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 16 of 82.
“All that the Police had were these alleged statements of these four persons relating, according to the Police, their involvement. The men's explanation was they went along with the Police because the Police told them, "This is how it should have been done, you know. We know you must have got this, you must have done that." And so they said they went along with whatever the Police said. There were fingerprints found at the scene but none of the fingerprints of any of the four matched any fingerprint found at the scene. There was blood found but again none of the blood of the four matched the blood grouping of the blood that was found at the scene. So, as I said, there was nothing against these men, except their so-called confessions. At the trial, the man who had done a deal with the Police gave evidence, saying how he was just outside while the three others went in and he saw them all come out through the open door at the front. But in cross-examination, he told the court, "I only admitted because I couldn't take it any more. I decided that I should just go along with what the Police were asking me to say." Nevertheless, his evidence was accepted and the court also admitted the statement from one accused. And this is important - the court admitted the statement as having been made voluntarily because that was what the Police evidence was. They went into the witness box - Police officer after Police officer and swore that there was nothing unusual in what they did, that the men voluntarily made the statements. And so the court left with that evidence admitted - the statement of one of these men who implicated the others and also the statement of one other accused person.”
“These men were held in police custody, for weeks remanded, every time they were produced in court until about 27th March, and during this time the Police built up their case. As the men said, they had to lie, and so they made up stories. They made up stories about having thrown the man's wallet or the screw driver which was used in the offence. But none of these was found, even when the Police went looking for these. So they found no corroborative evidence. The Police then decided that they had to get some evidence against these men and they decided to reduce the charge against one man to house-breaking and get him to give evidence against the other three. After they were remanded at Queenstown Remand Prison on 27th March, almost six weeks after they were picked up, the lawyers for one of them wrote to the investigating officer giving information that his client had been told by a man who was serving a prison term in Changi (the name was mentioned) that somebody, other than the four, had committed the murder and who had admitted to it. This letter was sent to the investigating officer by the lawyers but the lawyers never got any reply from the investigating officer. In court, he said, yes, he did receive the letter but it was not in his file. He thought he had mislaid it. And when he was asked whether he followed up on that information, he said, "I tried to follow it up, but nothing was forthcoming. And so I left it." The important thing, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that the Police were unable to find any evidence at all from any source outside the statements alleged to have been made by these four men. There was no corroborative evidence of one single fact.”
“He kept denying, saying he did not know anything about it. Then at 2.00 o'clock, he told the court that the police officers who were questioning him decided they had to be more drastic and they made him stand on a chair stripped, as I said, to his underpants, and facing the air-conditioner and balancing two to three telephone directories on outstretched arms. May I repeat, he had not been given anything to drink or eat from the time of his arrest. This went on, Mr Speaker, Sir, according to his evidence in court, till 6.00 am the next morning. That is almost 24 hours after he was picked up. All during the 24 hours, his evidence was that the officers were sitting there, tapping him with rulers, assaulting him and saying, "So you are going to be a hero, let's see how long you are going to last." He said that when it came to day break, he could not stand any more of this. In his own words, he told the court, "I had no food. I could feel the chill to my bones, Sir. I felt as if I was about to fall unconscious or even to die." So he decided that there was nothing he could do, except to admit to some involvement. So he was kept in custody, produced in court, and remanded further in police custody until further investigations were completed. And that, of course, meant taking more and more statements from these four persons. He was not allowed any consultation with the lawyer until about two or three weeks later. And even then, when the lawyer was allowed to see him, the investigating officer sat by the side of the lawyer and the accused was right in front of him and, of course, the accused could not say anything. He said he was much too frightened. He was not allowed any family visits until 8th March.”
