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 14 of 82.
“If the Minister had read the Hansard in 1987, he would have seen that the then Prime Minister did not reveal the identity, but was simply saying the man had run off to Macau and was hiding and they were trying to get him. So I am afraid I cannot give the identity. The CPIB must know. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I would like to assure Mr Jeyaretnam that I have read the Hansard. I wanted to make sure because the tenor of his question suggests that this person was implicated in Mr Teh's death.”
“May I ask the Minister what is the position as regards those who are just paying rents as distinct from loan instalments? What is the policy as regards them?”
“The Minister said that very few apartments have been repossessed. Could he tell us how many apartments were repossessed?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister that if, in spite of all these schemes that the HDB has, the flat owner is unable to meet his payments, how much time does the HDB allow before it decides to repossess the apartment under the powers given in the Housing and Development Act?”
“Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Manpower, in view of the current worsening economic situation, whether he foresees the possibility of prolonged unemployment of up to a year or more for older and unskilled workers. 17. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Manpower whether Singapore will face structural unemployment in the next two to three years and, if so, whether the current policy on training of workers is sufficient to cope with the situation.”
“I am saying to this Government, quite seriously, and speaking as someone who has the welfare of this country at heart, who feels for our citizens, that it is time that the Government set them free, free from this fear and the only way you can do that is to show them that they no longer have any fear of being detained except under due process of law. Whether they speak against the Government or whether they join opposition parties or help opposition parties, they need have no fear whatsoever. The Government cannot detain them because they are going to do away with that power. The other way the Government can remove the fear is to abolish the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. Because that is also used to strike fear into people's hearts. I have mentioned about persons picked up by the police who are reminded, "We have the power, you know, to detain you under section 30 of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. So what are you going to do?" So I hope that something will be done to assure the people, not just lip service, but some concrete steps taken to show the people that they need not live under fear any longer, but they can breathe the air more freely in Singapore and live as men and women of dignity, holding their heads high and proud of themselves as a people. Question put, and negatived. Motion accordingly negatived. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee]. Adjourned accordingly at Nine o'clock pm. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER NOT ANSWERED BY 1.30 PM PROLONGED AND STRUCTURAL UNEMPLOYMENT 16.”
“That was the law in many other countries, but we continued with the law of Liversidge and Anderson, when all the other countries said that that was wrong. But in 1989 the Court of Appeal felt constrained because of all the authorities that were put before it, authorities from other Commonwealth countries. They felt constrained to change, and said, "The time has come now for us to change. The courts should have the right to look into the merits." That was what led to the amendment of the law, amendments made by Parliament excluding any review of the merits by a court. I have two other points. The Minister of State says, tongue in cheek, that the Government must be accountable to the people. That is the real test. Government can only be made accountable to the people, if the people are given an unfettered right to question the Government and to demand an answer. In other countries, they have the Freedom of Information Act. We do not have it in Singapore. It is only then that the Government can be made accountable. It is no good repeating over and over again that we are accountable. People must see the right in themselves to make the Government accountable, that they can demand answers and explanations, and the Government has to reply to those criticisms. My party has asked a number of questions to which we never get a reply. Is that accountability of the Government? Finally, the Minister says the advisory boards that we have at the moment, which Mr David Marshall abolished and replaced with a proper Appeal Court, are adequate. How could they be? They do not have any power except to make recommendations which the Government may accept or may not accept. The decision still lies with the Government. So what good is it having an advisory board if it has no teeth?”
“Have they gone round asking the printers to print for the opposition parties? Then they will know whether there is this fear or not. The Minister of State says that we cannot have unbridled criticisms. I can again, for his reading, recommend him to what his great leader said in the Malaysian Parliament in 1964. I hope that every PAP Member of Parliament has been given all these speeches of the leader made when he was in the opposition from 1954 to 1959. It should be compulsory reading, and then they could perhaps ask the leader why is it not right now when he said it was right in 1954 to have these freedoms. I hope it is also compulsory reading for PAP MPs of Mr Francis Seow's book "To Catch a Tartar". There, they will see an account of how they deal with opposition politicians or people aspiring to be opposition politicians once they are taken in. The Minister of State refers to the amendment that was made after the Court of Appeal decision in 1989. With respect to the Minister, I think he has got it all wrong. The case of Liversidge and Anderson that Mr Simon Tay mentioned was a case when England was facing across the Channel the German forces. There was a real danger there, and Lord Atkin stood out against all the other judges and said, that even in such a state, it would be wholly wrong to deprive a man of his liberty unless he had been found guilty by a court of law. But the other judges thought that in time of such grave danger, the Executive should be the judges. That was 1942, a time of great danger to England. Some years later, the House of Lords said, Lord Atkin's classic statement was the right principle in law. Every imprisonment is prima facie unlawful unless it is justified.”
“They are Articles 149 to 151 of the Constitution which say that when there is a real threat to the country, when there is a danger of any subversion and Parliament is satisfied of this danger and threat to the country, then Parliament may pass laws curtailing the freedom of the people and, as I said, requiring that that be reviewed and should no longer remain on the statute books once the emergency is over. So we have got it. It is not as though we do not have the power to invoke these powers of detention without trial if there is an emergency, if there is a threat. But we do not need it as a permanent feature in our statute books. I would like to know which country in the world has this as a permanent feature. They, of course, retain the right in times of emergency to invoke these powers. I think the Indian Parliament has this provision. But which country has it as a permanent feature in the ordinary laws of the land? I asked the Minister of State a number of questions. He thinks I am being naive in asking the questions. Of course, every question that I ask is naive because the Government does not really want to answer those questions. So the easiest way is to say, "It is a naive question, a silly question." I am surprised that the Minister of State should say that there is no climate of fear. Even the two Nominated MPs mentioned about this fear. But they did not think it was as bad as I made it out to be. But have they encountered the fear as I have encountered it in people? I gave you the examples where I encountered this fear in our people. Have they encountered the fear as I have encountered it? Have they gone round asking people to stand for elections to Parliament? Have they gone round asking them to donate any monies to the opposition parties?”
