of Banks can no longer do that job. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Mr J B Jeyaretnam's usual answer to a problem is: "Why does the Government not do something about it?" except that, in this case, the Government has stated its position and Mr Jeyaretnam says, "Why not have an ombudsman to do something about it?" I have answered this question in the House before. We do not have the system of an ombudsman in our whole constitutional set-up. It is not the way we have operated. There is no practical problem working with the Association of Banks. It is not a statutory body with coercive powers but it has considerable powers of moral suasion because, if it talks sense, people will know that MAS will back it up. And there is competition in the banking industry in Singapore, which is really the best assurance of people being treated fairly by banks. And if any bank treats any customer unfairly, I would say to him to take his account and go somewhere else, and there are many, many other places he can go, even after banking consolidation.”
“Will the Minister please answer my questions? Has he got the contract between Mr Olds and the bank when he was first brought out here? Was there a term for the payment of a gratuity or compensation? And, if so, what were the terms? Could we have answers to these questions?”
“Sir, as I now understand it, the payment to Mr Olds was compensation or gratuity, and not salary for the year 2000. If it was gratuity or compensation, may I ask whether there was any term in the contract of employment with him for the payment of gratuity, how long was he employed for, and why did he leave? Mr Lim Hng Kiang: Sir, I thought I spoke quite clearly. For Mr John Olds, the payment in the year 2000 was largely in the form of performance bonuses for what he set out to achieve, a set of performance targets set up by the bank and the board. He exceeded these targets and the bank paid him accordingly. For Mr Ng Kee Choe, a significant portion of the payment in the year 2000 was his gratuity which was commuted into a one-off payment for 31 years of service.”
“Sir, in answer to a specific question, we have had the Minister go into a lot of generalities.”
“Mr Noris Ong Chin Guan asked the Minister for Manpower, given the current economic climate, will his Ministry consider encouraging local employers to give priority to employing Singaporeans who can perform equivalent jobs, including our healthy elderly, rather than to resort to engaging foreign employees too readily.”
“I do not think we will win, because what would then happen is that investments will leave Singapore to where they can access workers at internationally competitive wage rates. Recently, a group of us was talking to a Singapore doctor who has worked many years in America. In American hospitals now, doctors no longer clerk their own case sheets. They go to the nearest phone, they call up a number, they dictate, and it goes to India, where there is a whole bank of transcribers. And they are very smart. They know all the medical terms, drugs, diseases, medical conditions and, the following day, via the Internet, it appears on the doctor's screen, he makes his amendments and it is recorded. In other words, in the coming years, no sector can be protected, because the moment you try to protect it, it raises costs, and investors having choices will move somewhere else. So it is better that we stare the problem in the eyes and make the adjustment. The key is: stay competitive, continue to attract investments in, and we will be all right. And we will be all right. UNEMPLOYMENT SITUATION 6. Mr Noris Ong Chin Guan asked the Minister for Manpower if he will give (i) an update of the current unemployment situation and the outlook ahead and (ii) an evaluation of the accessibility and effectiveness of the current career development and retraining programmes in raising labour productivity and in helping Singaporeans who have been retrenched and those likely to be displaced due to the continuing economic slowdown and spate of mergers and acquisitions. 7.”
“I am afraid the Minister has not answered my question fully. But, particularly, I would like to know what is the Government's message regarding retrenchment, as between Singapore workers and foreign workers. Would the Minister answer that? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to apologise to Mr Jeyaretnam for not answering that question. There is always a temptation in an economic downturn to say "out first with the foreign workers and protect the jobs for Singaporeans." I would caution against such an instinct. The reason why we are attractive to many foreign investors is because of the assurance we give them, that if they need workers, talent, engineers, cartoonists and accountants, if they cannot find them in Singapore, they can bring them in. And, for this reason, we run a liberal regime. If in an economic downturn, we suddenly say, "Well, you are foreign, you go out first" even though he may be doing a good job, this will unravel a reputation that we have painstakingly built up over the years. Just two days ago, the CEO of Shell Gas came to see me, thinking of setting up an operation in Singapore for global solutions to various industries, particularly the oil and gas industry. He has his reservations about some other countries. I told him, "Do not worry. You do what you have to do in the region. But what you need in Singapore, we will provide. If you need talent, you bring them in." If a company has to shed off workers, we should let the company decide whom to shed off. We are already protecting our own local workers through the foreign worker levy and by the quota requirement that a certain percentage has to be Singaporean workers. In the end, if we over protect Singaporeans, will we win?”