“So the police arrested one man about 10 days later and may I say, at the outset, that there was no question that these men, who were eventually charged, were totally innocent. They were not even anywhere near the scene of crime. The police arrested this man and after a whole day of questioning, he decided to, in his own words, admit to what the police wanted him to admit because "he could not take it any more." I am not going to go through the treatment accorded to everyone. I will go through the treatment accorded to one of them. So towards the evening he decided he could not take it anymore and owned up to a minimal involvement of himself in the offence of murder, claiming that he was really outside whilst others went in. Of course, once he admitted to an involvement, he had to name others, and he gave the nicknames of two brothers. The two brothers were then later picked up in turn and they, after several hours of questioning under pain, again decided that they should go along with the police and admit what the police were asking. Finally, the fourth man was arrested. On 18th February 1989, he was picked up at 6.00 am. His evidence given at the trial is a story that many may ask, "How could this happen in Singapore?" But he says it did happen to him. He was picked up before 6.00 am and taken straight to the CID without even being allowed to have a drink of water or to do his morning ablutions. Then he was taken into the Inspector's room, the officer who was in charge of investigations, and he was handcuffed to a chair and later stripped to his underpants. All along he was not given anything to eat or drink, he said. They kept telling him to admit that he had been involved in the murder of the caretaker at the coffeeshop.”
“There is another section of the Criminal Procedure Code which requires the police to notify a person when they have made up their mind to charge him, to read the charge to him and to ask him what he has to say in reply to the charge. The intention of the legislature was that this should be done the moment the police make up their mind to charge anyone. Of course, it must follow that if the police arrests anyone they must have made up their mind to charge that person. But the section is more honoured in the breach than in its observance. The man is not informed of his offence until maybe two or three days later when he is charged under section 122(6) which requires the police to serve the notice and record his statement. So while we have these laws, the question is how far are they observed by the police in carrying out their investigations into crimes. Now I should turn to this case that I said that I would refer to which illustrates more than anything else what I have attempted to say. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the morning of 2nd February 1989, a caretaker was found murdered in a coffeeshop. The police were called in when the body was discovered. Their first line of inquiry, as I have said, was about drug addicts who lived in the neighbourhood and who might have been seen near the shop before the date of the murder. So a number of suspects were questioned. May I say in passing that this is one of the things that perhaps makes drug addicts who have tried to come out of their addiction feel that society would never forgive them, would not forget them, and they are the first targets for any offence suspected by the police.”
“This denial can again stretch to three weeks in some cases, and has stretched to three weeks, despite the Article in the Constitution which says that any person who is arrested shall be informed of his charge against him and shall be allowed to consult a lawyer of his choice as soon as possible. The courts, way back in 1983, I think, held that that meant that the police could withhold visit from counsel or consultation until they have closed their investigations. As I said, investigations can stretch for up to six weeks. During all that time, the man is denied any right of consultation with his lawyer and is denied any family visit. He is totally at the mercy of the police. Then there is the questioning of suspects in police custody. There were at one time certain rules about police questioning of persons. They were taken from the Judges Rules in Britain and made a part of the Criminal Procedure Code, but that has all been swept away. So there are no guidelines and no restrictions on the length of questioning of suspects by the police and to the conditions under which the questioning may be carried out. Then the law about the recording of statements from accused persons. The law at one time was that no confession made by anyone in police custody was admissible in any court of law unless that confession was made before a magistrate. That was swept away. The position now is that statements made to any officer of the police of the rank of Sergeant and above is admissible provided the court thinks that no pressure or inducement has been applied. I will illustrate this when I come to the case that I have in mind.”
“We heard earlier in the debate about drug addicts and the incidence of crime among drug addicts. So they are a likely source for the police, and this was, of course, highlighted by a Queen's Counsel in England who wrote on the targetting of criminals. The police pick up who they think are persons likely to have committed the offence without bothering too much about whether the information or the complaint is reasonable for them to act upon. Then there is the question of police custody. Once a person is picked up and is taken into police custody, there is, under the Constitution, a maximum limit of 48 hours that the police may hold anyone in custody before they produce them in the courts. But, unfortunately, this protection of not being kept in police custody too long is eroded by the readiness of the courts to grant such custody almost as soon as it is asked. So we have cases where the police put a holding charge, as they call it, produce the man in court and say, "We want more time to investigate. May we have a week's custody?" The courts, as I say, grant this custody without inquiring too much into whether that custody is necessary or not. This length of police custody can continue sometimes with weekly remands for six weeks or more, and I shall illustrate from a case to which I shall refer at some length. During this police custody, the police deny, until they say they have finished their investigations, any visits from any family members to see the person who has been arrested, ie, to see the suspect and to see whether he needs to be helped in any way.”