“Of course, it is a perception. And they say that people perhaps fear when they need not fear. That is true. I have told the people a number of times that there is nothing to be afraid of. But do they take me seriously? When I tell them there is nothing to be afraid of, they say, "Can you guarantee it?" There is this perception. So, what does the Government do about it? Keep telling them there is nothing to fear, nothing to worry, or does the Government take active steps to eliminate that fear? That is what I am asking the Government to do, to take active steps to eliminate that fear, however irrational that fear may be, however unfounded. But the fear exists. I think it has been acknowledged by the other speakers that there is that fear. So the Government has to take active steps to remove that fear. No amount of "there is nothing to fear, my good people, you speak up," will convince them. Many a taxi driver when they see me say, "In Singapore, we can't speak." And I said, "Why not?" They say, "We might lose our licence. We might be put into prison." You might say that these are unfounded fears. But how do we reassure them? And the only way you can reassure them is to remove that power in your grasp. Then the speakers also seem to say that we do need emergency powers in times of emergency. I have said in my speech that the Constitution does provide for times of emergency.”
“I am surprised to hear from the Minister of State that detentions without trial do not negate the Rule of Law. What does he understand by the rule of law? The Rule of Law, as explained by the Privy Council in the Ong Ah Chuan's case, is not just the written laws but incorporates into it what is called natural justice or what the Americans would call the due process of law, ie, no one may be punished in any way, deprived of his life or liberty until he has been found guilty by a court of law and ordered to suffer the punishment. Our own Constitution says that no man may be deprived of his life or liberty, save in accordance with the law. And what does it mean? When Parliament passes any law, you can just pick up people and put them in prison? If that is the interpretation, then the Constitution becomes a laughing stock. Before I come to deal with the reply from the Minister of State, let me deal with the speeches of the others. As I understood the speakers, the general trend appears to be that we do not really have to do away with the ISA, but we can perhaps be a bit more tolerant. We must get the message across to the people that they have nothing to fear. But what good does it do to tell people that they have nothing to fear when you retain in the statute books the power to throw them into prison? No amount of saying, "you don't have to worry, my chap, we won't throw you into prison," is going to convince them. The only way you can convince them that they have nothing to fear is to remove the power so that they can see it. That the Government no longer has the power to detain them without first bringing them before the court. That is the only answer, nothing else. Nothing short of it will help. The speakers also made the point that there is a perception.”
“May I also tell him what his leader in 1955 said, when Mr Marshall told him, "You are always bringing up the same thing", Mr Lee Kuan Yew's answer was, "I shall go on repeating it ad nauseam until you change the law." So that is my answer to the junior Minister and to others when they accuse me of bringing up old issues. If something is wrong and remains a wrong, someone who feels that it should be changed should go on bringing it up until it is changed. So I intend to do that and this is not the last time that this House will hear on this. Apart from the architect, why is the Prime Minister not here to reply to this? An hon. Member: He has better things to do! Mr Jeyaretnam: He wants a gracious society. How can we have a gracious society unless we have a civil society first? And a civil society is a society of people, men and women, who are conscious of their rights and who are not afraid to speak up, who know that the law protects them, and they can speak up and participate in the decision making. That is a civil society. You must have that first before you can talk about a gracious society. So why is the Prime Minister not here? I am also disappointed that the Minister for Law is not here. I would have asked him whether he had always held the view that detention without trial did not offend the Rule of Law. Members would have been surprised at his answer. The question is: do we, in present day Singapore, need to arm ourselves with powers to throw people into prison without first bringing them up before a court of law, laying charges against them and the court hearing the charges and convicting them and then sending them to prison? That is the Rule of Law, I am afraid, not anything else.”
“And the same man, great champion of freedom, speaking in September 1955 when Mr Marshall was introducing the Public Peace and Security Ordinance (PPSO), Mr Marshall was introducing into that law a proper appeal tribunal with power to release anyone detained by the government, not an advisory board but giving this appeal tribunal full powers to order release if they were not satisfied. There you have an adequate safeguard. But Mr Lee did not want any detention even in September 1955 when the threat was still there and this is what he said: `What he [referring to the Chief Minister] is seeking to do in the name of democracy is to curtail a fundamental liberty, and the most fundamental of them all, freedom from arrest and punishment, without having violated a specific provision of the law and being convicted for it.' So, I would like the Minister of State to think about what Mr Lee was saying. This is not me speaking today. It is Mr Lee, his own leader, speaking in 1955. And I am surprised that this great architect of our society is not in this House this afternoon to answer my motion. Why is he not here? After all, he was the man who is responsible for the continuation of the Internal Security Act. He was the man who repealed this adequate safeguard that Mr Marshall had introduced. Should he not be here to explain why? What was wrong in 1955, when there was a real threat, why is it now absolutely necessary when there is no threat? I do sympathise, if I may say, with the Minister of State, because he was not responsible for these laws. I am sorry, I hope he does not feel offended, he does not have the depth to be able to examine these issues and to answer the criticisms of it.”