“Maybe there are other areas in which we can think of similar useful schemes so that those who are unable to upgrade themselves sufficiently can still have good employment. It is a complex problem. And I think all Ministries and economic agencies would have to think harder how to address this problem. It is a problem which goes beyond this economic downturn. It is a structural problem.”
“In fact, just last night, one of my constituents came to see me, a 50-year old diabetic who has an MBA and he asked me whether I could help get his CPF out because he said he is finding it difficult to get a job because companies want to hire younger people. If you have diabetes, they said, "Well, we have to incur health care cost looking after you if we take you on." I told him that it is not likely that CPF is going to allow him to take out his money. But at the same time, I sympathise with him. So we have got to be specific and where we can help, we should help, make sure the children are looked after. Can Government create jobs? I think we have got to think harder about this, whether there are not some service jobs which we can provide in the public sector later to soak up some of them. They represent a group of people who, because they grew up in an earlier era, have not had the education. Above the age of 45, less than one in two Singaporeans have more than six years of education. So when we run into the new economy, they face particular difficulties and we have got to think through in a sensible way how to help them. If we just give them money to help them by, that will be ameliorative but, I think, as a group, they will be demoralised. We must find a creative way to engage them because they are intelligent, hardworking and responsible. I am very surprised meeting old colleagues from the army who are now working in our schools as administrators. In the army, because we want to keep our NCOs and officers young, we retire them early with golden handshakes. Many of them end up working as administrative officers in schools. For them, running a school is nothing compared to running a battalion or company. And the teachers are spared those responsibilities.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Minister has spoken about the rising unemployment and he expects it to rise further. May I ask the Minister what message his Government has got at the moment for workers who are being retrenched, or has the Government got no message at all, and particularly, is the Government prepared to see that our workers are not retrenched first before foreign workers are retrenched, which is a step that is being taken by the Malaysian government? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, all of us, as Members of Parliament, meet our voters and in the last few months, we could sense the change in the economic climate on the ground. At our meet-the-people sessions, many more are coming forward either with financial difficulties, worried about their jobs, or have lost their jobs. The problem is not yet very serious. But we are beginning to see it and it is likely to become more serious in the coming months. I would say our response must be on a broad front. First, make sure that the children's education is not affected. I believe we have a whole slew of scholarships and bursaries available to make sure that they are looked after. With health care, housing, the basics, the safety net will always be there. Then those who are without jobs, how do we help them retrain? MOM has got a labour exchange. We have all kinds of programmes available to help those who are prepared to be reskilled to be reskilled. But there is a particular problem among older Singaporeans, particularly those who are above, say, 45-50 years old. In difficulties, sometimes they are the first to be retrenched, usually they are the last to be taken back.”
“May I ask the Minister whether he has taken any advice or consultation with the UK Parliament as to when the term of Parliament commences, whether it commences from the election of Members or from the time of its sitting?”
“Is he aware that Parliament came into being on 2nd January 1997, Members were elected to Parliament on 2nd January, and Ministers were appointed soon after that, and they should have been Members of Parliament before they were appointed Ministers? So was Parliament not already in existence from 2nd January?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just say that ---”
“The Straits Times article is not the authority for what I have said in this House.”
“What about myself? I was elected, my dear man, under a different provision, like you have the proportional representation system in other countries. So do not be under any fallacy. So, may I know from the Minister and, if you will permit, Sir, I would like to reply to the Minister when he gives an answer.”
“I said this when I spoke on 28th April 2001 at Yio Chu Kang Stadium and I also said this in Manila, when I attended the conference of all Asian parties, that the society in Singapore is a castrated one. Nobody seems to have any right. All the rights are vested with the Government. So I hope that the Minister will now tell us, if he can, why he says that the vote is a privilege and not a right. Where does he get that authority from? In any democratic country, it is the citizens who decide who the legislature shall consist of. And so it is provided in our own Constitution. It is the electorate who elect the Members to this legislature. So they are given a right to choose their representatives to this House. But, in Singapore, apparently according to the Minister and the PAP Government, they can take away from the citizens this right to vote to elect their own Members into Parliament. No wonder we have had all these amendments about introducing Nominated Members of Parliament when Parliament should only consist of elected Members, elected by the electorate. An hon. Member: What about yourself?”