“And this was stressed in a report in the United Kingdom in 1993 when the government appointed a Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, following an outcry that several persons had been convicted and sentenced to serve terms in prison when they were later found to be totally innocent. May I quote from this report? It is Command 2263 submitted in 1993. I quote: `The protection of suspects from unfair or unreasonable pressure is as important to the criminal justice system as the thoroughness with which the police carry out their investigations.' So the Commissioners were stressing the importance of protecting the suspects and those who are innocent from unfair or unreasonable pressure in any investigation into crimes. Mr Speaker, Sir, in any society where the rule of law obtains, no innocent person should fear that he or she may find himself or herself convicted of some offence or crime. That is important, that every person should live with that conviction and to that extent, legislatures have enacted laws to protect subjects to ensure that only the guilty are punished and the innocent are not punished. The tragedy is that it is always the weak who suffer if these laws do not protect them. It is the weak, the uneducated, the illiterate, who stand in greater danger of being convicted even though they may be innocent. Sir, I propose, very briefly, to examine what the law in Singapore is, to provide this protection to our people. First of all, the police powers of arrest. Under the law, the police may arrest anyone without a warrant when they have committed an offence or there is credible information or reasonable suspicion of them having committed an offence of which report has been made. But the police do not always act strictly under this section.”
“In fact, I would say that the first duty of any government is to provide justice to all its citizens. And it is not just criminal justice, of course, economic justice, social justice, but criminal justice forms an important part of it. Because in the way criminal justice is administered will largely depend on the stability of the society. If the society begins to have doubts and to lose confidence in the way criminal justice is administered, then society will suffer and it may lead to instability in the society. So I make no apology, Mr Speaker, Sir. May I say that the aim of criminal justice is two-fold. One is to see that the guilty in the society, the wrongdoers, are brought to justice and punished. That is an important duty. But equally important, and some may rate it even more important, the duty of society must be to see that those who are innocent, those who are not guilty of any misdoing, of any crime, do not suffer punishment unfairly or unnecessarily. That is important. And the importance of this has been stressed time and time again, and I do not wish to remind Members of the pronouncements from the courts, not only in this country but in the other countries, of the need to protect the innocent. And criminal justice, Mr Speaker, Sir, is not to be confined to just how the courts deal with the offenders, persons who are brought before it. The greater part of criminal justice is concerned with the investigation, the inquiries, that are conducted by the police and the enforcement agencies before the persons are brought to court to be charged with offences.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this House resolves that a Commission of Inquiry be appointed with the following terms of reference: (i) to inquire into the current methods of investigation of crimes by law enforcement agencies particularly in the recording of statements from persons arrested on suspicion of having committed crimes; (ii) to inquire whether the law, as contained in the Criminal Procedure Code and the Evidence Act governing criminal trials, adequately safeguard persons from being convicted of crimes of which they may be innocent; and (iii) if the Commission finds that the methods of investigation and the provisions of the law do not sufficiently protect innocent persons, what changes should be made in the law to ensure that only the guilty are punished and the innocent are not put to risk of being punished for crimes they have not committed. Sir, before I start speaking on this motion, may I say that, in the course of my speech, I shall of course be drawing on my practice at the criminal bar and in the cases that I have done. But may I assure the House that I have no pecuniary interest in this motion. The cases have all been dealt with and my interest is purely one of seeing that justice is meted out, as it should be, to our citizens, particularly in the field of criminal justice. Sir, if you feel that I should not vote on this at the end of the motion, perhaps you would let me know, but I have no pecuniary interest. Sir, I make no apology for troubling this House with this motion in the midst of the economic woes that Members are perhaps more concerned with. But as has been pointed out, part of the economic woes stems from the lack of accountability, lack of justice in the system, lack of transparency. Therefore, justice is important.”