“May I say, Mr Deputy Speaker, what I have said in my earlier motion, and I will repeat it, is that no serious attempt is made to understand the issue. Instead of that, the Minister of State says things which are repeated again and again, that the PAP has taken good care of Singapore, Singapore is what it is today because of the past, we do not need to change anything. We have heard all this. But no attempt is made to answer the points. But as I said in my speech, I will let Mr Lee Kuan Yew make the answer to what we have heard from the junior Minister. Mr Lee Kuan Yew was speaking in April 1955 when there was a real threat, there were the communists fighting in the jungle in Malaysia, there was threat of subversion in Singapore and he was opposing the extension of the Emergency Regulations after Mr Marshall's government took over. They wanted to extend it for three months, promising to study and review it and this is what the great architect of our society today said in 1955, and I quote: "But we either believe in democracy or we do not. If we do, then we must say categorically without qualification that no restraint from any democratic process other than by the ordinary law of the land should be allowed." This, at the time, as I said, when there was a real threat, and that was Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the great champion of freedom of speech, of liberty, of freedom of association, holding forth in this House which was then an Assembly.”
“It does not take into account the progress that has taken place in Singapore the fact that there is more consultation between the Government and people, the fact that some of the rules which are not needful have already been abolished, the fact that there is a lighter touch to Government. Really, we must not leave this Chamber with the picture that Mr Jeyaretnam paints, that Singaporeans are gripped by fear, unthinking, robotic. Is that the real situation, Singaporeans who are like that, who have made Singapore what it is today? The answer must surely be no.”
“Is that right? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: The question of judicial review was thoroughly debated on that occasion. In moving the amendment, the Minister for Law gave reasons why there should not be judicial review of the substantive grounds of detention under the ISA. The general point is that, for national security, the Executive must have the final say. Sir, we must retain the right to decide what is and what is not a security threat. Also, as I mentioned just now, preventive detention is by its nature a precautionary measure. Therefore, what is involved are covert operations, which have to be covert to get evidence as to some of these threats. Such operations and sources will be compromised if a court hearing were to be conducted. Again, let me emphasise what is really important is the integrity of the people who run the system, who are of course accountable to the people, and the safeguards. Recently, a new safeguard in the Elected President's veto powers was added. So it shows that we are improving the system all the time. Mr Zulkifli made this point about whether we should have a tribunal of three judges rather than the present position where there is an advisory board. The present position is preferable because the board comprises a sitting Supreme Court judge and two prominent citizens appointed by the President. In other words, we are involving the people. So I think there is better accountability and transparency. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have taken some time. But I think today's motion surely cannot stand. It is drafted in such wide terms. It makes such sweeping statements.”
“As they are aware, following the Court of Appeal decision in 1989, an amendment was made to restore the status quo ante, which is a subjective test, which was a position long established by case law, and which reflected Government's position all along.”
“They are in mask. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: So let us not be lulled into complacency by Mr Jeyaretnam's seductive and ill-conceived call. As Mr Tay has mentioned, other countries too have the equivalent of the ISA and they have remained in their arsenal. Why? Because the safeguarding of national security is paramount in all societies. This is all the more so in a small, relatively new multiracial country like Singapore. I think Mr Jeyaretnam should go and see the National Education Exhibition, if he has not, to see how we have come to where we are today and how things can really go awry if we let our guard down. What is important is that these laws should not be abused or misused and that there are adequate safeguards. And indeed, the Government will be accountable to the people of Singapore if we abuse and misuse these laws. So, again, here, we must not think that Singaporeans are so unthinking, that they are not discerning enough if the Government misuses or abuses these preventive detention laws. Sir, let me assure this House that these laws are not laws to bypass the criminal law processes. Mr Jeyaretnam says, "Oh, there are other laws that can be used.". But preventive detention laws are used in situations where reprisals may be the order of the day if you go through the normal criminal law process because we are dealing with terrorists, we are dealing with drug syndicates, we are dealing with secret society elements. So we must have this regime that takes care of the problem. I will now address this point about judicial review. I think Mr Zulkifli and Mr Simon Tay have asked whether this process could be examined.”
“But does it therefore mean that we let our guard down? It cannot be so, because if we do, we will pay a heavy price. One example will be foreign triads and crime syndicates may be emboldened to penetrate and operate here. Do we want that? Surely, no. Mr Jeyaretnam quite naively asked for evidence of terrorism and other such like activities. Surely these people who engage in such activities will not readily show their face.”
“First of all, I must say that the rule of law prevails in Singapore. Our detentions without trial are not a negation of the rule of law. They reinforce and support law and order in Singapore. It is absurd to say that our laws and detention without trial put fear in the preponderant majority of law-abiding Singaporeans, as has been pointed out by the other speakers. On the contrary, they put fear in criminals, drug addicts, drug traffickers, terrorists and such like, deterring them from their destructive conduct. So our tough laws, including laws on detention without trial, are one reason why Singapore is one of the safest cities in the world with a relatively low incidence of drug abuse or crime. In fact, if we do what Mr Jeyaretnam argues for and abolish these laws, then Singaporeans would indeed live in great fear. That we must not allow. I will not fully repeat the arguments for retaining our laws on detention without trial. These have been fully ventilated. Suffice it for me to say that these laws have been in our books for a long time and they are serving their purposes well. The CLTPA and Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) are still relevant in countering secret society elements and drug traffickers. As a result, our streets are free from secret society elements. They are there, but we have to keep them down. Our drug situation is under control. Other countries without such laws face problems, especially in apprehending syndicate heads or masterminds. So please do not let Mr Jeyaretnam lull us into complacency. As for the ISA, it is still relevant in countering security threats, such as racial and religious extremism, international terrorism, espionage and subversion. Because of our laws, the above problems have not come upon us.”