“Every citizen of Singapore, whether he is in Singapore or not, if he had been resident in Singapore on the 1st of July before he went overseas, and, again, if his name is still on the register, whether he is here or not, because there is a presumption, is entitled to vote, and there can be no discrimination between them. And I do question even section 6 in the Parliamentary Elections Act which takes away from prisoners serving sentences the right to vote. That clearly conflicts with section 5, that every citizen of Singapore over 21, resident, shall be entitled to have his name on the register. Equally, I question the validity of section 43(5) and (8) removing, from the register, non-voters. That, again, seems to me to be a violation of the Constitution. If they are over 21 and they are citizens of Singapore, whether they voted or not, their names have to remain on the register. They cannot be taken out. And this suggestion offered to them, that they can have their names on the register again if they pay $5, is equally another violation of their constitutional right. So, I hope, without sounding too professorial, that I have cleared the cobwebs in the mind of the Minister and others who seem to think that the vote is not a right but a privilege. As I have said, it is symptomatic of the PAP's thinking. Workers in Singapore have no rights. And we were only told this afternoon that a Singapore citizen, if he wants to fly the Singapore flag, has no right to do that without getting the permission of the Government. He has to make an application for it. Everything, it would appear, in Singapore is a privilege granted at the pleasure of the PAP Government.”
“What is more is that it is an expression of a political choice on a matter that is of supreme importance to the country. The marking is an expression, just as a drawing or a picture is an expression of the artist's view of things. So if you accept, and I do not see how you cannot accept, that the marking of a ballot paper is an expression of the voter, the electorate, then it becomes obvious that it is a right and it is not a privilege that is granted by the Government. And what is more is that it is right there in the Constitution. The writer of the article says, "Oh, there are plenty of other rights. But I couldn't find any right to vote." But she misses it. As I said, right at the beginning of Article 14, one finds that every Singapore citizen has the right to freedom of expression. And if, as I said, the marking of the vote is an expression of the citizen's choice of a candidate, then the citizen, the electorate, has a right to express his choice. It is no longer a privilege. In recognition of that, if you look at section 5 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, what does that say? For the benefit of the Minister, in case he has not read it before coming into Parliament, it says in no uncertain terms that all citizens of Singapore over 21 years of age, resident in Singapore, on the 1st of July in any year, shall be entitled to have their names on the register of electors. What could be clearer - "shall be entitled to have their names on the register". And if they have their names on the register, then they are entitled to vote. No two ways about it. I did say when I spoke on the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill that I considered leaving out some of our Singapore citizens overseas is a violation of the Constitution, and I repeat that.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I decided to claim the right to speak on this motion after one or two members of the public had asked me what was all this flurry about whether voting is a right or a privilege. But not being a regular reader of the Straits Times, I missed out a lot of what had been going on. So I decided I would raise this in the House. I decided to look at this article that appeared in the Straits Times on 25th April where there was a great piece about whether the vote is a right or privilege. Without being disrespectful to the writer, may I say I thought it was much of a flip-flop. The flurry arose, as I understand it, from the Minister's statement in this House when debating the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill that the vote is not a right, but a privilege. Having seen the article, again, I said, "Well, that is just symptomatic of the PAP Government's thinking that the citizens of Singapore have no rights and they have only such rights as the Government deems at its pleasure to grant them." I do not know whether the Minister consulted or sought any legal opinion before he made this, may I say, very surprising statement in this House. And the article in the Straits Times did not make it any better. The writer talks about digging deep into the Constitution to see whether there was any such right. May I suggest to the writer that perhaps she was digging deep into the underground looking for it somewhere down far below when it was there right on the top. She missed that, and kept looking down below. The Minister's statement, with all due respect to the Minister, suffers from one basic flaw. And the flaw is this - a failure to recognise that the marking of a ballot paper is just as much an expression as a writing or an oral utterance.”