“Under a supervision order, is the man not required to turn up and give his urine, and he fails to turn up? So, what distinction are you making in this section?”
“Yes, Sir, may I ask by way of clarification?”
“You have got section 33 for the second timer.”
“Are you not interested in the economy in Indonesia? Do you not think that it would be best for Indonesia's economy if there is a total change? Do you or do you not have any views? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already stated that economic recovery depends on political certainty, stability and confidence. As to whether the government needs to be changed and who should be the government, these are matters for the Indonesian population and electorate to decide, not for the Singapore Government.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask whether it is the Government's view that confidence in the Indonesian economy can only be restored if there is a total political change in Indonesia, and not just replacing personalities? Has the Government any views on this and has it made any representations to Indonesia to speed up the political reforms in Indonesia? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, I am aware that the hon. Member regularly calls for total political change in Singapore and elsewhere. It is not the practice of the Singapore Government to do so.”
“May I ask the Minister whether the Government is monitoring retrenchment of workers by Singapore companies? Is the Government monitoring or just turning a blind eye?”
“All right, Sir. Then may I ask the Minister about the other question, and that is, the off-Budget measures. May I know whether there are any measures in the pipeline to protect the workers? Has the Government heard of reports that companies in Woodlands are getting rid of Singaporeans and taking on board Malaysians because they find them cheaper?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought we were discussing the economy and I want to know whether the Government has considered reviewing its decision to grant the US$5 billion loan in view of the present situation in Indonesia. Is that not part of it?”
“May I ask the Minister two questions? They are not related. First of all, the question of US$5 billion loan to Indonesia.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I rise on a point of order to ask if you will tell us whether there are any rules or guidance for the listing of Questions for Oral Answer.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister whether he does not consider it really a mockery to tell people, those who have not sufficient funds even to meet their daily expenses, that they should install air purifiers and cleaners in their homes to avoid any health impact? May I ask the Minister whether the Government has any plans to use some of the US$5 billion that they have set aside to help Indonesia to help the needy here who may be in need of respiratory equipment and other medical aids to help them get over the haze problem?”
“Is the Minister saying that he cannot accept the assurances given by the Malaysian government, particularly the Prime Minister? And secondly, is the Minister saying that there has been a significant drop in the consumption of water as a result of the tax and are there no other ways of getting people to reduce their consumption of water?”
“Is the Minister aware that the reason for introducing the tax was this fear that Malaysia was perhaps going to reduce its supply of water or even to cut it off? Was that not the reason for introducing the tax? Now that we are told that there will be no such thing, what is the purpose?”
“May I ask the Minister, in view of the assurances that we are now getting from the Malaysian Government, in particular the Prime Minister of Malaysia, whether his Government intends to keep the tax on water as a permanent measure or whether the Government proposes to do away with it in the near future?”
“Is the Minister aware that these foreign workers, especially those coming from further afield, have paid substantial sums to the agents on the promise that they will be allowed to work for the number of years stated in the work permit, and suddenly after two or three months, they find their stay rendered illegal by the employer terminating their employment and informing his Ministry? Does the Ministry make any distinction for them?”
“May I ask the Minister, Sir, whether the Ministry makes any distinction between people who enter the country illegally to work here and those whose stay in this country is rendered illegal by the employers terminating their employment well in advance of the term for which they were granted work permits?”
“Has the Attorney-General now advised that Article 144 does not apply to guarantees as well?”
“Another supplementary question for the Prime Minister. We have heard about the MAS Act. But is it not his view and the Government's view that the Constitution is the supreme law of the country and takes precedence over any Act?”