“We need a strong government, we need a responsible government, we need a responsive government. But it must be a strong government. Mr Zulkifli talked about this respect and authority which is in our culture. Yes, it is there. And if that respect and authority reposed in the Government is rightly earned, I think we should not be ashamed of it. So that is a key point - we must have a government that must earn the respect and trust of the people by good personal conduct, by bonding with the people, by good policies that work. And again, if Mr Jeyaretnam is objective, he must admit that over so many years of PAP rule, since 1959, almost 40 years, we have made tremendous progress in many fields, despite many difficult situations that had to be overcome. The other point is that this Government takes the position that if you express a view in public critical of the Government or a view that is wrong in terms of policies, we will have to reply. We have to point out where you are wrong. Otherwise you may mislead other people and then the wrong thinking sets in. So this rebuttal is something that Singaporeans who want to speak up in public will have to learn to take. It is part of debate. Just as you can criticise the Government, the Government must have the prerogative to point out where you are wrong. As Mr Simon Tay said, the business people gave a point of view which we felt is not correct. So we came out and pointed it out. So it is not so much the fear of the Government or preventive detention laws that put people off. It could very well be a desire not to be shown up in public which is something where as a society progresses, I guess, will come along. Mr Jeyaretnam's main point relates to our laws and detention without trial.”
“And if you look around you, there are many areas in which our rules and regulations have become lighter, a lighter touch, be it in the area of censorship, be it in the area of entertainment such as jam sessions in jazz bars. It may be a small thing but those people who are involved, I think they appreciate it. It took some time to come along but we have. Or in the area of busking where, of course, it is not an ideal scheme, it can be improved, but there are now provisions in the scheme in place where people can busk on the streets or local government through CDCs I think Mr Tay made that point where CDCs now involve more people living in HDB areas, private estates, all having a say as to how local government is to be run. The list really goes on. Sir, I would say that there is no climate of fear in Singapore. Is there a fear of speaking up? First of all, I would say that there are people who speak up critically of the Government in this House. Opposition members speak up very freely. Does Mr Chiam fear or Mr Low Thia Khiang fear? Or indeed does Mr Jeyaretnam fear speaking up? People speak up in various fora, out of this House, in seminars, in conferences, letters to the press, you will see people speaking up, sometimes critically of the Government. Indeed, at the recent IPS conference, views were expressed critical of the Government, and they were widely reported. Is there fear? Perhaps, if I may postulate, maybe people who argue that there is such a pervasive fear want to see a situation where there is unbridled criticism of the government and its leaders which happens in some countries where government leaders are then put on the defensive all the time. But I think that is not the way to go because then good governance will be eroded.”
“Our young people go overseas, take part in choral competition, they do very well. All these are the result of a people gripped by fear? I will ask Mr Jeyaretnam, please, to be realistic and not to be closed in his mind. The other point, of course, is that Singaporeans' expectations have risen. Every one of us who has dealings with the average Singaporean will know that Singaporeans have become more sophisticated; Singaporeans have become more demanding. I think Members of Parliament will know that. Are these people who can just be led by the nose? I think the answer is obvious. I am glad that Mr Tay, Mr Zulkifli and Mr Rai take a different tack. They are not talking about an oppressive fear gripping Singaporeans. They are calling for a lighter touch to government, more bonding with the government, perhaps a government more tolerant of different views. I am sure they will agree that this indeed is happening. This will not happen overnight but surely the signs are there. Civil society is alive and well in Singapore. The people sector is growing. It will not be an overnight process but will take time. But I think the point is we are coming along. And as our society matures, Singaporeans will have a greater say as to the form and shape it will take. More and more their views and inputs will count. Mr Tay has shared about his involvement in the Singapore 21 Committee. Mr Zulkifli, I think, is part of the Feedback Unit. They know from the ground, people who come in, give different and critical views. They are all looked at and examined to see whether there are any merits. Indeed, even in terms of the rules and regulations, we are opening up. A few years ago, PM asked to look at the rules and see which can be lifted.”
“They do not want to have business contracts. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Well, it is still a relationship, right? So they may not want to have any dealing with him. But why blame it on the Government? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the truth of the matter is really Singapore has prospered and progressed. As has been mentioned in this House, we have become a more open society. Mr Jeyaretnam wants us to believe that Singaporeans are living in the dark ages. He used the term "unthinking". That the fear is so gripping that we are "unthinking". So what does that mean? All robots? He is in fact insulting the intelligence of all Singaporeans, that we have all become robots under this big brother, this machine - the Government. If you look around Singapore, all the achievements which we have made all these years, are all these the result of an unthinking, robotic people? We have become a role model for many societies. I think if he is objective, if Mr Jeyaretnam reads the papers, talks to people, he will know that many delegations visit Singapore to learn about many aspects of life in Singapore which incidentally have also done very well in international polls, whether it is town planning, whether it is the judicial system, whether it is amenities and health care, whether it is educational achievements. All these are not the result of a people who are unthinking and robotic but a creative people. Of course, we can improve and we are moving towards that - to create and foster an even more creative people. Look at our young people. I think if Mr Jeyaretnam looks at the achievements of our young people, talks to the Dean of the Law Faculty, our young lawyers or law students who go abroad to do mooting, they win top honours.”
“We can then go into the 21st century as a proud people, a people who are not afraid, a people who know what their rights are, a people who know that they will not be deprived of anything except under the Rule of Law, ie, they would be tried by a competent court and convicted before they are put into prison or deprived of their goods or property or punished in any way. Then we can be a proud society. But if we continue as we are, I do not see how we can be a proud society. I do not see how we can progress economically with our people denied any participation in the decision making process of our country. Question proposed.”
“Yes. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I would like the Minister replying to answer these questions and I hope some attempt is made to grapple seriously with these questions and not just dismiss them. My first question is: is there any evidence that there are groups in Singapore plotting an organised sabotage of our society that requires Government to retain this power? The second question is: is there any evidence of preparation for terrorist activities? The third question is: why is the law of the land inadequate to deal with activities threatening harmony and peace in the society? We have got the laws. So why do we need these arbitrary detentions by the Government? And the final question is: as a matter of policy, will the Government announce immediately if anyone is picked up under section 74 of the Act by the Police, giving the reasons why the person has been picked up and revealing his identity? Because all this is done in secrecy. The people are left in the dark as to how many persons have been picked up under section 74 and then released before the 28 days are up, because they have signed the bond or agreed to be good men and women, conforming to everything that the Government has to say. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I just say that this is no basis for a society which professes itself to be democratic. It is a hollow claim that we are a democratic society founded on the principles of justice and founded on the principles of freedom when our people live under all this real fear. It is a hollow claim and I think it is time that we decided to be honest with ourselves and remove the fear from our people's lives.”