“You have disallowed the question. So there is no other question. BANKING (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 1.49 pm”
“Could the Minister please, for once, answer the question? Did the prosecutions have anything to do with the reason for choosing Geylang Police Division? May we have an answer?”
“Would the Minister of State tell us whether the prosecutions of some officers from the Geylang Division for their links with gambling and brothel operators were one of the reasons for closing down the Geylang Division? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I do not think Mr Jeyaretnam has a police mindset. The police does not work on such short-term considerations. It is an overall review, looking at both the immediate and also long-term considerations, and also in line with the repackaging of services. I do not know whether Mr Jeyaretnam is in tune with the many things that have happened which other Members know. In the Committee of Supply debate, we had, in fact, extensively debated the police's reorganisation over the last three years. The NPC Scheme started in 1997 and it has been rolling out. So this is a big planned review that will ultimately and, in fact, is already benefitting Singaporeans. Singaporeans already served by NPCs have said this.”
“Sir, as I understand the Minister of State, reducing police divisions from seven to six was part of the reorganisation. Was there any particular reason why Geylang Division was chosen to be closed down? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, Police reorganisation is done systematically and carefully. In fact, police decided to follow the URA's Development Guide Plans. Under the URA Development Guide Plans, there are five regions. But in the Police scheme of things, there are six, because the central region is a big one. So there are two divisions there - Central and Tanglin. For the eastern region, we have got Bedok and Geylang under this redivision. Between the two, the Police decided to close down Geylang Division because it was smaller. This is all very rational and there is no discriminatory treatment.”
“You will not get me there anymore. RUNAWAY MAIDS 15. Mr Goh Chong Chia asked the Minister for Manpower if he will state (a) whether any maids have been charged and convicted after running away from their employers' homes and having had their work permits cancelled; and (b) whether any persons have been charged with harbouring such maids.”
“I do not know if anybody goes there now. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: It is up to them. It is all there. The Government provides for it. And after six months, in December 2000, there was this first investigation, and we have to see this event in context - what happened, the notice that I have talked about which explicitly mentioned: come, run, after running, demonstrate. So it is not just coming to speak and coming to listen to speakers.”
“We have gone through this debate many times in this House, Mr Speaker, and I have made my points very clear, that over the last eight months, more than 800 registrations have been received and people have spoken, people have listened. This is the first time ---”
“May I again ask the Minister: did his Minister say in this House not very long ago that nobody needs any permit for going to the Speakers' Corner and address an assembly, that all he had to do was to register? Are we to understand that that utterance by the Minister was simply hot air and that it will be an offence for any person to assemble at the Speakers' Corner to listen to somebody? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I do not know who is spouting hot air and who is selectively hearing speeches in Parliament. The Minister said that one does not have to apply for a permit to speak, because he was talking about exemption under the Public Entertainments Act. So that is the exemption. He also said that one needs to comply with all the other laws of the land and, like I have said, the Miscellaneous Offences Rules are part of the laws of the land. So the exemption is to speak, not exemption for anything else. Mr Jeyaretnam: Would the Minister tell us what did these two persons do at the Speakers' Corner on 10th December last year except to speak? Now you say that is an offence. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, it is all in the public domain, both in the media as well as captured on the Think Centre website, what happened. It was not a matter of people just going there to speak, but it was an organised gathering. They had organised a gathering of people - in this case about 60 people - to commemorate an event, International Human Rights Day, and "to demonstrate" - the words were used in the notice which was publicised on the Think Centre website - "to demonstrate" against the abolition of the Internal Security Act.”
“May I have an answer to the question? Has the Minister made any order or declaration that before anybody holds an assembly at the Speakers' Corner he will have to get a licence? May I have an answer to that question? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: May I ask the hon. Member whether or not the Speakers' Corner is a public place? Under section 5(1), read with Rule 2 of the Miscellaneous Offences Rules, any assembly of five or more persons in a public place, if they do (a), (b) or (c), they must apply for a permit. And that is the governing provision, in so far as the Speakers' Corner is concerned. In any case, if Mr Jeyaretnam or anybody is doubtful about it, he can challenge it in court. But, in this case, Mr James Gomez accepted the warning, which means that he did not challenge the interpretation of the laws by the police and the AG's Chambers.”