“May I ask the Prime Minister whether his Government is still of the view that no approval is needed from Parliament and the President before the Government embarks on this guarantee scheme despite the opinion given by the Attorney-General on Article 144 when the Attorney-General said it did not apply to loans but only apply to guarantees? Would the Prime Minister explain why he thinks this guarantee is also not caught by Article 144?”
“All right, Sir. Thank you very much. Let us have an unequivocal answer. Are we to understand that the Government made no check on all the suppliers and the Government was not interested in finding out?”
“May I have another supplementary question, Sir?”
“Are we to understand from the Minister that no check was made on all the suppliers? May we also have an answer whether Mr Teh Cheang Wan returned to Singapore from abroad shortly before his death?”
“Is the Minister not aware that under the Poisons Act, a strict record has to be kept by all those who stock this poison, showing the amount of stock in their possession, how much was released and to whom? May this House know whether a thorough check was carried out on all suppliers?”
“The Minister was saying the other day that now with the introduction of the ERP, the Government can issue more COEs. In other words, he says the Government would be quite happy to see more cars on the roads used by people who are able to pay for this and can also pay for the COE. Secondly, I do not understand why it is necessary to subject the taxi drivers and the taxi owners to paying the heavy diesel tax and the other ERP charges and what-not, for using the roads. They are public service vehicles and surely the objective must be to encourage people to use the public service vehicles rather than their own cars. They can only do that if you bring down the cost of the public service transport. And you do not do that, if you pile on the taxi drivers all these charges, heavy diesel tax charge, and then the ERP and other charges. So would the Ministry please give some thought to other solutions to this problem?”
“Have they at all considered taking a census of people who need to use the road for their livelihood, as I keep saying, the tradesman, the doctor, or others who need to use the cars or the motorcycles, and those who just use the car to drive to work in the town and then leave it there, and then drive back? Is it not possible to categorise the users into "essential users" and "non-essential users"? And then restrict the use of that road to those non-essential users for some period of the day, and allow the essential users the unrestricted use of that road. Sir, I was in Johor during the Japanese military occupation. And when they had this problem, not because the roads were clogged but because they were running short of petrol, they did not resort to a monetarist policy of just charging people more and more for use of the road. They categorised users into "essential" and "non-essential". Those who needed to use their cars and motorcycles were given black labels and they could use the car at all times. Those who did not really need the car for the livelihood but only wanted to get to the market or to send their children to school or get to work, they were given red labels, which meant that they could use the car for two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening. For the rest of the day, they were kept off the roads. And in that way, they achieved what they wanted - lesser use of the petrol. So I would ask the Ministry whether they would consider non-monetary solutions to this problem and not just pick one which is the easiest, and that is, to raise the prices so that you discriminate against those who are unable to pay and favour those who are able to pay. But before I finish, may I also point out what would appear to be some incongruities.”
“Sir, my subject is, of course, the problem which the Government is attempting to tackle through electronic road pricing and other measures. The problem of keeping our roads from being clogged up which results in a loss of hours which may be put to better use. No one disputes that we should do whatever we can to keep our roads unclogged. The question is: how do we do this? The simplest thing is to ban every car off the road for certain periods of time. The second thing is perhaps, which is what the Government seems to be favouring, to raise the price for the use of the road. This is a monetarist policy. But this policy does not take into account, as I have tried to say earlier last week, those who have to use the car not just to get to work and home but who have to use the car or the motorcycle to earn their livelihood. And if you are going to tax them every time they use the road, then it would mean a lessening of their income, a greater increase in their expense, and so they suffer. On the other hand, those who do not really need to use the car or to use that part of the road with their cars, because they have the necessary means, ie, the money to pay for it, have free access to that road or stretch. This is why my Party says the arrangements are discriminatory. Like most PAP policies, they tend to favour the rich and the privileged and they do not take into account the needs of those who need to use the road and who are perhaps not that well-off to afford the charges and fees that are being imposed for the use of the road. I think it is time that the Ministry considered other solutions, non-monetary solutions, to this problem.”