“Have I passed my one hour because I have got some questions. May I put the questions before I sit down?”
“But the PAP Government gave it life for 34 years after they took over and then extended it in 1989 and 1994 for five years at a time, and so it will expire next year, and I have no doubt it will be extended again. That was intended to deal with the secret society menace. But now it has become permanent and is used very effectively against persons, persons who are picked up by the Police are threatened that if they did not admit to what they are suspected of, they can be detained under section 30. Do you want that? You get an idea of how effective it is to keep people in fear and suppress them. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether I have got many more minutes left but before I”
“But when the PAP took over, three months after it took over, they swept aside the Appeal Tribunal because the Appeal Tribunal had the power to release anyone detained under that power. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am spelling out what the law is and I was not talking about the law until now. Section 8 says "acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of Singapore." That is as vague and nebulous as you can get. It has been used as though it was meant to be read as "acting in any manner prejudicial to the People's Action Party.". Then under section 74, the Police have the power to detain anyone under that Act for 28 days. No one disputes that in times of national emergency, in times of threats to the country, drastic powers may be necessary. But the Constitution provides for that situation and it is in Part XII, Articles 149 to 151. It says that if Parliament is satisfied that there is a threat, that there is real danger to the country, then it may enact laws to detain persons. But that, again, is temporary, to be reviewed every three months and to be repealed as soon as the threat passes over. So you got it under the Constitution. You do not have to have it as a permanent section of the law in the statute book. It is a moot point whether this power contained in section 8 is ultra vires the Constitution, taking into consideration Articles 149 to 151. I know that the Government amended the Constitution to exempt the ISA. But it is still a moot point whether this power is ultra vires the Constitution. Then you have got the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act which I have been talking about. It was intended to be temporary.”
“I am looking at the law, not the instances of how it is applied. I am going to tell you about the law.”
“I am now looking at the law, Mr Deputy Speaker.”
“And this was apparently on the direction from the income tax authorities. There was nothing, as I told the Minister when I questioned him on this last year, in the Income Tax Act which gave the Commissioner power to stop anyone leaving Singapore unless that person owed income tax to the Government. But Mdm Teo Siew Har was not paying any tax, she did not owe anything. So there are these fears. People know about it and it is no good pretending that these fears do not exist in Singapore. May I briefly run through the law. This power of detention, which is now found in the Internal Security Act (ISA), had its origin in the Emergency Regulations. That was introduced by the British at a time when there was a real threat. There was a threat of communist subversion. But it was intended to be purely a temporary measure, only for three months at that time, and the Assembly had to ratify it. I shall later, when I reply, read to you something about what the Leader of the PAP was then saying about all these Regulations and the power, because I do not have the time now. When Mr Marshall's government took over, Mr Marshall realised what a drastic power it was, that violated all rules of natural justice but he also realised that there was a need and he set up an Appeal Court.”
“And if he does not go, the tenant or occupier would be forcibly thrown out. So is there any wonder that people live in fear? The uppermost question is, "Are we doing anything that might offend our rulers, our benign rulers in this country? Are we conforming to all they want? Or are we showing signs of being independent ourselves?" Then you have the method of Ministers rapping people over their knuckles if they should so much as express criticism in the papers or speak. There was the case of a writer who wrote a feature article in the Straits Times weekly. Suddenly, she found herself rapped by the Prime Minister because she had written about the disaffection between the PAP and the people. And she was told off in no uncertain terms, "If you want to take us on, go into politics, otherwise shut up.". After that, there was no more article from her in the Straits Times. And, of course, the bosses at Times House would not dare to print anything more after that. Then you have the recent example of the Prime Minister criticising the businessmen who criticised the off-Budget measures. So there you have it. You are not supposed to criticise the Government where it hurts. You can always sing the praises of the Government but you cannot criticise them. If you criticise them, you take the consequences, and you know what the consequences are. You can be locked up. Your business might suffer. You may lose your house. Then the other technique, if I may call it "technique", is through the powers given to the income tax authorities. Mdm Teo Siew Har, the wife of Mr Tang Liang Hong, was going across to Johor, not running away, but she was suddenly stopped at the Woodlands Checkpoint and her passport was unlawfully taken away from her.”
“Then there is the fear maintained or applied through the provision of housing. Housing has become a political tool in Singapore. You have got to be on your good behaviour, otherwise you may not get your house or you may stand in danger of losing it. There was an instance of a couple some years ago, where the wife refused to undergo sterilisation after the second child was born. They decided that their religion forbade them, and they persistently refused. This was at the time when the Government was promoting the two-child policy which they later threw out realising that they had made a grievous mistake. This couple kept refusing. One fine day they found themselves served with a notice, giving them seven days to get out of their HDB apartment - I think they were paying rent - and they refused to move. Then a summons was issued requiring them to appear in court for an application on the part of the HDB to repossess the apartment. But after a defence was filed and after some time, they probably thought better of it and the summons was withdrawn. That was when the HDB still had to go to court. But now the HDB does not have to go to court if it wishes to repossess. I think it is section 58 of the Housing and Development Act where an occupier, whether he be a tenant or a lessee, can be dispossessed for a number of reasons. The HDB can retake the property and it does not have to apply to court. So what protection does a houseowner have? And the PAP boasts that Singapore is a society of houseowners. The HDB acts as the accuser; it acts as the judge; and it acts as the executioner. It decides whether the person should be dispossessed and then he is told he can appeal to HDB and again to the Minister, and that is final. And if the appeal is rejected, he has to go.”