“Does the Minister accept that rules owe their legitimacy to the parent Act? I repeat: was there an order made by the Minister under section 5(2) prohibiting the holding of any assembly in the Speakers' Corner? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, Mr Jeyaretnam is a lawyer. He must know that sections must be read in their totality. He has mentioned section 5(2). But that is in the context of the entire section 5, and section 5(1) allows the Minister to make rules and the Minister has made these rules. So section 5(2) will not apply. Section 5(2) may apply, for example, in a situation where the Minister makes a specific order as to a particular place, but it is still subject to section 5(1) and the rules which have been promulgated. And we have said very clearly in Parliament when we set up the Speakers' Corner, that the Speakers' Corner will be subject to the laws of the land. And the Miscellaneous Offences rules are indeed part of the laws of the land.”
“May I say that I am surprised, but I suppose that does not count. Is the Minister aware that section 5(2) requires the Minister, first of all, by an order - which I take will be published in the Gazette - to prohibit any assembly or procession in any public place, and it is only after that order has been made that the penalties provided under section 5(4) come into operation? The rules were made to implement these sections of the Act. So, my first question, following what I have told the Minister, is when was this order made that any assembly at the Speakers' Corner is prohibited. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, once again, Mr Jeyaretnam reads the Act selectively because, under section 5(1), rules can be made by the Minister to govern assemblies. Indeed, under section 5(1) of the Act, the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) (Assemblies and Processions) Rules are promulgated legally, and Rule 2 states very clearly that any assembly of five or more persons in any public place to: (a) demonstrate support for or opposition to the views or actions of any person; (b) to publicise a cause or campaign; or (c) to mark or commemorate any event, must get a permit under these rules.”
“Am I to understand that the Minister has not read the sections before coming here? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I have read the Act many, many times. It is just a matter of pinpointing what the section in particular says. If the hon. Member can read the section, I will tell him why it will not apply.”
“May I ask the junior Minister whether he is aware of section 5(2) and (3) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act? Has he read it up before he came here? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I do not have the Act with me. If the hon. Member can read out the section, I will respond. But I am sure that police would have looked at the entirety of all the laws before deciding on whether or not to investigate and in deciding whether or not to prosecute. In the circumstances, they have decided to warn instead of prosecute.”
“Do I then take it that the Deputy Prime Minister is admitting in this House that the Government is behaving in a totally undemocractic way in not accounting to the shareholders? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have just explained that we are a representative democracy. The Government governs as it judges wise and best, and it has to stand up and defend its judgement. It does not stand up and say, "Here are all the things, here are all the data, here are my national secrets, here are my defence secrets, here are my foreign policy moves, and here are my inner most reserves." No government in the world does that. DISPLAY OF SINGAPORE FLAG 12. Mr Simon S. C. Tay asked the Prime Minister if the Government will permit Singaporeans to display the Singapore flag at their homes if they wish, either at anytime of the year or for a longer period before and after National Day.”
“What is "not direct democracy"? BG Lee Hsien Loong: We operate a representative democracy in which the people elect the Government and the Government governs on behalf of the people. And here, the Government has decided that, as a matter of policy, the reserves are a matter which is best not published and discussed every year, and we have good reasons for that, which I have given.”
“First of all, may I ask why is the Senior Minister not here? After all, it is his statement, and it is for him to defend his statement in this House. But I suppose I cannot compel him to come here. Having said that, if you accept, as he accepted, that the shareholders are the electorate, that accountability must be to them. Do you accept that the Government is accountable to the shareholders, and not just the Accountant-General, Auditor-General, or to somebody else, but to the shareholders? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, we operate not direct democracy in a fashion of Asian ways.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this is not the first time he has told us that the reason for the imposition of this tank rule was because revenue was dropping. May I ask him: is the loss in revenue that heavy that the Government cannot forgo that and help Singapore citizens to get cheaper petrol?”
“On this right to reply the Government is so concerned about, does the Government consider that the only right to reply should be in the paper which published the offending article or the broadcasting media which broadcast the offending article or piece? Has the Government not got the full array of the Singapore press? Have you not got the full array of the Singapore TV and radio to give your reply? Is that not good enough?”
“May I ask the Minister by way of clarification, if you will permit me, Sir?”