“In the areas of skills upgrading and training, my Ministry will work closely with the tripartite partners to formulate programmes to upgrade the skills of our workers, particularly the low skilled ones, to ensure that they continue to remain employable. Sir, at the company level, management, trade unions and workers should also work closely together to help the companies to improve productivity and help them to be more competitive, so that the companies are in a better position to cope with the current difficulties, and they can achieve their corporate objectives when the business environment improves. Sir, with all these efforts in the strong spirit of tripartism, I am confident that we will be able to ride out the storm and emerge stronger for the benefit of all. Let me now turn to the points which were made by ---”
“So on the part of the trade unions and workers, they are prepared to put national objectives above sectional interests, and go for long term benefits over short term gains. On the part of the employers, they are prepared to share their gains when the business picks up and prospers. So I agree with the three Members, who have spoken, on the need for the social partners to work closely together to pull Singapore through the current difficulties caused by the regional financial crisis and the expected slowdown of our economy. Sir, our strong tripartite foundation has been built over many years. And it will certainly provide us with the mechanism and commitment to ride out the storm. Tripartite efforts to help deal with current problems will certainly be stepped up, at least in the following areas: First, in the area of cost, particularly wage cost. The NWC, which is a tripartite body, could deliberate and come out with recommendations on how employers, unions and workers and the Government could work together to help maintain the competitiveness of our economy, and of our companies, in the current difficult period, and how to safeguard the long term interest of our workers. And to assist workers who are retrenched as a result of this economic slowdown, Members have been informed by my Minister that we already had formed a tripartite panel and it has already started working. The panel will certainly find ways to facilitate the re-employment of retrenched workers and to encourage employers to also consider alternatives to retrenchment.”
“Tripartism is a key competitive advantage of Singapore, and in discussing this motion we had got resounding support from Members and also from Parliament that it is a key advantage and we have made big steps as we go along to see how we could further enhance it, so that Singapore will be more competitive as we face the challenges of the 21st century. They have raised this issue again. I think it shows by itself how important the issue of tripartism is. Sir, currently we are facing regional financial turmoil and economic slowdown. And I think the question of tripartism is, therefore, very much more important. Members have spoken, and even quoted experience, of what happened in 1985 and 1986 when we had a recession. When the onset of recession came about, the tripartite framework was swift in its response. Through the NWC, an extensive package of anti-recessionary measures was formulated and implemented successfully with strong support from the employers, the trade unions and the workers. I think Members are aware that there was a drastic reduction in employers' CPF and there was acceptance of severe wage restraint and wage cuts. Now all these had been done because there was trust and confidence between management and the unions. As a result, the prompt and effective implementation of the cost-cutting measures helped companies and the economy to turn around quickly. And when growth resumed and Singapore continued to achieve strong economic growth from 1987, workers have been rewarded with substantial wage increases and good bonuses. All these were made possible as the social partners were able to pull together to overcome difficulties in times of economic adversity. Mr Cyrille Tan has pointed out that workers are prepared to make sacrifices for the long term good.”
“May I ask him again, whether it is the intention to set up an Industrial Tribunal which will deal with any problems or complaints from the workers that their rights have been violated. We had the Industrial Arbitration Court, but I have not heard or seen any decision from the Industrial Arbitration Court for many a long year. I wonder if it still functions. Is it not time we had an Industrial Arbitration Panel or Tribunal, as they do in almost all other countries? They have one in Malaysia which listens to complaints from the workers and hears them through their representatives, and then adjudicates on their rights against the employers. It is all very well for the Ministry and for other labour leaders here to say about the employers cooperating or they look to the employers to cooperate. It is not good enough. The employers have to understand that workers have rights. It is not a question of charity. It is not a question of magnanimity, but a question of the rights of the workers. So will the Minister answer these questions? The Minister of State for Labour (Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe): Sir, first, let me take the issues which have been brought up by the Member for Pasir Ris GRC and the Member for Cheng San GRC, Mr Ahmad Magad as well as Mr Zainul Abidin, and also the points made by Mr Cyrille Tan, the Nominated Member of Parliament. They have spoken about the issues of tripartism and labour management relations. As they have pointed out, this was a subject which was thoroughly discussed in the sitting earlier this year.”