“When she appeared before the Committee of Privileges of this House, because she had called for a resolution among the members of the Bar to criticise the restriction in the Newspaper and Printing Presses Bill that was then introduced, she was questioned by the Committee of Privileges on all these. She was told that she could not continue to be a member of the Workers' Party, which she was not, and also a member of the Council of the Law Society. Again one of the grounds was that she made use of the Law Society. So that is why she was detained, not because she was organising groups to commit violence in Singapore, not organising, going round urging people to arm themselves to attack the Government, but simply because she helped in the election efforts of a registered political party and was also trying to promote concern among the lawyers of the restriction on foreign papers circulating in Singapore. So that shows you the hollowness of the power that was used under the Internal Security Act to detain her. It had no basis at all. Then you have got the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, and that gives the Government the power to detain persons for one year at a time. Under this Act, it is aimed at persons who are alleged to be associated with criminal activities and who apparently cannot be brought to trial. One man, who was a trade unionist himself, was charged in the courts with conspiracy to cause hurt to Mr Phey Yew Kok who is now in hiding somewhere. He was acquitted. The court threw the case out saying that there was not a shred of evidence at the end of the prosecution's case. What happened to the man? Immediately after the acquittal, he was arrested and he spent about 10 years in prison. So much for the Rule of Law in Singapore.”
“And we have a classic example in Mr Chia Thye Poh who spent 23 years in prison, a man who belonged to the same party, who shared the same ideals as the founding fathers. But because after some years he decided that he could not accept their ideals and wanted to move away, he was picked up and imprisoned. This power is used not for the purpose that it was intended for but for purely other purposes - just to ensure that the PAP is kept in power. The most glaring example is the detention in 1987. Time does not permit me, Mr Deputy Speaker, to go through all the persons who were detained and the reasons given. But there was the case of one Miss Teo Soh Lung. And what was the reason for her detention? The reason was that she had facilitated the infiltration of the Workers' Party in 1984 by a group of Marxists after discussion with one Paul Lim Wah Chye, Tan Wah Piow, fellow Marxists and other activists. She had also actively assisted them in their efforts to make use of the Workers' Party as a vehicle to further the Marxist's cause. If ever, Mr Deputy Speaker, there was a fairy tale improvisation, this was it. All that Miss Teo Soh Lung did was to help out a little in our election campaign in 1984. She decided as a citizen that she should help a candidate in a constituency. She was not a member of the Party but called to help, bring about a better Singapore by trying to provide an alternative voice in Singapore, and that is why she was picked up. And then the Government built up this huge edifice of Marxist conspiracy, to infiltrate the Workers' Party - honestly, it is a lot of nonsense, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I was in the Workers' Party and I was then the leader. But that is the allegation against her.”
“Again, may I quote from experience? In 1982, when I was the MP for Anson, we had a problem about getting office space for me to see the residents. So we wrote to HDB and in the end I was getting a bit tired of the correspondence and I said, "I wish to see the Chairman." There was no direct answer to this. Then I happened to meet the Chairman at a private party. I had known the Chairman even before I became an MP. We were friends. So I asked him, "Have you seen this correspondence?" I think he said he was not very much aware of what was going on. I said, "May I come and see you?" I could see suddenly that he was taken aback. He said, "Well, I have to find out whether I can see you." Then I never heard from him after that. And this is the Chairman of the Housing and Development Board. How is this fear kept in place and maintained? Mainly by the threat of prison. Because there is this power in the Government to pick people up and cast them into prison, and without any recourse to the courts. May I say in 1988 or 1989, suddenly the courts decided, following the trends in other countries, that they had the power to inquire into the merits, and this was the judgement of the Court of Appeal. Fast on the heels of that judgement came the amendment to the legislation - the courts shall not inquire into the merits; it is not their business. And yet the courts in other countries do inquire into the merits of any detention, any imprisonment. So the position in Singapore today is that somebody who is detained under the Internal Security Act, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, has no legal redress. He is dependent entirely on the mercy of the Government. He may be released if he confesses to having been a bad fellow. But if he does not want to confess, he stays.”
“I cannot let it out." He had not let it out to me. I was only occupying a space. But what is the good of me trying to argue with him that he had not let it out. He said, "Please, Mr Jeyaretnam, try and find another place." That's it. That is real in Singapore. Then you have the reluctance of Singaporeans to offer themselves as candidates for opposition parties. I have mentioned this time and time again. In the last election, we had three candidates who were very good quality. I do not want to mention their names but who, in the last minute, came to me and said, "My wife is very worried and very anxious. My children are worried. My brothers are worried. I cannot. They say I am mad or something, offering myself as an opposition candidate." That is what they told me. So I said, "All right, if that is what it is, stay out." So are we going to build up an opposition in Singapore when our citizens live in fear? An opposition, of course, is the sine qua non of a democratic society where different views may be expressed and heard. Then there is the reluctance among our people to express any opinion in public. This is because of the threat of being picked up at 2.00 am and thrown into prison. They look around even when they talk to you to see whether any officer from the ISD is around. Then there is the fear of voting for the opposition, even to cast their vote. This fear stems from the fact that the serial number on the Register of Electors is entered on the counterfoil. The 1966 Constitutional Commission drew attention to this and said that it was a violation of the secrecy of the ballot and they said that should be removed. But did the Government remove it? No. Then there is the fear among civil servants to talk to or see opposition parties, and particularly their leaders.”
“Even if you go to a lawyer with a suit against the Government, which has nothing to do with commerce or for damages arising from a traffic accident, but a claim because of some injustice done, lawyers invariably refuse to accept the brief. I have to tell you again, through my own experience, people come to me and say, "Mr Jeyaretnam, we have been to other lawyers. They do not want to take up the case." Then you have the reluctance of printers to print for opposition parties. We experienced this in the last election. It is not that they are worried about being thrown into prison, neither are the lawyers. They are all worried that their businesses will suffer. As in the case of lawyers and printers, they depend perhaps on getting work from the statutory boards, the Government and from other financial institutions, big companies. So they are worried that their businesses may be affected. Printers refuse to print posters or, even if they are prepared to agree, they would ask, "Can we leave our name out of the posters? We would rather not have our name on the posters?" Why? "Because we have got Government contracts. We cannot lose our business." Then there is the fear or the reluctance of owners of premises, be it shops or houses, to allow opposition parties any use of their premises. Again, I will give you an experience. After the last election, I decided that I would go into Ang Mo Kio to meet the residents there every week. When I first went there, there was a shopkeeper who was quite willing to let me have a little space there to sit down, only once a week for about two hours or so, and to see anyone who came to see me. But within two weeks he said, "Mr Jeyaretnam, I am sorry." I said, "Why?" He said, "HDB has sent me a letter saying how dare I let out my shop premises.”
“Businesses are worried or anxious that they should not be seen as helping in any way any opposition party, otherwise in some way or other, their business will be affected, and there are many ways in which the Government can make its displeasure known, and I will outline to you how it is done. In Singapore, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, over the years, from 1959, we have built up a system of patronage where anything is dependent on whether one conforms to what our rulers tell us is good for us. It is a society which is always looking to see what its patron thinks about its actions and, in Singapore, of course, the patron is the PAP or, should I say, the Godfather. You incur their displeasure and you suffer. You do that at your risk. How is this fear seen? Where is it manifested? You see it, first of all, if I may refer to my colleagues at the Bar, in the lawyers' reluctance to act for opposition candidates, and even in non-commercial suits against the Government. This is not something fanciful. This is real. The courts were told of the difficulties that Mr Tang Liang Hong had in getting a lawyer to represent him. He swore an affidavit in court saying that he had approached no less than eight lawyers and who, for some reason or other, declined his brief, and so he had to bring in a counsel from England to represent him. There was his wife, Mdm Teo Siew Har. I myself, Sir, approached two senior lawyers in Singapore to ask whether they would take up her matter and they said, "Mr Jeyaretnam, please, you know, we would have, in other cases, but I do not think we can in this case. Our partners may not like it. So, if you do not mind, we won't." So she could not get a lawyer.”
“It has been said more than once that the troubles in this region stem, if not wholly, partly from the lack of transparency and accountability on the part of the Government in the decision making process, and in denying people of their rights to take part in decision making and to question decisions. A number of economic measures have been proposed. They are not all that wonderful but, be that as it may, nothing has been said about what the Government proposes to do about this other cause of our recession, lack of transparency and accountability. And so I am proposing this motion that we take measures to correct that, not just economic measures, and this is a more important measure that we have to take, if we want to see that this country progresses economically in the future. What is the fear? What are the people afraid of? First of all, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is a fear of being locked up. I will tell you why and how it operates, but may I just, first of all, outline what is the fear in the people's lives. I hear this everywhere; the fear of the knock on their door at 2.00 am, the fear of being driven blind-folded and thrown into a prison cell without any recourse to the courts. That is a real fear, and we just cannot ignore it. What is the other fear? The fear for their rice bowl, the fear that should they in some way or other incur the displeasure of the Government or the powers that be, their rice bowl may be broken or cracked. Employees are worried that their employment may be terminated if they should show themselves to be partial towards any opposition party, or working with an opposition party.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this House resolves that it is time to remove fear in the people's lives and to this end calls upon the Government: (i) to abolish all detentions without trial and (ii) to remove all forms of coercion of the people not authorised by Parliament. Sir, this motion coming after the last motion, which must have filled Members with self-satisfaction, must come almost as a sort of treasonable activity on my part. And I have no doubt that the faithful press under the baton of an ex-Cabinet Minister will tell its captive readers in Singapore tomorrow that whilst the country was worried about its economic worries and anxious about its future, there is this man, Jeyaretnam, still bringing up old bogeys. I am used to all this, but that does not deter me from moving what I think is right and calling this House to face the realities of Singapore today. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is no question that fear grips our people's lives in Singapore and I will, in the course of my speech, show you where and how it is found. And there is no question that fear is a paralysis. It numbs you. Fear numbs a person into inaction. If you are suddenly struck with fear, you cannot even think. So fear is a paralysis that paralyses your thinking capacities. It paralyses your capability to do or act and that, I am sure, Members will agree is no basis for a society, especially for a society to go into the 21st century. As I said, whilst this motion may be thought as being irrelevant in view of today's present worries in Singapore, the main reason why I am moving this motion is because of the economic crisis. Let that be understood.”
“I read, some four or five years ago, that the present Senior Minister who was then the Prime Minister speaking in one of the cities in Central Asia, said he was presiding over four fish tanks and there were different fishes swimming in different tanks, and he has got to see that they were kept separately. Let us try and get all the fish into one tank and live in Singapore as a single one people with one purpose, one aim and make an attempt to evolve a Singapore culture.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is time that we consciously tried to avoid talking about the different races in Singapore and made an effort to talk about just Singaporeans. I have many a time said that I cannot see the need for showing the different races, the classification in our identity cards. When I am asked to fill up a form, and there are so many of these forms everywhere, you invariably find the box "race" and I enter the term "Human" because we must realise that whether we are Indians, Chinese, Malays or whatnot, we belong in the end to one human race, and that is what we are. And so I hope that we will try to create a oneness of all our people to gather in one single purpose and not keep them compartmentalised and say to them "you are responsible for your own development" and each community will take care of its own development. I proposed at the last sitting of Parliament that we set up a Board of Equal Rights and that was laughed at and dismissed, "We don't need it in Singapore." We do, because if we believe that everyone is entitled to his right without regard to his race, religion or what else, then we should have a proper body who will examine any complaint that he is being discriminated. That might help in creating the impression and sending the message to our people that we are truly interested in creating a one people united together, a one people, not four different peoples, united together in one common purpose, not our own separate purposes or our separate courses.”