“We were told that Singapore has progressed economically and yet none of the rights that were taken away from the workers have been restored to them. Is that not a betrayal of the workers? Sir, a lot has been talked about tripartism, how wonderful it is. But may I repeat, what I think I read Mr Chiam as having said, it is hollow, because the trade union participating in this tripartism is not there as an equal partner. I do not think we have to pretend that the trade unions have the muscle and the clout that they possessed at one time. I am not just advocating rights for rights' sake. Everyone acknowledges that with rights go duties. And I am sure our workers know that and they have demonstrated their willingness to do their duty for Singapore and the community. But rights are important. In the first place, they give dignity to the working man. He feels protected, not because of assurances given by a Ministry or by an official. He feels protected because he says the law protects his rights. He can look at the law, he can point to it and say, "There we have it." And if their rights are not granted or broken, they can challenge those rights. So they give dignity to the worker, and that is important, to motivate the worker into working his best, into giving his best for the employer and helping in the economy of Singapore. Without any rights, he is completely, as I said sometime this week, at the mercy of the employer, and that is no way to treat our workers. We have got to give them an equal footing with the employers and assure them that their rights will be protected, not just because we say so, but because the law provides for the protection of their rights. So may I ask the Minister whether it is the intention of the Ministry to restore these rights?”
“Sir, may I, at the commencement of my speech, ask the Minister the question, which is the whole purport and import of my amendment: Does his Ministry have any intention to restore to the workers their rights, which they took away from the workers back in 1968? Or is it the intention of the new Ministry, with its shift on emphasis, to bury workers' rights altogether and to forget them? I would like a clear answer from the Minister when he replies at the end, whether the Ministry proposes to restore to the workers these rights which were taken away from them, as I said, in 1968. 6.30 pm For the benefit of those Members who were perhaps not old enough, and who may not have studied the old legislation, let me remind them that under the Lim Yew Hock administration, before the PAP Government took power in 1959, our workers had some rights. The trade unions had their rights. But after the PAP took over, in 1967/68, after we came out of Malaysia, and the British government announced its intention to withdraw its bases from here, the Government decided to restrict and cut down on workers' rights and the rights of trade unions. And Mr Lee Kuan Yew who was then the Prime Minister openly said this in an interview with the BBC. He said, "I told the workers that Singapore would be experiencing a difficult time and it is necessary now for us because of the withdrawal of the British bases that we should build our own industries and build up Singapore's economy." And he said the workers and the trade unions were prepared to do that for Singapore. So there you have an attitude displayed by the workers then, an attitude of their acknowledging their responsibility for Singapore and the community. But Singapore has come a long way since then.”
“I thought he said I could take it up later. May I not have just two minutes? Amendment negatived. The sum of $34,517,090 for Head B ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $7,764,700. for Head B ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head N”
“Before I decide on my amendment, may I say, by clarification, one or two things?”
“The Attorney-General is, by law, the nominal defendant in all civil suits against the Government. Not all actions, however, are suitable for mediation. If they are, the AG's intention is to advise Ministries concerned to proceed to mediation first before trial. In addition, the AG's Chambers support the initiatives presently under way to expand mediation. As a general rule, the Chambers will propose mediation in all disputes where it is a party. In fact, the Chambers advise Ministries to include mediation clauses in all Government contracts where mediation is appropriate. These clauses provide for parties to first attempt to resolve their differences in accordance with the procedures of the Singapore Mediation Centre. The next point Mr Rai raises is why not AG farm out work to private practitioners. The AG's Chambers have a system of employing legal officers on contract when there is a need. For example, if the expertise 6.00 pm”
“All right. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I think I should respond to Mr Rai who has made a few points. His first point is on plea bargaining. Plea bargaining or charge bargaining involving the prosecution is well established in Singapore. But as Mr Rai explained, what he has in mind is the American form of plea bargaining which involves not only the prosecution but the judge as well. The procedure is for the parties to appear before the judge and seek his views on the type or spectrum of sentences that the judge will impose if the accused person were to plead guilty on a set of facts given to the judge. The accused person will then decide whether or not to plead guilty on the basis of the judge's indication. Sir, we have studied this alternative approach carefully but have concluded that there is no need for plea bargaining of this nature. It is not superior to the present system. There are advantages and disadvantages. As Mr Rai has mentioned, the main advantage is that it may save the State time and effort, in having to prepare for the case only to find out that the accused person would have pleaded guilty much earlier if he had been told what the sentence would be. However, there are also disadvantages which, in our view, outweigh this advantage. The main one is that the whole process can go to waste where the accused person does not accept the indication given by the judge, resulting in the case having to be postponed, so that another judge can take over the case. In Singapore, it may not be possible to insulate other judges from knowing that the accused person had sought plea bargaining. So this could prejudice the accused if he is tried before another judge who is aware of the failed attempt at plea bargaining. Another point that Mr Rai mentions is mediation.”
“Yes, I will be very brief. I must finish this. For me, it is an important subject. Of course, the other was his not prosecuting the directors of Keppel. In the first instance, we had a written explanation. But may I say I found that written explanation most unsatisfactory. May I say that a great many members of the public did not find that explanation satisfactory. In the case of the directors, there was even no written explanation. All we had was the explanation, as a guess by the Minister of State, as to what may have guided the Public Prosecutor. May I ask whether we can have the Public Prosecutor devise a system or machinery whereby the Public Prosecutor is made to explain in public the reasons for his decisions as Public Prosecutor where they are called into question? The second amendment is the separation of functions. May I suggest to the Minister that there is a lot to be said for separating the functions of the AG and the Public Prosecutor. The AG is the chief legal advisor of the Government. The Public Prosecutor has a different role to play. In the United Kingdom, we have a Director of Public Prosecutions who makes the decisions. No doubt, he is made accountable to Parliament through the Attorney-General. Is it not possible for us to consider now separating the functions of the Attorney-General as chief legal advisor from his functions as the Public Prosecutor by appointment of a Director of Public Prosecutions?”
“This was somewhat the answer given by the Minster of State, when I asked about the directors of Keppel, that the Public Prosecutor decides in his discretion. There were two matters lately on which the decision of the Public Prosecutor has been called into question. One of course was his refusing to prosecute the Prime Minister and the two Deputy Prime Ministers and the other Members of the ruling Party for having, what we say, violated the section in the Parliamentary Elections Act.”
“But first I will deal with the second of those two amendments, and that is, the accountability of the Attorney-General as Public Prosecutor. I am sure Members are aware that in the United Kingdom and most of the other Commonwealth countries, the Attorney-General is a Member of Parliament. He is appointed from Parliament upon election of the new government and he holds office for the duration of that government. That is not the situation in Singapore, although I stand corrected on this, I think the Constitution does allow for someone from the elected Members to be appointed as Attorney-General and for him to vacate his office upon the dissolution of Parliament. In Singapore, we have an Attorney-General appointed outside Parliament. So the Attorney-General is not in Parliament to answer questions and any questions on his decisions are answered at second hand by the Minister. The Attorney-General, as Public Prosecutor, serves a very important function in the administration of justice. He is, no less than the judges, administering justice and ensuring that justice is done in Singapore. And he is therefore accountable in respect of his decisions as Public Prosecutor, just as judges are. It has been said more than once that when judges try a case, they themselves are on trial by the public watching over the conduct of the case and the reasons that they give for their decisions. So should the Public Prosecutor not be accountable to the public through Parliament for any decisions he makes in his capacity as the Public Prosecutor? It cannot be said that because the prosecutions are vested in him and it is in his discretion that he is not therefore accountable to anybody.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head B of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, I have two amendments here. I propose to take them together.”