“I know the Assistant Director of the CDAC tried to explain that the CDAC is not just purely Chinese. But we have the MENDAKI, we have got SINDA, we have got CDAC and now the Eurasian community thinks it has got to have its own and they set up their own. So the impression is that the different communities have to look after their own affairs, promote their own growth in this place and should not look to the other communities, that they themselves are responsible for what they are. That is not going to help, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in creating a Singapore identity. We talk about culture. Yes, we have got the Chinese culture, we have got the Indian culture, we have got the Malay culture. But what is the Singapore culture? Is there such a thing as the Singapore culture here? Or is it just making of money, that is Singapore culture? Have we tried to find a synthesis, as someone said in a letter to the papers, of the various cultures into a unique Singapore culture? Is any attempt being made or are the people who try to write something creatively slapped down because the authorities think it is a criticism? And how do we maintain religious harmony in this place? By telling the clerics that they are not to speak on any issue concerning society, otherwise they would be thrown into prison. Is that religious harmony? Let us examine all these platitudes that have been thrown about. Is any attempt being made to examine the society as it is today you will hear some of it when I move my motion to see what kind of a society we have become? And there is a great responsibility on us now for our children and our children's children. What are we going to pass to them?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I expected, when I saw this motion, it has turned out to be a song of praise of those who have been in charge of the affairs of this country since 1959. The mover of the motion says he was so moved, he got emotional, and so he decided he must give vent to his emotion and move this motion in Parliament. I am glad that the two other speakers who followed him have brought him down to earth a little bit. He was floating on cloud nine, as they say, moved by his emotion. But I do not quite follow who he is referring to as founding fathers. He mentioned a host of names. Are they the founding fathers of Singapore? Is that what he says? Or are the founding fathers the people who turned Singapore from what it was a swamp in 1819 when it was first spotted into what it is today? So let us be clear as to who we are talking about when we talk about our founding fathers. One would have thought, listening to the mover, that before 1959, there was no racial harmony, there was no religious harmony, the different races were at one another's throats. Let me assure those who were perhaps not here, in Singapore that is, not even on the planet, in those days there was nothing of that sort. No doubt the British had their divide and rule policy, but in spite of that, the races did get along well together, and I think Mdm Claire Chiang said that herself about growing up in Little India. So it is not as though it was only after 1959 that we have had racial harmony, religious harmony, multi-lingualism and multi-culturalism. I question whether those values, those terms, still apply to Singapore. As has been expressed and this is something that I fear myself, there is a growing tendency towards compartmentalisation in Singapore.”
“Sir, the Minister of State seems to base his main ground on land scarcity in Singapore. That would appear to be the primary reason. Has the Government considered taking over some of the golf courses? Do we not have too many golf courses in this country? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, this matter of golf courses is nothing new. Government has defended in this House why certain lands are designated for golf courses because they cannot be used for built-up developments. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and such Members as the Committee of Selection may nominate." - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee]. INCOME TAX (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 4.44 pm”
“The second point that I wish to raise, and that has been raised by Prof. Chin, is why cannot we allow or ask the majority of the owners to take their application to court. What is wrong with the courts hearing it? Then at least we have an open public hearing. We will have representations on behalf of the minority and we will hear representations from the majority. In a hearing before the Strata Titles Board, we do not get this openness and we may not even get a reasoned decision from the Board when they do come to make a decision. But the courts do have to give their decision. So is it not more preferable that this matter should be left to the courts? After all, they are vested with the judicial power in this country and we should allow them to function in the role that they are intended to function and not keep taking away from the courts their function and giving it to statutory boards and civil servants and the like. My objection to this Bill is on principle. I think it is wrong to force one man to give up his property. I do not want to go into the reasons why he may be against the sale. Some reasons have been advanced but whatever it is, it is the principle. Do we rob a man or woman, as the case may be, of his or her freedom to do what he or she wishes to do with the property? Why is that necessary in Singapore? As I said, in a number of things, citizens are now being coerced. I think there should be a limit to this coercion.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I voice my unhappiness about the Bill. A number of other speakers, particularly Prof. Chin and the speaker following him and now Mr Simon Tay, have voiced their concerns which I was going to voice, and so I do not propose to repeat them. Suffice to say that I think they are well-founded and these views must be given sufficient consideration. Mr Speaker, Sir, let us not make any pretence. This is not a case of a minority or even a single man holding out against the society. It is not a question of society's interests that will be adversely affected if we give way to the man's wish and freedom to do what he wishes. This Bill simply panders to the greed of the developers and the other co-lessees who see, as has been said, a way to get rich quickly. That would appear to be the only reason for this Bill. There is no question of any national interests coming into this. There is, as has been pointed out, the Land Acquisition Act and even there, let me say, it is felt by many that that Act itself is being abused from its primary, original purpose which was that it should only be used for national interests; it is used for lots of other reasons now. So let us not pretend that a minority, even if it be a single man, is holding society to ransom. This adds another instance to the list that is already growing in Singapore where the citizen is coerced. He is coerced to do something against his will, against his freedom to do what he wishes to do. Is that the kind of society we want in Singapore where a citizen is coerced at every turn and corner? Or is it a society where the citizen feels that he is free to make his own choice provided of course it does not harm the society at large? I am sure the answer to that must be quite plain.”
“May I ask the Minister what is the title that the KTM has to the land in Tanjong Pagar?”